It would have to be the statutory accounts. There‘s unlikely to be an adjustment for “additional sponsorship income”. Which is why the PL are implicitly accusing City of fraud and false accounting. But the accounts have always been signed off by the auditors as true and fair and they didn’t resign shortly after these accusations first surfaced. Which they almost certainly would have done if City had been pulling the wool over their eyesIf the statutory accounts are in question then that could be very serious. If it's just the adjustment as per PL requirements then that will remain as only a dispute between us and the PL.
I find it really weird that people have "Rag Pals"...Not having a dig, Each to their own.
Maybe I'm just a proper grumpy ****, I couldn't have a "Rag Pal", If I seen someone walking down the street with a Rag on I'd think he's a **** straight away.
5,500,000 documents and emails in total.Can someone please remind me as it's been a while.
1. How many emails did that hacker get access to at City?
2. How many are being presented (albeit spliced together and taken out of context) as 'evidence' against us?
My wife supports utd and i cclIt amazes me that anyone can live in Manchester and not be friends with a few United fans.
Do you have friends outside football? Or is that pretty much your social circle?
Thanks. It's just that the "charges" listed by the PL, relating to the accounts, have PL rule numbers against them. This indicates the PL are accusing us of breaking their rules but this doesn't necessarily mean our statutory accounts are not in good faith.It would have to be the statutory accounts. There‘s unlikely to be an adjustment for “additional sponsorship income”. Which is why the PL are implicitly accusing City of fraud and false accounting. But the accounts have always been signed off by the auditors as true and fair and they didn’t resign shortly after these accusations first surfaced. Which they almost certainly would have done if City had been pulling the wool over their eyes
Quick question (sorry if it's been covered) - the PL have accused us of providing inaccurate accounts. Does this mean the accounts posted at Companies House or just the accounts provided to the PL after making adjustments to the statutory accounts, as required by the PL?
Let’s not forget that in the latest Everton case, the PL accused them of not cooperating and the IC disagreed, saying they had. With that in mind, it’s not a given that the PL will even be able to land the non-cooperation charges against us.I got the impression that the PL were constantly asking for info in a haphazard way, causing major problems for the club. I think they were doing that to try and catch us out and City just got tired of it but it also adds significant workload and legal costs every time there’s a request. We know how unprofessional the PL are as we saw the inaccuracies in the original press releases which would never have happened in a proper organisation, it really was amateur and no doubt so were their info requests.
From the Auditors' Report (BDO):It would have to be the statutory accounts. There‘s unlikely to be an adjustment for “additional sponsorship income”. Which is why the PL are implicitly accusing City of fraud and false accounting. But the accounts have always been signed off by the auditors as true and fair and they didn’t resign shortly after these accusations first surfaced. Which they almost certainly would have done if City had been pulling the wool over their eyes
The impression I get is that the club have cooperated more with the PL than we did with UEFA. For me, CAS possibly felt that they had to give UEFA a small win of sorts and technically we were in the wrong on that one but there were also mitigating factors as to why we stopped cooperating, as acknowledged by CAS themselves when saying the leaks from UEFA to the NYT were “worrisome”.I think there is no doubt the club hasn't co-operated as much as it could. The question is if the club has co-operated as much as they had to.
I doubt very much the club held back information the PL was entitled to, after the court rulings.
But, even at CAS, the club was criticised for not providing UEFA with the evidence it presented at CAS, iirc saying that witholding information from the investigation that proves innocence for a later appeal makes a mockery of the investigative powers of UEFA. That was the basis of the CAS fine, I think. It will be interesting to see if the club appeals a fine for non-cooperation in this case and what the merits of each side would be, as this is still the PL process, unlike UEFA/CAS.