PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Ah the new super league. Cut through the bullshit and saw this lil snippet.

”
Reichart set out plans for cost control measures, saying clubs should spend only a fixed percentage of their annual football-related revenue on player salaries and net transfers.

"Club spending must be based solely on the funds generated and not on competitively distorting capital injections," he wrote.
”

So in effect the clubs with highest revenues can spend but the ones (like Newcastle) who want to catch up can’t. How can you raise your revenue if you can’t win?

Football is eating itself thanks to these new non competitive rules.
 
M18CTID said:
Is it feasible that they can do it in 2 months? Maybe if they cut a load of corners and the outcome is pre-determined they can! But the way I see it is that if it's done properly then it will take way longer than that. City's statement is telling in that I think they're putting a lot of faith in the independent panel to go about this a lot more professionally and fairly than UEFA did.
Click to expand...
Legal people are like dodgy builders being paid on day work. If they sort it out quickly they're not going to get paid as much
 
Tony - MCFC said:
I haven’t bought a newspaper for years, haven’t listened to TalkSPORT/FiveLive in years and blocked all of their social media accounts. Also blocked rival fans YouTube idiots like the ex Forest fan.

Suggest some do the same, no point harping on about what idiots like Simon Jordan say, he’ll say it because he’s given the platform and TalkSPORT / YouTube idiots want people to reply, it’s what they thrive on.

Ignore them and trust me you’ll feel better about it : )
Click to expand...
Same for me, I am just going to watch City, hopefully on foreign channels or at the stadium. Complete black out from the rest of the shite. Bluemoon is the only place I will look for City news.
 
Kippax1973 said:
Don't know if this has been asked but
If when we give our explanation to these charges, is there any chance that the FA, react with "we are happy with MCFC answer"
Then report to the press they see it as no case to answer, but have been warned on failing to cooperate in the future

As in I'm hoping more,, they get an insight on our evidence and think,,,, fuck that we could be right in the shit if we loose
Click to expand...
as its the premier league and not the football association it wont matter what the football association say
 
halfcenturyup said:
>> but until we have any details on what caused the breaches, rather than just the rules breached themselves, we won't know.
Click to expand...
What you mean by this?

The exact charges against City are already known in detail.

The Athletic, for example, has even analyzed each of the 105-or-so charges against City and have lumped them into 4 broad categories: 1) most are apparently due to accounting practices with regard to sponsorships; 2) the second set of charges are related to alleged improper compensation for Mancini; 3) the third category of charges involves the license requirements to qualify for play in European football; 4) and the final category is due to City's perceived obstruction of the investigation into its finances.
 
Woody135 said:
Given this was well received. Some more context on this to help anyone not aware.

An audit is effectively an opinion from a qualified and experienced auditor that the financial statements that a company prepares are materially true and fair, and are in line with accounting standards and uk law. Material being a key word and that is a £ value that differs from audit to audit.

In our case we arent a profitable business so that isnt the key metric but we are a trading business so I’d assume that the auditors materiality level is a revenue based metric and will likely be calculated as 1-2% of revenue.

Revenue in 09/10 was £125m
Revenue in 17/18 was £500m

Hence in english this means that in 09/10, the auditors have effectively signed off that every single number within those accounts and presented to PL is accurate and free from misstatement (by mistake or deliberately) to within max £2.5m. By 17/18 revenue has grown so the auditors will have signed off that every number is accurate to within max £10m.

To be able to do that on our revenue line (since that seems to be where attention is) they will have at the very least targeted any individual contract of that value or more because if they didn’t and it was wrong there could be a material misstatement. So that pretty much covers every single commercial contract (as well as broadcasting and prize money). And they will have at the very least sample tested everything else (because they are too small to individually result in a material misstatement but could aggregate).
When they tested they will have traced either to a signed contract and/or cash receipt. There are no other options.

Ie in english again. Almost every single £ of commercial revenue we reported will have been agreed to signed contracts and/or cash receipt and the auditors found no issues.

Hence for the charge to be true that our revenue does not present a true and fair view, the auditors will have had to either have not fulfilled their professional duties as auditors and/or our directors will have had to have committed financial fraud to deceive them or in collusion with them. Both are significant claims and should not be dealt with by a premier league internal investigation but are legal cases.

The more likely scenario in my mind is that the financial accounts submitted lawfully as a company are not in question but the PL is effectively taking a moral stance that whilst the accounting is correct, they just dont believe that the revenue has come from a willing third party. Ie yes you have a contract, yes you received the money but we think that money has ultimately come from your owner.

That was the claim made by UEFA and CAS said there was no evidence that had happened. In another process with the same evidence I see no reason why that conclusion would be different.
Click to expand...
This is what I signed up for.

Good job assuaging some fears man.
 
Woody135 said:
The more likely scenario in my mind is that the financial accounts submitted lawfully as a company are not in question but the PL is effectively taking a moral stance that whilst the accounting is correct, they just dont believe that the revenue has come from a willing third party. Ie yes you have a contract, yes you received the money but we think that money has ultimately come from your owner.
Click to expand...
good post mate and spells out exactly the nature of the challenge. Either they are saying we and our auditors have cheated on a massive scale (that would be unique in UK sport), or that the sponsorship has come indirectly from HRH the Sheik. In that second option, surely the auditor would also have to ensure that any sponsorship over £10m was compliant within FP rules of the time?

I just find this whole charge over such a prolonged period so unbelievable that its not easy to come to any other conclusion that the PL are utterly, utterly corrupt and are simply the mouthpiece of a band of rival/enemy clubs who will distance themselves as soon as it becomes clear the charges will largely fail. (and set up a new Super League).
 
“We’ll hit City on the Monday, and on the Thursday we’ll announce the new super league with its own financial regulations so that fans will be more interested in joining”

0A101747-6DCF-429E-BA3C-C832487F6E0F.jpeg
 
BRONSON said:
Sorry If this has been asked previously, but who picks up the cost of all this, If we win, do we claim costs off the Premier league, because If this dude of our charges £80,000 an hour, and If this takes 4 years to complete, together with him and the rest of his team could run Into Billions In costs, If so could this bring down the Premier league.
Click to expand...

He doesn't charge £80,000 an hour and we would never pay £80,000 an hour or anywhere close to that. I wouldn't believe what you read.
 
grim up north said:
See a new super league proposal has been announced
Click to expand...
No permanent members. Probably be quite helpful if certain clubs could find a way to remove City from the equation wouldnt it? Would increase certain clubs chances of consistently qualifying for the competition. If only there was a way for them to do it.
 
Call me paranoid, but the timing of the Super League announcement isn’t at all suspicious. We may think some mental theories us blues, but could the PL have rushed through these charges as they knew the Super League would eventually come back in a reformed way and they’re trying to protect their product by keeping the likes of United and Liverpool on their side?

Sick of all this bullshit to be honest, it’s corrupt to the core.
 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
What you mean by this?

The exact charges against City are already known in detail.

The Athletic, for example, has even analyzed each of the 105-or-so charges against City and have lumped them into 4 broad categories: 1) most are apparently due to accounting practices with regard to sponsorships; 2) the second set of charges are related to alleged improper compensation for Mancini; 3) the third category of charges involves the license requirements to qualify for play in European football; 4) and the final category is due to City's perceived obstruction of the investigation into its finances.
Click to expand...

Licence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top