PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Dubai Blue]

No, GDPR and Sarbanes Oxley (SOX) are entirely different things. All UK companies absolutely need to adhere to GDPR (around data protection) but not Sarbanes Oxley (which is US federal law around accounting and business controls). As we are not a US entity we are not bound by the requirements of SOX.

I didn't say they were the same things. But GDPR can apply to organizations outside the EU just as SOX can apply to organizations outside the US.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

I get that Tolm but BDO have do have a past record of messing up

BDO faces FRC investigation over audit of collapsed construction firm

The Financial Reporting Council is opening an investigation into the challenger company's audit of collapse building firm NMCN.

www.cityam.com

BDO auditor fired for altering files earmarked for inspection

Accountant found to have made changes after UK regulator told the firm it would be reviewing a public sector audit

www.ft.com

BDO International faces audit negligence accusation

By Pascal Fletcher

www.reuters.com

SEC.gov | SEC Charges BDO and Five Partners in Connection With False and Misleading Audit Opinions

www.sec.gov

BDO may have to bail out sister firm in Spain after €126.8m penalty

Spain’s highest civil court found BDO, among others, guilty of falsifying accounts of fishing firm Pescanova

www.theguardian.com

BDO pays $3.5-million fine over audit of fraudulent mutual funds

The fine stems from BDO’s auditing of mutual funds offered by Crystal Wealth Management Systems Ltd., a Burlington, Ont.-based investment company that was later found by the OSC to have overstated the value of its assets

www.theglobeandmail.com

FRC launches probe of BDO over NMCN audit

The Financial Reporting Council announced the launch of an investigation into BDO in relation to its audit of U.K. construction and engineering company NMCN, which filed for administration earlier this month.

www.complianceweek.com

Oh dear. Just glanced through them rather than read the precise wording of every article but they all seem to suggest BDO completely missing misleading or fraudulent accounts, that doesn't bode well.

 

[M18CTID]

Read from 274-285 of the CAS findings

I've just read it and to be honest, I don't see anything of real note that might've led to CAS to come to a different decision. There's reference in there to what constitutes a reasonable request for evidence and where that line is. I think what CAS are saying is that it's ambiguous. They also make the point that sponsors can't be expected by UEFA to tip up swathes of information. I also think it's important to note that City would've been worried about handing over certain bits of confidential information that may fall into the hands of our competitors. You only have to look at some of the people involved at UEFA's end to see that they have clear links to certain rival clubs.

For me, City provided plenty of evidence at the appeal to convincingly debunk what was being alleged. CAS also appears to infer that if City had offered up the witness evidence to UEFA in the first instance then it might never have got that far anyway and City may well have been cleared by UEFA, so I think it's a leap to suggest that if certain documents had been presented then that would've led to CAS coming to a different verdict.

And speaking of evidence, I still find it astonishing that of the time-barred evidence, UEFA were prepared to use one e-mail that pre-dated their own FFP rules - something which would've rendered that particular accusation irrelevant anyway.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I've just read it and to be honest, I don't see anything of real note that might've led to CAS to come to a different decision. There's reference in there to what constitutes a reasonable request for evidence and where that line is. I also think it's important to note that City would've been worried about handing over certain bits of confidential information that may fall into the hands of our competitors. You only have to look at some of the people involved at UEFA's end in the investigation to see that they have clear links to certain rival clubs.

For me, City provided plenty of evidence at the appeal to convincingly debunk what was being alleged. I still find it astonishing that of the time-barred evidence, UEFA were prepared to use one e-mail that pre-dated their own FFP rules - something which would've rendered that particular accusation irrelevant anyway.

What he said.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The charges are vast 130? But according to @projectriver & @Prestwich_Blue those charges fall under 4/5 headings. So why is it taking so long? Lawyers will want it to drag on for financial gain. City will want each claim contested and then wait for the league to respond.

So what is it? Trumped up charges with no substance or 4/5 main charges? The irrefutable evidence should be able to squash the majority of claims levied against us.

4 years and over a hundred charges! City must have been keeping a record every time the premier asked for more and specifically what area they wanted to constest. City say we have nothing further to give you as it doesn’t exist but we have irrefutable proof that all was above board.

The amount of time this is going to take would led me to believe that it’s about defamation and fuck all else. The financial charges are a side show.

Almost like, the premier got sick of the non co operation and thought fuck you. We will charge you will everything.

I think there are just three substantive issues behind these charges:

1. Mancini's contract,
2. Sponsorships,
3. Image rights.

That's it. All derive from the Der Spiegel allegations. For each of those issues, there are charges covering multiple rules over multiple years.

Based on those, there are charges derived about incorrect accounts, because if any of those three are proven, our accounts may have been misstated. That again covers multiple rules over multiple years.

If our accounts have been misstated, then that may well contravene FFP (more charges over multiple years) and the P&L's own rules (more charges over multiple years).

Then there's the multiple rules around non-cooperation, each covering multiple years with a separate charge for each year. If you count each charge, for each individual year, there are 127 of them according to my reckoning.

But in the end, it comes down to these three things.

- Was Mancini's contract a sham?
- Were our sponsorships inflated or used to disguise owner investment?
- Were we wrong to sell those image rights and have a third party pay them?

I think they'll really struggle to land the first two, leaving image rights as the only one they've got any sort of hope of bringing home. And that might be a slim hope, if we've got all the legal and financial issues tied up tight. And as both Stefan and I have said, if those three issues aren't proven, then pretty well everything else should fall by the wayside, bar maybe the non-cooperation one.

 

[blueparrot]

I think there are just three substantive issues behind these charges:

1. Mancini's contract,
2. Sponsorships,
3. Image rights.

That's it. All derive from the Der Spiegel allegations. For each of those issues, there are charges covering multiple rules over multiple years.

Based on those, there are charges derived about incorrect accounts, because if any of those three are proven, our accounts may have been misstated. That again covers multiple rules over multiple years.

If our accounts have been misstated, then that may well contravene FFP (more charges over multiple years) and the P&L's own rules (more charges over multiple years).

Then there's the multiple rules around non-cooperation, each covering multiple years with a separate charge for each year. If you count each charge, for each individual year, there are 127 of them according to my reckoning.

But in the end, it comes down to these three things.

- Was Mancini's contract a sham?
- Were our sponsorships inflated or used to disguise owner investment?
- Were we wrong to sell those image rights and have a third party pay them?

I think they'll really struggle to land the first two, leaving image rights as the only one they've got any sort of hope of bringing home. And that might be a slim hope, if we've got all the legal and financial issues tied up tight. And as both Stefan and I have said, if those three issues aren't proven, then pretty well everything else should fall by the wayside, bar maybe the non-cooperation one.

Am I right in saying we were wrong with the image rights thing, but when UEFA told us we were wrong we stopped, and nothing was hidden ?

 

[VOOMER]

I get that Tolm but BDO have do have a past record of messing up

BDO faces FRC investigation over audit of collapsed construction firm

The Financial Reporting Council is opening an investigation into the challenger company's audit of collapse building firm NMCN.

www.cityam.com

BDO auditor fired for altering files earmarked for inspection

Accountant found to have made changes after UK regulator told the firm it would be reviewing a public sector audit

www.ft.com

BDO International faces audit negligence accusation

By Pascal Fletcher

www.reuters.com

SEC.gov | SEC Charges BDO and Five Partners in Connection With False and Misleading Audit Opinions

www.sec.gov

BDO may have to bail out sister firm in Spain after €126.8m penalty

Spain’s highest civil court found BDO, among others, guilty of falsifying accounts of fishing firm Pescanova

www.theguardian.com

BDO pays $3.5-million fine over audit of fraudulent mutual funds

The fine stems from BDO’s auditing of mutual funds offered by Crystal Wealth Management Systems Ltd., a Burlington, Ont.-based investment company that was later found by the OSC to have overstated the value of its assets

www.theglobeandmail.com

FRC launches probe of BDO over NMCN audit

The Financial Reporting Council announced the launch of an investigation into BDO in relation to its audit of U.K. construction and engineering company NMCN, which filed for administration earlier this month.

www.complianceweek.com

Who do you support?

 

[wolviedinho]

I think there are just three substantive issues behind these charges:

1. Mancini's contract,
2. Sponsorships,
3. Image rights.

That's it. All derive from the Der Spiegel allegations. For each of those issues, there are charges covering multiple rules over multiple years.

Based on those, there are charges derived about incorrect accounts, because if any of those three are proven, our accounts may have been misstated. That again covers multiple rules over multiple years.

If our accounts have been misstated, then that may well contravene FFP (more charges over multiple years) and the P&L's own rules (more charges over multiple years).

Then there's the multiple rules around non-cooperation, each covering multiple years with a separate charge for each year. If you count each charge, for each individual year, there are 127 of them according to my reckoning.

But in the end, it comes down to these three things.

- Was Mancini's contract a sham?
- Were our sponsorships inflated or used to disguise owner investment?
- Were we wrong to sell those image rights and have a third party pay them?

I think they'll really struggle to land the first two, leaving image rights as the only one they've got any sort of hope of bringing home. And that might be a slim hope, if we've got all the legal and financial issues tied up tight. And as both Stefan and I have said, if those three issues aren't proven, then pretty well everything else should fall by the wayside, bar maybe the non-cooperation one.

Thanks for the reply @Prestwich_Blue.

Time to get the non co operation tattoo? -:)

 

[Gordyola]

IIRC Pep asked at the press conference about "who pays" when we win Is this a hint that the club will seek damages

 

[eastmanc]

I get that Tolm but BDO have do have a past record of messing up

BDO faces FRC investigation over audit of collapsed construction firm

The Financial Reporting Council is opening an investigation into the challenger company's audit of collapse building firm NMCN.

www.cityam.com

BDO auditor fired for altering files earmarked for inspection

Accountant found to have made changes after UK regulator told the firm it would be reviewing a public sector audit

www.ft.com

BDO International faces audit negligence accusation

By Pascal Fletcher

www.reuters.com

SEC.gov | SEC Charges BDO and Five Partners in Connection With False and Misleading Audit Opinions

www.sec.gov

BDO may have to bail out sister firm in Spain after €126.8m penalty

Spain’s highest civil court found BDO, among others, guilty of falsifying accounts of fishing firm Pescanova

www.theguardian.com

BDO pays $3.5-million fine over audit of fraudulent mutual funds

The fine stems from BDO’s auditing of mutual funds offered by Crystal Wealth Management Systems Ltd., a Burlington, Ont.-based investment company that was later found by the OSC to have overstated the value of its assets

www.theglobeandmail.com

FRC launches probe of BDO over NMCN audit

The Financial Reporting Council announced the launch of an investigation into BDO in relation to its audit of U.K. construction and engineering company NMCN, which filed for administration earlier this month.

www.complianceweek.com

That doesn't look good.

 

[Bluearmy]

Given that the CFG do business in the US, I'd be astonished if the whole group don't have to abide by the Sarbanes Oxley act, which was brought in off the back of the Enron scandal

Sarbanes-Oxley reach goes beyond the United States: As long as a company is listed on a U.S. stock exchange, it is covered under the law…

 

[Gordyola]

Assuming the PL’s charge is that Etihad and City entered into a deal above ‘fair value’, there is still nothing for Etihad to take issue with - if Tesla approached City tomorrow and wanted to sponsor the stadium for £1bn a year, it’s City’s responsibility to ensure the deal is signed with a ‘fair value’….

And any findings published in a scenario where City win big would simply state ‘PL allege that deal with Etihad is entered into above fair value, this is found not proven’

A deal can be accepted for any amount UEFA reserve the right to ask an independent company to make an assessment of fair value for FFP

 

[Allnightlong]

Should still have come to the same conclusion as his peers though

exactly, shows that evidence goes out the window on a panel if one is automatically a vote against.

 

[vincent]

Oh dear. Just glanced through them rather than read the precise wording of every article but they all seem to suggest BDO completely missing misleading or fraudulent accounts, that doesn't bode well.

Do a Google search of the big 4 audit companies and pretty much the same sort of stuff appears.

 

[I'm Blue]

My take on the next few months:

February:
Media shitstorm continues to abate, Sky issue profit warning & Talksport cease trading.
City formally announce North Stand extension, log flume & Ferrari World - providing 2,000 Mancunian jobs & a £1billion boost to the local economy.
Rags sold by Glazer family to unknown buyer.
Pep extends to 2030.
The Viking Meat Shield extends to 2030.
Mendy fully acquitted & starts against Arsenal.
Dippers bought by the Glazer Family.
City 6 points clear.
Piss on a steady simmer.

March:
Government White Paper made public, independent regulator in place for 23/24.
Lord Bernstein is announced as the chair of the IR.
UK Gov announces UAE £100billion injection into the UK economy.
City issue writs to Premier League, Reach PLC, Miggy Deloony, MoS, Danny Mills, Mirror Group, Lou Macari's Chippy & Arsenal FanTV.
Rag buyer announced as a consortium of the Neville Family/MUST/Fred the Red/Terry Christian.
City 11 points clear.
Mendy voted City Player of the Month.
Tent Peg named as "Mr Big" in Amsterdam drug cartel trial.
Piss on a gentle rolling boil.

April:
City progress to the Semi-finals of CL & FA Cup.
Oliver Holt & Ian Cheeseman come to blows.
International arrest warrant issued for Edwood Woodwood after being accused of being Jimmy Saville's fixer.
PGMOL implicated in Far East betting scandal.
BBC Sport closes Salford office, relocating to Moss Side.
Klipperty resigns for personal reasons.
City move 18 points clear.
Piss on a violent rolling boil.

May:
City win FA Cup.
City win CL, beating RM in 7-0 thriller.
City win PL by record 30 point margin.
EPL drop all charges against City.
Nasty 9 write to City with a full apology, City say get fucked.
Piss boiling at an all time low as global supplies in crisis.

2023/2024:
City open the worlds biggest piss-boiling factory in Trafford Park, after levelling the previously moth-balled Hotel Football.
Climate change brings flooding leaving Liverpool submerged for eternity.

With Manchester now having a beach, it is announced as the 2023/2024 host for the World Beach Volleyball Series, running from June - August.

(OK - I might've gone a bit too far with the last bit).

You got a like for the last part alone ; )

 

[Gordyola]

He is their fucking ring leader . The one who was busy mouthing off “sports washing, state owned, financial doping ,,etc every time he got the airwave. Fucking lying **** and the one who started this crusade against city since the take over .

But was happy to take City's money Im sure that he told Adebayour that he had no option but to sign for City

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Who do you support?

Not BDO, I’ll hazard.

 

[Eoiyflem]

That doesn't look good.

Don't panic mate, those are isolated and incredibly rare incidents across multiple countries.

BDO aren't 1 company in essence, they have offices across the globe that act as completely separate businesses under the same brand name so an error by BDO Spain has no bearing on BDO UK, USA etc. In fact, each firm will also have separate teams specialising in different types of audit as well from FS Audit to Pharmaceuticals and everything in between.

Every single accounting firm on the planet including the Big 4 will have instances of getting things wrong or making mistakes, it's very rare though, BDO included so don't read anything into those headlines at all

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Sarbanes-Oxley reach goes beyond the United States: As long as a company is listed on a U.S. stock exchange, it is covered under the law…

The provisions of SARBOX vary depending on size and stage of life as a company. For example smaller companies ("emerging growth companies" as they're called) have fewer SARBOX compliance and information disclosure requirements under the theory that such compliance is expensive and burdensome to smaller entities given such costs are so often fixed.

At any rate, that said, I am not really sure if or how SARBOX provisions would apply in this case nor the context given we aren't speaking of securities of a company listed in the US and I only know/understand them in that context.

 

[eastmanc]

Don't panic mate, those are isolated and incredibly rare incidents across multiple countries.

BDO aren't 1 company in essence, they have offices across the globe that act as completely separate businesses under the same brand name so an error by BDO Spain has no bearing on BDO UK, USA etc. In fact, each firm will also have separate teams specialising in different types of audit as well from FS Audit to Pharmaceuticals and everything in between.

Every single accounting firm on the planet including the Big 4 will have instances of getting things wrong or making mistakes, it's very rare though, BDO included so don't read anything into those headlines at all

Thanks for clarifying that.