PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

ayrshire_blue said:
Interesting. You're far more qualified than me to make an assessment of what the charges exactly entail, so it's good to hear from people in your position. To a lay person such as myself though, it's way over my head and seems to contradict what other well qualified people have suggested (unless I'm mistaken, which is entirely possible). Your initial post today didn't sound too positive in tone, would that be a fair assumption to make from your post?
Click to expand...
I think I was simply making the point that this was a civil case that required far less proof than a criminal case, so from that point of view I am less relaxed. Maybe it could be said that the question as far as the PL Club are concerned is not whether we have done something for which we are criminally liable but whether we have misled them when providing the information they needed to show we had complied with their rules. Of course, we may be able to show that we have complied and the fact that some matters are seemingly revisited after many years without time limit would be considered unjustified by many people.
 
pardoeofftomexico said:
No one is suggesting that our accounts are fraudulent or our auditors have done anything wrong. Audits are not there to prevent fraud. Our auditors are not expected to go to the Middle East to try the impossible task of verifying the original source of funds coming into the club. In fact, if we were accused of some criminal charge I would be more comfortable. The standard of evidence required would no doubt ensure that most of the PL accusations would be immediately thrown out.

Without wishing to downplay what are obviously very serious accusations against our club, I look upon this case more like the situation where you join your local golf club and you agree to abide by the regulations but do not. The committee may throw you out. This case is dealt with on a far more formal basis than would happen at your local golf club but nevertheless it is a civil and not criminal case and the rules may enable "evidence" to be brought forward that would not otherwise be allowed and which may be judged upon by looking at the balance of probabilities.
Click to expand...

Sorry, what is being suggested by the PL is EXACTLY that our accounts are fraudulent, and that our auditors have failed to spot that.

The charges appear to involve allegations of conduct that if proved would amount to criminal conduct under the Companies Acts.

These allegations are about as serious as it gets outside the criminal courts.
 
Chris in London said:
Sorry, what is being suggested by the PL is EXACTLY that our accounts are fraudulent, and that our auditors have failed to spot that.

The charges appear to involve allegations of conduct that if proved would amount to criminal conduct under the Companies Acts.

These allegations are about as serious as it gets outside the criminal courts.
Click to expand...
Where does it say that? I doubt that the PL has said any such thing. They would be more circumspect. You are extrapolating what is happening to something some journalists/commentators would like to happen. Anyway, there is little I can add to my original comment, so you will just have to wait and see!
 
Luca1894 said:
I believe there are two substantive questions...

Did Etisalat Telecoms provide valid sponsorship funds to MCFC ?

Did Etihad Airways provide valid sponsorship funds to MCFC ?.

In both cases the answers is Yes. I believe this is the irrefutable evidence the club has stated it possesses. The six stolen emails presented at CAS did NOT provide evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...
The PL will attempt to prove the sponsorships were "disguised equity funding" by the owner and therefore invalid. So if our sponsors were invalid then all our accounts are implicitly invalid. That's the whole thing in a nutshell.
 
Chris in London said:
Sorry, what is being suggested by the PL is EXACTLY that our accounts are fraudulent, and that our auditors have failed to spot that.

The charges appear to involve allegations of conduct that if proved would amount to criminal conduct under the Companies Acts.

These allegations are about as serious as it gets outside the criminal courts.
Click to expand...
I agree entirely with what you have put forward here and it has to be stressed that these are very serious charges indeed. What intrigues me is that (I believe) CAS found that evidence produced by City confirmed the picture painted in our account and nothing contradicted this. I cannot see how the PL can, therefore, produce any evidence, which must have come to light since, to show these accounts were actually false.
 
Luca1894 said:
The PL will attempt to prove the sponsorships were "disguised equity funding" by the owner and therefore invalid. So if our sponsors were invalid then all our accounts are implicitly invalid. That's the whole thing in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

Which is fraud on a huge scale and if they had such evidence, or even suspected it, surely the police and HMRC would be involved?
 
Chris in London said:
Sorry, what is being suggested by the PL is EXACTLY that our accounts are fraudulent, and that our auditors have failed to spot that.

The charges appear to involve allegations of conduct that if proved would amount to criminal conduct under the Companies Acts.

These allegations are about as serious as it gets outside the criminal courts.
Click to expand...

When I see what P&0 did with their workforce when their chairman openly admitted they broke the law and would do it again, leading to 800+ people losing their livelihoods, with no legal action against them, I'm not sure what could be done to us if we were guilty.
 
manimanc said:
Fuckoff you inbred 6 fingered wankers.

I really hope we batter these pricks tonight, know nothing gobshites.

That has really pissed me off.

There you go premier league, mission accomplished, especially if all these fuckin wurzels are coming up with shit like this.
Click to expand...
It's one pub, one down and out shithole pub by the look of it, why are you so wound up about it ? Their Chairman has spoke well of us and how well we treated them last time and so has the manager. Like Talkshite, the wattsapp bunch, the Guardian and Mail, just ignore them. Don't waste your energy on idiots.
 
paulchapo said:
Which is fraud on a huge scale and if they had such evidence, or even suspected it, surely the police and HMRC would be involved?
Click to expand...
No it's not fraud. Its wether the sponsorships were valid as defined by the PL rule book.This is will be down to the interpretation of the panel of lawyers. At CAS the Chairman and CEO of Ethihad Airways swore under the oath the sponsorship was authorised 100% by him.
 
pardoeofftomexico said:
Where does it say that? I doubt that the PL has said any such thing. They would be more circumspect. You are extrapolating what is happening to something some journalists/commentators would like to happen. Anyway, there is little I can add to my original comment, so you will just have to wait and see!
Click to expand...
Read the charges
 
Blue Mist said:
It's one pub, one down and out shithole pub by the look of it, why are you so wound up about it ? Their Chairman has spoke well of us and how well we treated them last time and so has the manager. Like Talkshite, the wattsapp bunch, the Guardian and Mail, just ignore them. Don't waste your energy on idiots.
Click to expand...
Fair comment.

It just struck a nerve, they've never been interested in us, don't know the truth of what is happening yet they seem to think we're cheats.

Just think it's a bit of a cheap shot.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
Makes sense to me, we're breaking PL rules, not the law. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

That's my assessment based on my view of the nature of accounting, but it's not shared by the legal eagles on here.

No-one has yet been able to explain to me how the Etihad sponsorship should have been accounted for any differently even if Mansour gave cash in a suitcase to Etihad to pay for the sponsorship. The accounting fundamentals as far as the club is concerned are exactly the same, so the accounts would be the same imho.

Of course, if that happened and we hid it from the PL, that would be a regulatory problem.
 
Chris in London said:
Read the charges
Click to expand...
I've read the charges and this is the key charge re the validity of our accounts...

, "in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs"

So they are saying our costs ie transfer fees and player salaries etc were funded by invalid sponsorship funds. Thats what the PL have to prove.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
Makes sense to me, we're breaking PL rules, not the law. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

The allegation is that City breached rules relating to the provision of accurate financial information, "in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs"

The obligation we are said to be in breach of is the rule that requires the club to provide accurate financial information to give the league a "true and fair view" of the club's revenues.

'True and fair' information is a widely used and even more widely recognised term in accountancy and company law. Company directors are under a legal obligation not to approve accounts, for instance, unless they give a true and fair view of that company's finances.

So when the PL alleges that our accounts do not comply with PL rules because they do not provide a true and fair view of the club's finances, they are implicitly alleging that we have broken the law.
 
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