PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Len Rum said:
Does non compliance with FFP necessarily mean that your statutory accounts are false?
Click to expand...
No. FFP sets a limit on what you can spend. You can produce perfectly accurate accounts yet fail FFP.

False accounting is knowingly producing accounts that don't reflect the true financial position of the reporting entity. So my former bosses at an insurance company deliberately excluded some large claims from the system, which led to them reporting a significantly better result than the real one. Three of them went to jail for 14 years between them for that. That had a lot to do with it being a quoted company, plus there was a clear trail showing that the three knew what they were doing, plus the CEO was also doing secret deals with reinsurers. While I understood their motives, it was fraud, pure and simple.

But accounting isn't always black and white. You can treat certain things in very different ways. That's why there are accounting standards. Stock is one of those. You can value stock in a number of ways, all of which will have an impact the bottom line. Any issues would also have to be material though, and a few quid either way won't be.

In 2011 and 2012, when that Mancini Al-Jazira contract for £1.75m a year was in force, we made losses of £195m and £95 respectively. Even if the PL commission were to decide we should have included that in our accounts, it makes fuck all difference overall. So there's no way, in my view, of that leading to criminal charges. It certainly made no difference to FFP, as we failed anyway.

With Fordham and the image rights, that was a grey area, I'd say. We needed additional revenue (as we thought) to avoid FFP sanctions and that was one of the things we did to generate that revenue. It made no difference as it happens, as UEFA deftly moved the goalposts, leaving us stranded. But I assume we had solid legal advice on that, and it was one of those scenarios where there was no breach of the letter of the law. UEFA were aware of it, as I've said, and didn't pursue it even though it was within the six-year limitation period.
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
No. FFP sets a limit on what you can spend. You can produce perfectly accurate accounts yet fail FFP.

False accounting is knowingly producing accounts that don't reflect the true financial position of the reporting entity. So my former bosses at an insurance company deliberately excluded some large claims from the system, which led to them reporting a significantly better result than the real one. Three of them went to jail for 14 years between them for that. That had a lot to do with it being a quoted company, plus there was a clear trail showing that the three knew what they were doing, plus the CEO was also doing secret deals with reinsurers. While I understood their motives, it was fraud, pure and simple.

But accounting isn't always black and white. You can treat certain things in very different ways. That's why there are accounting standards. Stock is one of those. You can value stock in a number of ways, all of which will have an impact the bottom line. Any issues would also have to be material and a few quid either way won't be.

In 2011 and 2012, when that Mancini Al-Jazira contract for £1.75m a year was in force, we made losses of £195m and £95 respectively. Even if the PL commission were to decide we should have included that in our accounts, it makes fuck all difference overall. So there's no way, in my view, of that leading to criminal charges. It certainly made no difference to FFP, as we failed anyway.

With Fordham and the image rights, that was a grey area, I'd say. We needed additional revenue (as we thought) to avoid FFP sanctions and that was one of the things we did to generate that revenue. It made no difference as it happens, as UEFA deftly moved the goalposts, leaving us stranded. But I assume we had solid legal advice on that, and it was one of those scenarios where there was no breach of the letter of the law. UEFA were aware of it, as I've said, and didn't pursue it even though it was within the six-year limitation period.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And the same materiality issue for Etisalat, it's just too small.

And don't get me started on Etihad. The PL's premise is just too ridiculous for words, and makes no sense from the accounting viewpoint either.

All that's left is non-compliance.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Agreed. And the same materiality issue for Etisalat, it's just too small.

And don't get me started on Etihad. The PL's premise is just too ridiculous for words, and makes no sense from the accounting viewpoint either.

All that's left is non-compliance.
Click to expand...
And whilst the PL have eyes fixed and focused on City those pesky Chavs get to work on balancing their books. All fair and above board mind
 
M12Blue said:
I think if this is drawn out its because the PL are backtracking and struggling not City.
Khaldoons demeanour also suggests this in my opinion.
Click to expand...
how do you know they are backtracking, i would have thought they are going even harder knowing the resources city have to defend themselves and what happened with CAS, i would have thought they would not have even come this far if they didnt think they had some strong evidence on us that is different to what UEFA had
 
adelaideblue said:
how do you know they are backtracking, i would have thought they are going even harder knowing the resources city have to defend themselves and what happened with CAS, i would have thought they would not have even come this far if they didnt think they had some strong evidence on us that is different to what UEFA had
Click to expand...
If they had strong evidence it would have been in the public domain by now.
They are fishing and we are not giving them the bait.
As I and others have said the burden of proof is with them.
 
Last edited:
Dukefan9 said:
I need a neutral investigative journalist to dig into why the charges came like they did and make it into a docuseries somewhere cause there certainly seems to be a story there somewhere
Click to expand...

Also I am surprised that the in depth investigation into the other 19 pl teams didnt throw up thing dodge. Like 50 million to do up a statium which never happened
 
adelaideblue said:
how do you know they are backtracking, i would have thought they are going even harder knowing the resources city have to defend themselves and what happened with CAS, i would have thought they would not have even come this far if they didnt think they had some strong evidence on us that is different to what UEFA had
Click to expand...
I haven't said they are:

'I think if this is drawn out .........'
 
adelaideblue said:
how do you know they are backtracking, i would have thought they are going even harder knowing the resources city have to defend themselves and what happened with CAS, i would have thought they would not have even come this far if they didnt think they had some strong evidence on us that is different to what UEFA had
Click to expand...
Yeah it's not like the PL haven't been forced into this by our rivals, or that the govn are threatening to take over regulation.
 
Gundoggin said:
So much speculation. Getting boring now !
Khaldoon emphasised the future is huge for city !
That will do for me .
Click to expand...
agreed there is so much speculation however the video released yesterday reminded me of a poker player who was just about to turn his hand in knowing full well he'd won the pot, he's cool, relaxed and thoughtfull with his words, not one ounce of negativity, all that was missing was the cigar roll of Clint Eastwood, to asume were going to get the book chucked at us is fine and we sit and wait BUT have the PL the balls to take this man on i really dont think they have the stomach for the fight especially now that we are the flagship of the outfit that are trying to screw us over, we are their product of how sucesfull the PL have become, from day one when we released the statement that was enough for me to stay chilled and trust those in charge of the club,im 99.9% certain this will run its course and die its death, on the political side is it already there behind the scenes playing its part, we dont know and we will never know, i wouldnt raise an eybrow if it is, trust in Khaldoon he's not going to let us down

Just to add- no one should ever under estimate our owners, they bought the club with a plan and for that plan to work the school bully had to be taken down from the perch and dismantled 'the bully was manchester united' we self destructed them from the outside into a frenzy of panic buying and installing managers which resulted in a failed but very expensive futile attempt to keep up,all part of the plan from day one, we are years infront of anyone and that includes the PL
 
Last edited:
adelaideblue said:
how do you know they are backtracking, i would have thought they are going even harder knowing the resources city have to defend themselves and what happened with CAS, i would have thought they would not have even come this far if they didnt think they had some strong evidence on us that is different to what UEFA had
Click to expand...
The opinion that UEFA must have a very strong case backed by compelling evidence was expressed quite frequently by bluemooners in the run up to the CAS judgement. Some went as far as to argue that City must be guilty because UEFA had top lawyers briefed. In the event UEFA had no evidence and no case. Our club's attitude this time has been very similar to what it was when UEFA charged and punished us; then the charges were "simply not true" whereas now the club is astonished that charges have been brought and looks forward to seeing them dismissed once and for all. My attitude is what it was back in 2020; I trusted the club then when it said it had done nothing wrong and I trust it now. We do not have to prove anything. The PL has to uphold its allegations and this requires evidence which convinces an independent panel either that the club's guilt is "probable" or "beyond reasonable doubt" depending on the gravity of the charges. The commission will be independent. It will not be a kangaroo court and it will not bring in any perverse judgement, or there will be an appeal.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
No. FFP sets a limit on what you can spend. You can produce perfectly accurate accounts yet fail FFP.

False accounting is knowingly producing accounts that don't reflect the true financial position of the reporting entity. So my former bosses at an insurance company deliberately excluded some large claims from the system, which led to them reporting a significantly better result than the real one. Three of them went to jail for 14 years between them for that. That had a lot to do with it being a quoted company, plus there was a clear trail showing that the three knew what they were doing, plus the CEO was also doing secret deals with reinsurers. While I understood their motives, it was fraud, pure and simple.

But accounting isn't always black and white. You can treat certain things in very different ways. That's why there are accounting standards. Stock is one of those. You can value stock in a number of ways, all of which will have an impact the bottom line. Any issues would also have to be material though, and a few quid either way won't be.

In 2011 and 2012, when that Mancini Al-Jazira contract for £1.75m a year was in force, we made losses of £195m and £95 respectively. Even if the PL commission were to decide we should have included that in our accounts, it makes fuck all difference overall. So there's no way, in my view, of that leading to criminal charges. It certainly made no difference to FFP, as we failed anyway.

With Fordham and the image rights, that was a grey area, I'd say. We needed additional revenue (as we thought) to avoid FFP sanctions and that was one of the things we did to generate that revenue. It made no difference as it happens, as UEFA deftly moved the goalposts, leaving us stranded. But I assume we had solid legal advice on that, and it was one of those scenarios where there was no breach of the letter of the law. UEFA were aware of it, as I've said, and didn't pursue it even though it was within the six-year limitation period.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that.
Got me thinking that alleged non compliance on FFP issues that have nothing to do with producing true accounts can be time barred, for example the Etisalat sponsorship?
 
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