PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Sir peace frog said:
i wish people would talk in terms we could all understand, its like reading hunt for red october on this thread sometimes, the russian names in that book confused the fuck out of me and i had to put it down, the film was good though :)
Click to expand...
I was the same with Lord of the Rings...and why ive never bothered to watch the films either :-)
 
flb said:
All I will say is if it is “only” £30m is that it dispels the myth to all of our accusers we have been fiddling hundreds of millions of sponsorships since we got took over . Anyone with half a brain must be thinking “is that it?” Two discrepancies going back ten years amounting to approx 5% of our then turnover is hardly mass fiddling is it ? And they all know this club is now watertight.
Click to expand...
The Dippers drew a picture of Hough End complete with changing rooms with chalk on a blackboard and said it cost 50 million quid. Really, no press activity around that...... B-b-b-b-but let's dream up something to make us look evil (whilst earning some swag via clickbait), well fuck Mike Cougan (sic), fuck the daily fail, I won't be reading their bollocks hereonin, and fuck the media. Make them eat their own shit City.
 
halfcenturyup said:
He is still a scrawny necked **** :)

But found this: The deal came under widespread scrutiny. Arsene Wenger felt it tested the "credibility" of the FFP and Liverpool owner John Henry sarcastically tweeted, "How much was the losing bid?".
Click to expand...
Henry always reminds me of a chicken hanging upside down in a butcher's shop with Wenger being the cock hanging on the hook next to him.
 
bigA said:
It's about time City started issuing libel and defamation writs against these so called journalists and ask them to produce any tangible proof they have got for these claims and how they obtained any evidence. Most likely the evidence was obtained illegally and therefore should and would not be admissible in any court of law. If not, just ban them and their reporters from the club and it's surroundings.

Time to fight back and stop these weasels tarnishing the name and reputation of our club.
Click to expand...
I don't think the Times story is libellous (unlike the outburst from Eni Aluko). The story is essentially true but has been reported in a very unfair, partial, and unbalanced way. City have a reasonable explanation for the payments and it was discussed with UEFA and is in the CAS documents. As far as I can see the only new element is the name of the person who made the payments, presumably someone junior in the finance team connected to ADUG (not some shadowy mystery figure!). The names of staff were redacted in the CAS papers.
It's not relevant because City have already said the payments came from ADUG and were later reimbursed by Etislat. None of this is illegal or against any financial rules. But this element was ommitted by Matt Lawton and the anonymous film producer. It is just the usual one-sided and distorted reporting we have come to expect from the UK media.
 
Norman kneejerk said:
So simply put it was there to see in the accounts then, sum owed by Etisalat, then sum paid by Etisalat, is that a fair summary.?
Click to expand...

Hmmmm. One slight amendment. When ADUG paid the club, it was recorded as a reduction against the receivable from Etisalat. If there was a side agreement for ADUG to recover the debt, that would be fine. If there wasn't, then the accounting would be wrong. But it's just a minor classification error in the balance sheet from the accounting viewpoint. Nothing to see there really and certainly nothing that affects the true and fair view given by the accounts.
 
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