PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

mancboy said:
its embarrassing how simplistic the media make things with regards to related companies, in reality most companies are connected in some way and at some level, it would be almost impossible for any company to invest in literally anything without having some level of connection somewhere along the line and influence.

Permira who currently own teamviewer who are the main sponsors of united currently also do business with AIDA, so is that a related party to city, its impossible, they just flag up bits they want to when it suits them
Click to expand...
What you on about
 
WRicko said:
Why ask me ? Are you defending Wrexham or attacking City or me ? Half the championship probably still has deals with companies connected to there owners don’t know if any are considered related parties legally speaking or if they are market value or not but I don’t remember them ever being questioned like any of our deals. Ours are considered related party by the media at least just by being from the same country as our owner.

United airlines is clearly not related party but it does seem odd. Don’t you agree ? Wouldn’t it be considered odd if it was someone else ? I think so maybe it’s riding on the back of celb ownership but seems a bit flash in the pan if so ? I don’t know about the other company guessing also not related party. Again odd tho don’t you think ? Perhaps again just using celb ownership. Then the one they own must be related party but is it treated as such I don’t know ? Is it fair value I don’t know. Has it been flagged by the media no. Would it be if City yes
Click to expand...
Absolutely not attacking you or City. If anything I'm defending Wrexham using exactly the same arguments I would use to defend City
- that, if the sponsorship is not with a related party then what's the issue? The sponsor must feel it's worth it to them.
- if it is with a related party, then is it at market value? If it is, then again, what's the issue? They're allowed sponsorship with a related party if it's at market value.
Your posts seem to imply (at least to me) that you think there's something wrong/dodgy about these deals rather than them simply being a bit "odd"
I apologise if I've misinterpreted this.
 
The perfect fumble said:
If the State Airline is your sponsor and Sheikh Mansour is the State, or if a company run by your second cousin, twice removed, from the dad of your third wife, is your official bog roll sponsor, then it all looks pretty related to me.
Click to expand...
so answer me this, why shouldnt related companies be allowed to invest, whats the basis for not letting it happen?
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
The story states “if City have breached FFP” but the PL case is not about FFP regulations. The accusation is false accounting and the Mancini allegation pre-dates FFP. The writer has no idea what he is writing about.
Click to expand...

The bulk, and the most serious, of the alleged breaches relate to false accounting in the words of their statement, but the consequence of the false accounting, presumably, is that, if corrected, we will fail FFP. So the guy is half right.

Which, btw, is why I think we will be OK. They don't have any chance of proving false accounting to anything like the required standard, imo, without iron-clad proof, even if we did it, which I doubt. They just won't have found that sort of evidence lying around or the investigative powers to get it. So there will be no major problem with FFP either.

All imho, of course. And may all be bollocks. :)
 
halfcenturyup said:
The bulk, and the most serious, of the alleged breaches relate to false accounting in the words of their statement, but the consequence of the false accounting, presumably, is that, if corrected, we will fail FFP. So the guy is half right.

Which, btw, is why I think we will be OK. They don't have any chance of proving false accounting to anything like the required standard, imo, without iron-clad proof, even if we did it, which I doubt. They just won't have found that sort of evidence lying around or the investigative powers to get it. So there will be no major problem with FFP either.

All imho, of course. And may all be bollocks. :)
Click to expand...
if there was concrete evidence of false accounting that amounts to a criminal trial not a kangaroo premier league panel so on that basis alone they dont have the requisite evidence
 
Accusing a company and associated companies of false accounting is as serious as it gets , and unless you have complete access to all the accounts of our global partners i would think nigh on impossible to prove , the Premier league would need a a team of dozens of forensic accountants and it would take years to complete a full investigation.
Could you really envisage the likes of Etihad , Etislat , Nissan , Siverlake and others just giving permission for the Premier league to dig dirt on them , this is a complete non starter , the Premier league by making these charges has done the job the red 'istree clubs wanted , even if not one of the charges is proven they have sullied our reputation with the inevetable "no smoke without out fire" the media will eventually portray.
No matter what happens it will not diminish our support for the club , we all know why these charges have been brought , we also know the agenda regarding our club we witness it everyday , but our supporters have been through too much to let this bother us , we have done the hard yards to get to the summit of football , the media have vastly underrated our stomach for a fight.
 
The perfect fumble said:
If the State Airline is your sponsor and Sheikh Mansour is the State, or if a company run by your second cousin, twice removed, from the dad of your third wife, is your official bog roll sponsor, then it all looks pretty related to me.
Click to expand...

Norbiton said:
Not in accounting terms, which is what matters
Click to expand...

Is the correct answer.

Where it gets trickier is with the new "associated party" terminology from the PL but that can't apply to us retroactively and no-one is going to claim the sponsorships aren't fair value now, I think.
 
mancboy said:
so answer me this, why shouldnt related companies be allowed to invest, whats the basis for not letting it happen?
Click to expand...

because it disguises owner investment as income.

Say Sheikh Mansour wants to spend £500 million on a bunch of players, but can't because he can only spend a certain amount based on City's income, what does he do? He gets all his mates to flush City's coffers with lots of juicy sponsorship deals and Bob's you Uncle, he's got his £500 million.
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
Is the correct answer.

Where it gets trickier is with the new "associated party" terminology from the PL but that can't apply to us retroactively and no-one is going to claim the sponsorships aren't fair value now, I think.
Click to expand...

No they're not.

What's on trial here is the business model of the oil rich Gulf States, what the Premier League is basically saying is anything and everything coming out of that part of the world is related.

That's a big case to prove, the cartel clubs that run the game have bitten off more than they can chew.
 
The perfect fumble said:
because it disguises owner investment as income.

Say Sheikh Mansour wants to spend £500 million on a bunch of players, but can't because he can only spend a certain amount based on City's income, what does he do? He gets all his related party's to flush City's coffers with lots of juicy sponsorship deals and Bob's you Uncle, he's got his £500 million.
Click to expand...
which is true but even if it isnt related doesnt ffp have a thing about investment from any party being at market rate?
 
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