PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Keeper! said:
If you have paid him a pound off the books or a million, you have evaded tax payments and your accounts are not accurate.\
But it's irrelevant in that we don't even know this is one of the charges.
Click to expand...
It’s a breach either way, but the amount of money involved is absolutely critical to the gravity (and implications) of the offence.
 
mcfcphil said:
It’s a breach either way, but the amount of money involved is absolutely critical to the gravity (and implications) of the offence.
Click to expand...
Were we really that stupid to take a couple of million quid off the books?

Wow if we were to be found guilty because of that it would be the greatest own goal ever.
 
Dribble said:
The issue there is auditors can only act on the information supplied, which we attest is a true & fair reflection.

Having said that, City would be blummin stupid to commit overt financial fraud in the UK, unlike ManUre who reregistered their company in a tax haven.

Again, this comes down to sovereign law & the rules of a private members club.

Flushing the loo after a dump might be a club rule, but it's not UK Law. That's as far as I can see this going.
Click to expand...

Auditors though are entitled to see everything a company has and if they ask for something and do not get satisfaction that creates a big problem.

Of course, the auditors cannot see off the books transactions (should they exist) but nor can the EPL.
 
Keeper! said:
Were we really that stupid to take a couple of million quid off the books?

Wow if we were to be found guilty because of that it would be the greatest own goal ever.
Click to expand...
You would hope not.
But without Mancini taking to the stand and saying he took payments off the books then it really is irrelevant, no matter what the figures involved are.
 
mancboy said:
What i dont understand is and maybe im being incredibly dim here but if it was off the books, how has it found its way into our accounting period and been reported on?
Click to expand...
I love the idea of some of the world’s most successful, powerful and influential businessmen pulling such a stupid scam and leaving a paper trail so obvious that even the goons at the PL couldn’t miss it.
 
Keeper! said:
To be fair the amount of money is irrelevant, allegedly paying off the books is not a good look and arouses suspicion.
Click to expand...
Yes but it's about intent as well. The oft-quoted £1.45m was Mancini's basic initial salary with us. He also got bonuses that increased that significantly, at least by a factor of 3 even in his first full season, when we won the FA Cup and qualified for the CL. By the time we won the league, he was on about 8 times that.

So why would we need to pay him £1.75m under the table?
 
citizen_maine said:
Would we have made a statement that we can refute the charges if they hadn't?
Click to expand...
We received 131 charges, 16 of which didn't belong, with several others having to be amended for being incorrect, which suggests the charges were rushed to meet the governments independent football regulator announcement head on.

Based on the charges, I'd imagine City would've perused them, & arrived at the conclusion that we have an irrefutable body of evidence.

The language isn't crystal clear, but we could assume City have provided evidence to the PL who believe we've a case to answer. They've charged us & left it in the hands of their independent panel to go over the charges, evidence, defence & the PL's regulatory procedure.

It's all a bit cloak & dagger, but this might make the mud a bit clearer.

In the Premier League rules, it says proceedings before an independent commission will be confidential and heard in private. We will not know anything about it.

Then, according to the Premier League rules, the commission's final award will be published on the Premier League's website. So we have no indication how long this will take, we will not be able to report on what is happening and we will only find out the final decision when it's published on the Premier League's website.
Click to expand...

This is probably why few know what's happening. As opposed to the leaky PL, it seems the independent panel & City are conducting precedings in private, but no one knows exactly how long this will take or where we're currently up to.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Yes but it's about intent as well. The oft-quoted £1.45m was Mancini's basic initial salary with us. He also got bonuses that increased that significantly, at least by a factor of 3 even in his first full season, when we won the FA Cup and qualified for the CL. By the time we won the league, he was on about 8 times that.

So why would we need to pay him £1.75m under the table?
Click to expand...
Totally agree, 1.75m is peanuts for a major club and amount that simply does not make sense to keep off the books.
 
Dribble said:
The issue there is auditors can only act on the information supplied, which we attest is a true & fair reflection.

Having said that, City would be blummin stupid to commit overt financial fraud in the UK, unlike ManUre who reregistered their company in a tax haven.

Again, this comes down to sovereign law & the rules of a private members club.

Flushing the loo after a dump might be a club rule, but it's not UK Law. That's as far as I can see this going.
Click to expand...
By "act on the information supplied" I hope you mean assert the validity of the reported information AND detect any suspicious data as well as uncover and report on any irregularities. An independent audit is not some exercise in rubber stamping reported data. If City were perpetrating fraud of this magnitude any high-end accounting firm would have been expected to uncover these irregularities in the course of their audit, let alone over a period of 10 years. So, yes, the PL would be ascertaining that the Auditors were incompetent or "in on it" which adds massively to the ridiculousness of the charges...

JMO (I've been a CPA since 1990 and a Director of Finance since 1998)
 
swinton blue said:
I don't know how 4 clubs can sue
Surely it can be only one. Considering you can make a loss of 105mil over 3 years Surely you only break that rule in the third year. For all we know Everton could have won the league in the third year and wiped out an losses in the last 2. Hence the team that finished 18th after the 3 years have a case but no one else
Click to expand...
there should be no allowance of losses, all it does is allow clubs to gamble over a three year period.
 
CC1 said:
Things like this should definitely be tackled by the club. Trouble with media is that it “employs” people related to football - such as ex players - who frankly, are uneducated & it shows. I’m not saying they are thick but they don’t have the knowledge, background, education or experience to offer comments. Yet they are put into these situations that give them an uninformed voice
Click to expand...
One consequence of this when it's all over is that I would like our owners to select one individual and ruin them. I'm talking Pickfords moving what little shit they have left out of their salubrious home to some fucking sink estate whilst they watch with their crying wife and kids, who want to know why he didn't keep his flapping gums shut. Just one.
 
Judge Roughneck said:
One consequence of this when it's all over is that I would like our owners to select one individual and ruin them. I'm talking Pickfords moving what little shit they have left out of their salubrious home to some fucking sink estate whilst they watch with their crying wife and kids, who want to know why he didn't keep his flapping gums shut. Just one.
Click to expand...
i am on board with that idea
 
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