halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,945
Absolutely all this.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Absolutely all this.
Absolutely all this.
Jesus Christ! Not this again.
Though the CAS saved us, UEFA found us guilty of lying, in our audited accounts and various financial submissions to them, about the source of GBP 50 million annually such that we presented it as income that could legitimately be expended under the FFP rules on transfers and player wages among other things when those funds in fact constituted owner investment that couldn't be spent on those items under the rules.
That UEFA made such a determination is there in black and white in the CAS award. MCFC certainly considered that the allegations were tantamount to accusations of fraud on the part of the club: see point 13(a) of City's case reproduced in para 61 of the Award and point 48 of City's case reproduced in para 61 of the Award.
As for UEFA's view on the matter, on page 11, under the heading "Disciplinary measures", it's stated that MCFC's conduct constituted "a series of very serious breaches, over [a four-year period] which were committed intentionally and concealed". Moreover, when the club offered its defence to UEFA, it did so "putting forward a case that ADUG knew to be misleading". So they outright accused the club of systematic, dishonest conduct, and of lying about that conduct in an attempt "to circumvent the objectives of [UEFA's FFP] Regulations".
Thankfully the CAS stated many times (twelve, if I remember correctly) in its award there was "no evidence" of our having done what UEFA alleged we had. However, make no mistake, the allegation was that we lied and falsified our accounts to facilitate extra spending of GBP 50 per season.
The PL charges, as far as anyone can judge from information in the public domain, repeat the accusation. In particular, the PL's statement of charges featured the following allegation (reproduced from here, with the emphasis mine) that City have breached:
In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue) ...
The references in that accusation to the duty to act "in ... good faith" and to produce financial information giving a "true and fair view" in addition to the specific mention of "sponsorship revenue" suggests that the PL's charge is exactly the same as UEFA's in this regard. Those formulations really don't lend themselves to any other credible interpretation.
Below, I reproduce section 17 of the Theft Act 1968, which deals with the fraud-based offence of false accounting:
17 False accounting.
(1) Where a person dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another,—
(a) destroys, defaces, conceals or falsifies any account or any record or document made or required for any accounting purpose; or
(b) in furnishing information for any purpose produces or makes use of any account, or any such record or document as aforesaid, which to his knowledge is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular;
he shall, on conviction on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.
(2)For purposes of this section a person who makes or concurs in making in an account or other document an entry which is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, or who omits or concurs in omitting a material particular from an account or other document, is to be treated as falsifying the account or document.
We may have been vindicated by the CAS, but UEFA found MCFC as a club guilty of conduct that inevitably entailed the commission by individual officers and employees of the club of the offence under section 17 of the 1968 Act (see the summary of UEFA's case above) because they:
- would have had to have acted dishonestly (they're sophisticated businesspeople who fully understood UEFA's rules and, according to UEFA, knew what they were doing);
- would certainly have been acting with a view to gain ... for another (the other being the club, and such gain taking the form of allowing the club to spend £200 million that otherwise wouldn't have counted as income for FFP purposes, as referred to in para 206 of the CAS Award); and
- would have supplied various sets of accounts and other documents that were "misleading, false or deceptive" because they'd have provided documents including but not limited to our annual accounts that duped UEFA into thinking we had an extra £50 million available to us annually while still meeting the requirements of FFP.
I ultimately think it was outrageous for UEFA to put forward the case against us it did based on the evidence it had. Our club was dragged through the mud as a result, but more importantly it was a serious attempt to inflict serious, lasting damage on our club. Now the PL seems to be repeating the exercise, and, if it's putting forward a similar case, it needs calling out on that.
As it stands, the PL seems to be happy to throw around accusations of incendiary seriousness. And if the PL wants to act in such a way, we should be highlighting that rather than diminishing it. LET THE PL FUCKING OWN ITS CONDUCT.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,945
Jesus Christ! Not this again.
Though the CAS saved us, UEFA found us guilty of lying, in our audited accounts and various financial submissions to them, about the source of GBP 50 million annually such that we presented it as income that could legitimately be expended under the FFP rules on transfers and player wages among other things when those funds in fact constituted owner investment that couldn't be spent on those items under the rules.
That UEFA made such a determination is there in black and white in the CAS award. MCFC certainly considered that the allegations were tantamount to accusations of fraud on the part of the club: see point 13(a) of City's case reproduced in para 61 of the Award and point 48 of City's case reproduced in para 61 of the Award.
As for UEFA's view on the matter, on page 11, under the heading "Disciplinary measures", it's stated that MCFC's conduct constituted "a series of very serious breaches, over [a four-year period] which were committed intentionally and concealed". Moreover, when the club offered its defence to UEFA, it did so "putting forward a case that ADUG knew to be misleading". So they outright accused the club of systematic, dishonest conduct, and of lying about that conduct in an attempt "to circumvent the objectives of [UEFA's FFP] Regulations".
Thankfully the CAS stated many times (twelve, if I remember correctly) in its award there was "no evidence" of our having done what UEFA alleged we had. However, make no mistake, the allegation was that we lied and falsified our accounts to facilitate extra spending of GBP 50 per season.
The PL charges, as far as anyone can judge from information in the public domain, repeat the accusation. In particular, the PL's statement of charges featured the following allegation (reproduced from here, with the emphasis mine) that City have breached:
The references in that accusation to the duty to act "in ... good faith" and to produce financial information giving a "true and fair view" in addition to the specific mention of "sponsorship revenue" suggests that the PL's charge is exactly the same as UEFA's in this regard. Those formulations really don't lend themselves to any other credible interpretation.
Below, I reproduce section 17 of the Theft Act 1968, which deals with the fraud-based offence of false accounting:
We may have been vindicated by the CAS, but UEFA found MCFC as a club guilty of conduct that inevitably entailed the commission by individual officers and employees of the club of the offence under section 17 of the 1968 Act (see the summary of UEFA's case above) because they:
The wording of the PL's charges against MCFC clearly signpost that, again, we're in this territory. They're not likely to make insinuations with regard to bad-faith conduct and accounts not giving a true and fair view if all that's under discussion amounts to a legitimate difference of opinion as to how certain items should be accounted for under the relevant rules. The current media hysteria about the "charges" against us isn't due to them relating solely to accounting issues!
- would have had to have acted dishonestly (they're sophisticated businesspeople who fully understood UEFA's rules and, according to UEFA, knew what they were doing);
- would certainly have been acting with a view to gain ... for another (the other being the club, and such gain taking the form of allowing the club to spend £200 million that otherwise wouldn't have counted as income for FFP purposes, as referred to in para 206 of the CAS Award); and
- would have supplied various sets of accounts and other documents that were "misleading, false or deceptive" because they'd have provided documents including but not limited to our annual accounts that duped UEFA into thinking we had an extra £50 million available to us annually while still meeting the requirements of FFP.
I ultimately think it was outrageous for UEFA to put forward the case against us it did based on the evidence it had. Our club was dragged through the mud as a result, but more importantly it was a serious attempt to inflict serious, lasting damage on our club. Now the PL seems to be repeating the exercise, and, if it's putting forward a similar case, it needs calling out on that.
As it stands, the PL seems to be happy to throw around accusations of incendiary seriousness. And if the PL wants to act in such a way, we should be highlighting that rather than diminishing it. LET THE PL FUCKING OWN ITS CONDUCT.
:) Good to have you back.
Bloominmarvellous
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2023
- Messages
- 63
- Team supported
- Man utd
I don't for one minute think PL have any sort of smoking gun. I would go as far to say any evidence the PL have city will be well aware of as they will have supplied it.Lets face it, if the PL had some smoking gun or whistle blower the club would be fully aware of the situation by now. And if we were bang to rights there would be things happening now that would indicate a problem. For example we may look to offload players to secure market value transfer fees, key people at the club would be moving on to new roles outside of the club.
What we wouldn't be doing is spending money on redeveloping the stadium, that on its own makes me feel very confident about the future.
How do you respond specifically to what said by Prestwich blue ?Jesus Christ! Not this again.
Though the CAS saved us, UEFA found us guilty of lying, in our audited accounts and various financial submissions to them, about the source of GBP 50 million annually such that we presented it as income that could legitimately be expended under the FFP rules on transfers and player wages among other things when those funds in fact constituted owner investment that couldn't be spent on those items under the rules.
That UEFA made such a determination is there in black and white in the CAS award. MCFC certainly considered that the allegations were tantamount to accusations of fraud on the part of the club: see point 13(a) of City's case reproduced in para 61 of the Award and point 48 of City's case reproduced in para 61 of the Award.
As for UEFA's view on the matter, on page 11, under the heading "Disciplinary measures", it's stated that MCFC's conduct constituted "a series of very serious breaches, over [a four-year period] which were committed intentionally and concealed". Moreover, when the club offered its defence to UEFA, it did so "putting forward a case that ADUG knew to be misleading". So they outright accused the club of systematic, dishonest conduct, and of lying about that conduct in an attempt "to circumvent the objectives of [UEFA's FFP] Regulations".
Thankfully the CAS stated many times (twelve, if I remember correctly) in its award there was "no evidence" of our having done what UEFA alleged we had. However, make no mistake, the allegation was that we lied and falsified our accounts to facilitate extra spending of GBP 50 per season.
The PL charges, as far as anyone can judge from information in the public domain, repeat the accusation. In particular, the PL's statement of charges featured the following allegation (reproduced from here, with the emphasis mine) that City have breached:
The references in that accusation to the duty to act "in ... good faith" and to produce financial information giving a "true and fair view" in addition to the specific mention of "sponsorship revenue" suggests that the PL's charge is exactly the same as UEFA's in this regard. Those formulations really don't lend themselves to any other credible interpretation.
Below, I reproduce section 17 of the Theft Act 1968, which deals with the fraud-based offence of false accounting:
We may have been vindicated by the CAS, but UEFA found MCFC as a club guilty of conduct that inevitably entailed the commission by individual officers and employees of the club of the offence under section 17 of the 1968 Act (see the summary of UEFA's case above) because they:
The wording of the PL's charges against MCFC clearly signpost that, again, we're in this territory. They're not likely to make insinuations with regard to bad-faith conduct and accounts not giving a true and fair view if all that's under discussion amounts to a legitimate difference of opinion as to how certain items should be accounted for under the relevant rules. The current media hysteria about the "charges" against us isn't due to them relating solely to accounting issues!
- would have had to have acted dishonestly (they're sophisticated businesspeople who fully understood UEFA's rules and, according to UEFA, knew what they were doing);
- would certainly have been acting with a view to gain ... for another (the other being the club, and such gain taking the form of allowing the club to spend £200 million that otherwise wouldn't have counted as income for FFP purposes, as referred to in para 206 of the CAS Award); and
- would have supplied various sets of accounts and other documents that were "misleading, false or deceptive" because they'd have provided documents including but not limited to our annual accounts that duped UEFA into thinking we had an extra £50 million available to us annually while still meeting the requirements of FFP.
I ultimately think it was outrageous for UEFA to put forward the case against us it did based on the evidence it had. Our club was dragged through the mud as a result, but more importantly it was a serious attempt to inflict serious, lasting damage on our club. Now the PL seems to be repeating the exercise, and, if it's putting forward a similar case, it needs calling out on that.
As it stands, the PL seems to be happy to throw around accusations of incendiary seriousness. And if the PL wants to act in such a way, we should be highlighting that rather than diminishing it. LET THE PL FUCKING OWN ITS CONDUCT.
How do you respond specifically to what said by Prestwich blue ?
I don't.
jimmygrimblesboots
Well-Known Member
My comment was to compare real world business with the fantasy world of football , no doubt we have signed up to rules and regulations , surprised clubs like Barca and Real and oursleves have not tested FFP in court , it would be interesting to see that outcome.I don’t believe we have but regardless of the rights or wrongs of the rules and any comparisons with rules in other businesses (the world as you call it ) you cannot break the rules you sign up to.
However my main point and the main discussion on here over recent pages have been about cooking the books fraud etc that seems to be what we are accused of that is wrong in both football and the business / real world regardless of the reasons be it to pass FFP etc
The Premier league have bitten off more than they can chew , if they are accusing us of fraud they are going have to gather some compelling evidence not just from our accounts but also our multi-national corporate businesses who are our partners , i dont think any of our sponsors would be willing to open their books to the Premier league and very much doubt they could leagally demand to do this unless again they have compelling evidence. Personally i think this is a fishing expediton by Masters and his cronies , throw 155 charges at us and see how many stick.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,945
This is where I diverge slightly from Stefan's somewhat apocalyptic view that we're effectively being accused of fraudulent accounting and therefore expulsion from the PL and criminal charges are a potential outcome. I'm not sure that follows necessarily but I'm not an expert so he may well be correct. He definitely knows there's a fine line.
Accounting can often be a matter of interpretation as to how you show something and there can sometimes be a fine line between interpretation and deception. Accountancy at its heart requires being prudent about assets, liabilities, revenue and expenses. Don't undervalue expenses/liabilities and don't overvalue revenue/assets.
Valuation of stock is a classic example. The higher you value your stock in hand, the higher your reported profit. Companies are supposed to value stock at the lower of cost or net realisable value. So if you buy something for £100 and plan to sell it for £200, the stock value of that item should be £100. But if you'd had that item for sale for a while, and it had been superseded by a newer version, you might just want to get rid of it for £75, which should be its NRV and the value shown in the accounts. However you might leave it at £100. That's not necessarily 'true and fair' but it's not fraudulent either. It's an opinion. I used to do the audit of a brickworks in Little Lever and there were hundreds of thousands of bricks in stock that had to be valued. You couldn't count them and you certainly couldn't look at each one and estimate its NRV. And they were made there, not bought in so you made a best guess as to the total value of the stock. It may have been overvalued but that was the best we could do, as long as we could justify it.
At Wirecard my former KPMG colleague, Markus Braun, put $1.9bn of cash on the balance sheet that they didn't have. My former bosses at Independent Insurance deliberately withheld large claims from the system, thereby reporting profits that were actually significant losses. The software company Autonomy, who used to sponsor Spurs, are alleged to have claimed revenues on potential contracts they hadn't actually signed (among other things) leading HP to pay an inflated price when they they bought them.
So what could we have done? Have we inflated the value of sponsorships? No, at least according to UEFA/CAS. Was the Mancini contract an attempt to hide expenses? Unlikely but even if it was, it was a pin prick given the losses we were reporting. Did we attempt to deceive anyone over the players' image rights payments? No, as there was a clear trail to Fordham.
And who are we alleged to have committed fraud against? We were privately owned by Sheikh Mansour for the whole period under charges. Silverlake bought in in 2019, whereas the charges only cover the period to 2018. There's our auditors and other advisers potentially but have they (or anyone else) lost anything if we did? No. So who's the victim (don't say it!) here?
At worst, we've submitted potentially inaccurate accounts to the PL, which might impact our FFP position but (unless this 'fraud' is far more extensive than we think) definitely not the PL's Profit & Sustainability Rules.
Question, PB. In your view, do the auditors have to review the funding of a sponsorship to be able to give a true and fair view in the accounts? Or do the directors have to disclose what they know about the funding of a sponsorship to the auditors as part of their responsibilities?
I am still struggling with how it can be wrong to record a fair value contract which has been completely fulfilled by the company, and completely paid by the sponsor, as income. no matter how it was funded. I am also struggling to see how recording part of that fair value sponsorship contract as an equity injection, in the case it was part funded by the owner of the company, could improve the true and fair view given by the accounts, especially when shareholder sponsorship is allowed elsewhere. To my mind, leaving out a properly contracted and fulfilled fair value income stream does the exact opposite.
Any thoughts?
Colin, don't take my word for it. Just read CAS. The consequences of the Independent Commission finding against us are similar to those had CAS found against us.This is where I diverge slightly from Stefan's somewhat apocalyptic view that we're effectively being accused of fraudulent accounting and therefore expulsion from the PL and criminal charges are a potential outcome. I'm not sure that follows necessarily but I'm not an expert so he may well be correct. He definitely knows there's a fine line.
Accounting can often be a matter of interpretation as to how you show something and there can sometimes be a fine line between interpretation and deception. Accountancy at its heart requires being prudent about assets, liabilities, revenue and expenses. Don't undervalue expenses/liabilities and don't overvalue revenue/assets.
Valuation of stock is a classic example. The higher you value your stock in hand, the higher your reported profit. Companies are supposed to value stock at the lower of cost or net realisable value. So if you buy something for £100 and plan to sell it for £200, the stock value of that item should be £100. But if you'd had that item for sale for a while, and it had been superseded by a newer version, you might just want to get rid of it for £75, which should be its NRV and the value shown in the accounts. However you might leave it at £100. That's not necessarily 'true and fair' but it's not fraudulent either. It's an opinion. I used to do the audit of a brickworks in Little Lever and there were hundreds of thousands of bricks in stock that had to be valued. You couldn't count them and you certainly couldn't look at each one and estimate its NRV. And they were made there, not bought in so you made a best guess as to the total value of the stock. It may have been overvalued but that was the best we could do, as long as we could justify it.
At Wirecard my former KPMG colleague, Markus Braun, put $1.9bn of cash on the balance sheet that they didn't have. My former bosses at Independent Insurance deliberately withheld large claims from the system, thereby reporting profits that were actually significant losses. The software company Autonomy, who used to sponsor Spurs, are alleged to have claimed revenues on potential contracts they hadn't actually signed (among other things) leading HP to pay an inflated price when they they bought them.
So what could we have done? Have we inflated the value of sponsorships? No, at least according to UEFA/CAS. Was the Mancini contract an attempt to hide expenses? Unlikely but even if it was, it was a pin prick given the losses we were reporting. Did we attempt to deceive anyone over the players' image rights payments? No, as there was a clear trail to Fordham.
And who are we alleged to have committed fraud against? We were privately owned by Sheikh Mansour for the whole period under charges. Silverlake bought in in 2019, whereas the charges only cover the period to 2018. There's our auditors and other advisers potentially but have they (or anyone else) lost anything if we did? No. So who's the victim (don't say it!) here?
At worst, we've submitted potentially inaccurate accounts to the PL, which might impact our FFP position but (unless this 'fraud' is far more extensive than we think) definitely not the PL's Profit & Sustainability Rules
City themselves argued that the consequences of a finding against them was "that a finding that Etihad’s sponsorship contributions were funded, or procured to be funded, by HHSM and/or ADUG would require a conclusion that the evidence of several high-ranking officials of large international commercial enterprises …were false and that at least Mr Hogan if not Mr Pearce would be subject to criminal sanctions." (see page 72 of CAS). Their words not mine.
Likewise, there really is no question that the allegations in respect of the sponsorship contracts amount to an allegation of accounting fraud. They are alleging the revenue (and profits) from the sponsorship contracts incorporated in our accounts are, in essence, fake. It is that simple. Again, don't take my word for it. City's own skeleton argument said "The allegations made by the CFCB in these proceedings are serious and based on fraud and conspiracy involving MCFC, ADUG and the sponsors Etisalat and Etihad." (see extract on page 24 of CAS). Their argument not mine.
Most of the rest of the analysis is not hugely applicable here - these aren't allegations of subjective interpretations of the accounting standards. I've been involved in those cases professionally for years including successfully defending a 7 year SFO investigation, potential class actions and other claims. I can tell the difference.
I would definitely agree that the Mancini situation seems highly improbable given the sums involved. And Fordham was public so I don't see that being the main issue. But on the sponsorships, don't listen to me, listen to City themselves. CAS should give us some comfort but the amount evidence in play with the IC will be very different because we know UEFA tried to rely on a handful of documents. That was always hopeless for such serious allegations. Serious allegations require serious proof in the form of cogent evidence.
I have always thought it a problem where a single body runs a competition and also acts as the regulator. UEFA are the past masters at manipulating the rules to change the relative fortunes of clubs in their competitions. The PL is following suit. The independent regulator is a must.Our response will always be the same which is that we've complied with all legal process and as a result we haven't done anything wrong. The Premier League can't just create rules on what is good and bad on non-sporting issues because who are they to say otherwise? The rules can actually be deemed as damaging because punishments can harm clubs financially and this is where it will always be defeated in court, especially if it isn't done fairly and independently.
Everton were punished because they broke the rules but it's easy to prove that the punishment is ridiculous and actually stupid. Everton exceeded FFP by £20m and because of league position payouts their 10pt deduction could be worth far more than that, that's how stupid it is. Instead the Premier League is punishing them and making the problem even worse, it hardly saves clubs from going bust does it?
City can easily argue anything like this on the grounds of fairness. I know it's different but look at Real Madrid and Barcelona who are still going for a Super League and they haven't been punished. They haven't been punished because the Spanish courts have ruled that UEFA isn't allowed to punish them and so UEFA has no choice but to comply.
The emails etc aren't admissible in court so you can bet that they aren't admissible in an investigation conducted by a non-legal entity like the Premier League. The Premier League is actually just a company, it has no business really investigating other companies and handing out punishments for anything.
Eric Hitchmough
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2015
- Messages
- 4,491
Your insight is always appreciated, Stefan. Even though I always come away feeling like we’re absolutely fucked!Colin, don't take my word for it. Just read CAS. The consequences of the Independent Commission finding against us are similar to those had CAS found against us.
City themselves argued that the consequences of a finding against them was "that a finding that Etihad’s sponsorship contributions were funded, or procured to be funded, by HHSM and/or ADUG would require a conclusion that the evidence of several high-ranking officials of large international commercial enterprises …were false and that at least Mr Hogan if not Mr Pearce would be subject to criminal sanctions." (see page 72 of CAS). Their words not mine.
Likewise, there really is no question that the allegations in respect of the sponsorship contracts amount to an allegation of accounting fraud. They are alleging the revenue (and profits) from the sponsorship contracts incorporated in our accounts are, in essence, fake. It is that simple. Again, don't take my word for it. City's own skeleton argument said "The allegations made by the CFCB in these proceedings are serious and based on fraud and conspiracy involving MCFC, ADUG and the sponsors Etisalat and Etihad." (see extract on page 24 of CAS). Their argument not mine.
Most of the rest of the analysis is not hugely applicable here - these aren't allegations of subjective interpretations of the accounting standards. I've been involved in those cases professionally for years including successfully defending a 7 year SFO investigation, potential class actions and other claims. I can tell the difference.
I would definitely agree that the Mancini situation seems highly improbable given the sums involved. And Fordham was public so I don't see that being the main issue. But on the sponsorships, don't listen to me, listen to City themselves. CAS should give us some comfort but the amount evidence in play with the IC will be very different because we know UEFA tried to rely on a handful of documents. That was always hopeless for such serious allegations. Serious allegations require serious proof in the form of cogent evidence.
Mancini was not there. Don’t believe all you read in the papers!I thought he was invited over to watch us play. We were playing shite so he was offered the job at half time by khaldoon. Who then text Hughes to tell him he was sacked and to clear his desk after the game? Well that’s the way the media portrayed it anyway!
Norman kneejerk
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2011
- Messages
- 1,524
Some tremendous quality contributions on here, genuinely a privilege to read them..
I'm hanging in there with the legal and accounting points with a reasonable grasp but one thing I would like to know is at what point will city get to know what the evidence of these alleged frauds, fictitious sponsorships actually is.
Is it a case of going to the hearing and waiting to see what they come up with or must everything be declared in advance so you have a good idea what is going to be said.
I'm guessing it's the latter but there must be adequate time scales I suppose.
Without getting into too much detail when will city know all this?
I'm hanging in there with the legal and accounting points with a reasonable grasp but one thing I would like to know is at what point will city get to know what the evidence of these alleged frauds, fictitious sponsorships actually is.
Is it a case of going to the hearing and waiting to see what they come up with or must everything be declared in advance so you have a good idea what is going to be said.
I'm guessing it's the latter but there must be adequate time scales I suppose.
Without getting into too much detail when will city know all this?
Let’s just say the IC decide on the balance of probability the City sponsorship and revenues are fake. The most serious verdict they could reach. Let’s also say they decide City should be expelled from the Premier League, not a points deduction or fine, but expulsion.Colin, don't take my word for it. Just read CAS. The consequences of the Independent Commission finding against us are similar to those had CAS found against us.
City themselves argued that the consequences of a finding against them was "that a finding that Etihad’s sponsorship contributions were funded, or procured to be funded, by HHSM and/or ADUG would require a conclusion that the evidence of several high-ranking officials of large international commercial enterprises …were false and that at least Mr Hogan if not Mr Pearce would be subject to criminal sanctions." (see page 72 of CAS). Their words not mine.
Likewise, there really is no question that the allegations in respect of the sponsorship contracts amount to an allegation of accounting fraud. They are alleging the revenue (and profits) from the sponsorship contracts incorporated in our accounts are, in essence, fake. It is that simple. Again, don't take my word for it. City's own skeleton argument said "The allegations made by the CFCB in these proceedings are serious and based on fraud and conspiracy involving MCFC, ADUG and the sponsors Etisalat and Etihad." (see extract on page 24 of CAS). Their argument not mine.
Most of the rest of the analysis is not hugely applicable here - these aren't allegations of subjective interpretations of the accounting standards. I've been involved in those cases professionally for years including successfully defending a 7 year SFO investigation, potential class actions and other claims. I can tell the difference.
I would definitely agree that the Mancini situation seems highly improbable given the sums involved. And Fordham was public so I don't see that being the main issue. But on the sponsorships, don't listen to me, listen to City themselves. CAS should give us some comfort but the amount evidence in play with the IC will be very different because we know UEFA tried to rely on a handful of documents. That was always hopeless for such serious allegations. Serious allegations require serious proof in the form of cogent evidence.
As City would no longer be part of the EPL could the club then sue the EPL for taking this step to in effect should down a huge business?
Expulsion would in effect render the club stateless, Rick Parry the EPLs Trojan Horse at the EFL has already indicated City should not expect a place in the EFL if they are expelled.
I guess this is the doomsday scenario for City but I firmly believe it’s what the EPL want.
The parties will swap documents and will know the case they have to answer with some detail. And it is not for City to prove anything. It is for the PL to prove it.Some tremendous quality contributions on here, genuinely a privilege to read them..
I'm hanging in there with the legal and accounting points with a reasonable grasp but one thing I would like to know is at what point will city get to know what the evidence of these alleged frauds, fictitious sponsorships actually is.
Is it a case of going to the hearing and waiting to see what they come up with or must everything be declared in advance so you have a good idea what is going to be said.
I'm guessing it's the latter but there must be adequate time scales I suppose.
Without getting into too much detail when will city know all this?
No - if it is all proven and all appeals/challenges are exhausted the club won't be suing anyoneLet’s just say the IC decide on the balance of probability the City sponsorship and revenues are fake. The most serious verdict they could reach. Let’s also say they decide City should be expelled from the Premier League, not a points deduction or fine, but expulsion.
As City would no longer be part of the EPL could the club then sue the EPL for taking this step to in effect should down a huge business?
Expulsion would in effect render the club stateless, Rick Parry the EPLs Trojan Horse at the EFL has already indicated City should not expect a place in the EFL if they are expelled.
I guess this is the doomsday scenario for City but I firmly believe it’s what the EPL want.
think I expected that answer Stefan, my concern and of others is this IC will be a kangaroo court and City will be found guilty because that’s the desired outcome. Irrespective of irrefutable evidence to the contrary or lack of a smoking gun from the EPL.No - if it is all proven and all appeals/challenges are exhausted the club won't be suing anyone
Exeter Blue I am here
Well-Known Member
Am I right in thinking we not only declined to hand over requested documents to UEFA, but also, after they asked for them, CAS, who then decided of their volition to proceed without them……or did we only give CAS some of what they asked for, or something like that?Colin, don't take my word for it. Just read CAS. The consequences of the Independent Commission finding against us are similar to those had CAS found against us.
City themselves argued that the consequences of a finding against them was "that a finding that Etihad’s sponsorship contributions were funded, or procured to be funded, by HHSM and/or ADUG would require a conclusion that the evidence of several high-ranking officials of large international commercial enterprises …were false and that at least Mr Hogan if not Mr Pearce would be subject to criminal sanctions." (see page 72 of CAS). Their words not mine.
Likewise, there really is no question that the allegations in respect of the sponsorship contracts amount to an allegation of accounting fraud. They are alleging the revenue (and profits) from the sponsorship contracts incorporated in our accounts are, in essence, fake. It is that simple. Again, don't take my word for it. City's own skeleton argument said "The allegations made by the CFCB in these proceedings are serious and based on fraud and conspiracy involving MCFC, ADUG and the sponsors Etisalat and Etihad." (see extract on page 24 of CAS). Their argument not mine.
Most of the rest of the analysis is not hugely applicable here - these aren't allegations of subjective interpretations of the accounting standards. I've been involved in those cases professionally for years including successfully defending a 7 year SFO investigation, potential class actions and other claims. I can tell the difference.
I would definitely agree that the Mancini situation seems highly improbable given the sums involved. And Fordham was public so I don't see that being the main issue. But on the sponsorships, don't listen to me, listen to City themselves. CAS should give us some comfort but the amount evidence in play with the IC will be very different because we know UEFA tried to rely on a handful of documents. That was always hopeless for such serious allegations. Serious allegations require serious proof in the form of cogent evidence.
If that was the case then it doesn’t exactly give me a warm fuzzy feeling that this time the tribunal will be dealing with a full deck, including the cards we declined to produce last time around!
Or have I imagined all of that?!
dadnlad
Well-Known Member
you can see whats coming from whatsapp group " what have these multi nation organisations got to hide why wont they open books for kangroo court "My comment was to compare real world business with the fantasy world of football , no doubt we have signed up to rules and regulations , surprised clubs like Barca and Real and oursleves have not tested FFP in court , it would be interesting to see that outcome.
The Premier league have bitten off more than they can chew , if they are accusing us of fraud they are going have to gather some compelling evidence not just from our accounts but also our multi-national corporate businesses who are our partners , i dont think any of our sponsors would be willing to open their books to the Premier league and very much doubt they could leagally demand to do this unless again they have compelling evidence. Personally i think this is a fishing expediton by Masters and his cronies , throw 155 charges at us and see how many stick.