PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

So effectively as I've mentioned a few times these Three people alone can ruin a £5 Billion company. Seems hard to believe if true.
It would be a minimum of 6 people - if City appealed, a new panel would be formed to hear that appeal.

Whether it’s 6,3 or even 1 is irrelevant though - these are serious people forming the panel and are not going to find in the PLs favour unless they prevent something explosive that City can’t defend.

But even if we examine the reality of a kangaroo court as people constantly panic about, say that what City put up is truly incontrovertible and the panel finds against the club anyway - off the record, City would be fucking delighted as it’s basically the only route outside of the PL environment to an external court which is where the club have always argued this should be handled.
 
So the PL are implicitly accusing BDO (world renowed auditors) of being either incompetent or complicit in false accounting. In addition they are implicitly accusing Etihad Airways accountants (KPMG and Deloitte) of being either incompetent or complicit in false accounting.
No they are not.

Auditors only review what is put infront of them.
 
It would be a minimum of 6 people - if City appealed, a new panel would be formed to hear that appeal.

Whether it’s 6,3 or even 1 is irrelevant though - these are serious people forming the panel and are not going to find in the PLs favour unless they prevent something explosive that City can’t defend.

But even if we examine the reality of a kangaroo court as people constantly panic about, say that what City put up is truly incontrovertible and the panel finds against the club anyway - off the record, City would be fucking delighted as it’s basically the only route outside of the PL environment to an external court which is where the club have always argued this should be handled.
Wow
Look who's back...!!
you must be bored ?
You still haven't told us who your team is ?
 
So for example if we looked at the Norwich accounts for one year and demanded precise details of how, when, why funds received from the Norfolk Turkey company ended up in the Norwich accounts. And let's say it transpires one of the directors of the Turkey company was a cousin of Delia Smith ! Bingo false accounting, disguised equity funding, throw the book at them.
Bootiful!
 
It would be a minimum of 6 people - if City appealed, a new panel would be formed to hear that appeal.

Whether it’s 6,3 or even 1 is irrelevant though - these are serious people forming the panel and are not going to find in the PLs favour unless they prevent something explosive that City can’t defend.

But even if we examine the reality of a kangaroo court as people constantly panic about, say that what City put up is truly incontrovertible and the panel finds against the club anyway - off the record, City would be fucking delighted as it’s basically the only route outside of the PL environment to an external court which is where the club have always argued this should be handled.
this was Everton's 3 man panel
David Phillips KC, judge Alan Greenwood and West Ham's ex-finance director Nick Igoe (who was CFO during their accounting scandal???)

I've no idea why Nick Igoe was allowed on the panel
 
Here's an interesting one about both City and Everton (but mostly Everton I guess). It's a cutting from May 1998 which basically compares City and Everton and says City’s future looks bright because the club is getting itself in shape for the future. It suggests Everton could learn from City – even though we were in the middle of their greatest descent in football history! To be frank, it was accurate and is something that maybe a few Evertonians need to be reminded of.

The article was published in the Liverpool Echo in May 1998

 
this was Everton's 3 man panel
David Phillips KC, judge Alan Greenwood and West Ham's ex-finance director Nick Igoe (who was CFO during their accounting scandal???)

I've no idea why Nick Igoe was allowed on the panel
When Utd and LFC had their match fixing scandal United's solicitor was on the panel investigating United! He found the club did nothing wrong and never bothered to interview key people because he 'trusted them'. Football hey?

I go into a lot of detail about it in an article I wrote a while back for subscribers to my website:
 
Of course there is, it's called history. Has the fact that it was revealed 20 years ago flown over your head?
tbh id say theres plenty of that stuff kicking about today, its like i was saying about corruption yesterday why isnt their the same level of forensic level accounting into the other 19 clubs as im almost 100% certain you would find a few of the same things at other clubs.
 
When Utd and LFC had their match fixing scandal United's solicitor was on the panel investigating United! He found the club did nothing wrong and never bothered to interview key people because he 'trusted them'. Football hey?

I go into a lot of detail about it in an article I wrote a while back for subscribers to my website:

Interesting now we know that nothing is now time barred.
 
No were not operated like that, but it's fundamental to the never ending smear campaign that lies like that are repeated...

the reality is somewhat different...

e.g. From the MCFC Annual Report (2010-2011) [1], the Auditors BDO [2] stated this :-

"Opinion on financial statements

In our opinion the financial statements:

Give a true and fair view of the state of the Group’s and the Company’s affairs as at 31 May 2011 and of the Group’s loss for the year then ended;
Have been properly prepared in accordance with United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice;
Have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006."


So the PL are implicitly accusing BDO (world renowed auditors) of being either incompetent or complicit in false accounting. In addition they are implicitly accusing Etihad Airways accountants (KPMG and Deloitte) of being either incompetent or complicit in false accounting.

Refs
Great post mate
 
What is the standard of proof?

The standard of proof applied by independent panel will be the balance of probabilities. This means that the tribunal will need to consider whether it is more likely than not that City have committed the conduct alleged against them.
I am in no way legal so probably gonna show my naivity here and it is likely to just be the nuance of language but “the balance of probabilities” does not fill me with confidence.

Seems like you don’t need absolute proof that City did X & Y but just need to be able to say the City probably did X & Y.
 
Last edited:
I am in no way legal so probably gonna show my nativity here and it is likely to just be the nuance of language but “the balance of probabilities” does not fill me with confidence.

Seems like you don’t need absolute proof that City did X & Y but just need to be able to say the City probably did X & Y.
if the level of proof they currently hold relates to around 6 emails on the balance of probabilities literally every company on this planet is guilty of dodgy dealing to some extent, its the same as someone skying a penalty and then going well if hed hit it ten foot lower and on target then hed probably have scored a goal, which while factually true doesnt mean you're giving the goal.
 
tbh id say theres plenty of that stuff kicking about today, its like i was saying about corruption yesterday why isnt their the same level of forensic level accounting into the other 19 clubs as im almost 100% certain you would find a few of the same things at other clubs.
We can blame that wrong 'un Pinto for us being in the dock. Without him and those cunts over at Der Spackel, it would never have come to this.

But yeah, you're right about other clubs not being subject to the same level of scrutiny. As Liam Gallagher put it - "You investigate one, you investigate all"
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top