PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[jim tolmies perm]

Chelsea are getting increasingly creative / desperate to get out of their PSR bind. This exclusive has gone viral for Stefan

And people try to call us bent? Fucking Chav/yank weasels

 

[jimmygrimblesboots]

Half a dozen ? I didn’t realise there were that many. The sponsorship income, Mancini’s salary? CFG transfers, non cooperation. What are the others?

We ran out of chips for the Newcastle home game a couple of seasons ago and Klippety complained our goal lines were to wide in 2019 , keep up :)

 

[ganganvince]

And people try to call us bent? Fucking Chav/yank weasels

At least they did/do own the land other clubs spend millions on not building a new ground on land they don't own

 

[jim tolmies perm]

At least they did/do own the land other clubs spend millions on not building a new ground on land they don't own

Even billions, with help from crooks such as our owner ;)

 

[Cobwebcat]

 

[Asa's left peg]

Surprised at Stefan. There is obviously nothing to see here - move on. Everyone else will.

 

[Asa's left peg]

Chelsea are getting increasingly creative / desperate to get out of their PSR bind. This exclusive has gone viral for Stefan

How very Real Madrid!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

One of the rules in question relates to the provision of audited accounts that give a true and fair view. That can only really mean the statutory accounts filed at Companies House. I am 100% sure we have filed accounts and provided them to the PL, so they must be saying those accounts are incorrect.

Incredible, really.

And my guess would be that they're claiming we've overstated sponsorship income, and that we should only have recorded the £8m Etihad provided rather than the £50+m that Etihad were given from central Abu Dhabi funds.

I assume they're saying that latter figure should have been recorded as equity, which is utterly bizarre. As long as the additional money didn't come from ADUG then it's none of their business. The evidence presented at CAS proved pretty comprehensively that the funds didn't come from ADUG.

 

[halfcenturyup]

And my guess would be that they're claiming we've overstated sponsorship income, and that we should only have recorded the £8m Etihad provided rather than the £50+m that Etihad were given from central Abu Dhabi funds.

I assume they're saying that latter figure should have been recorded as equity, which is utterly bizarre. As long as the additional money didn't come from ADUG then it's none of their business. The evidence presented at CAS proved pretty comprehensively that the funds didn't come from ADUG.

Yep. That's the only issue the "filing accounts that don't show a true and fair view" allegation can come from.

One accountant to another, PB, is it really an issue from the "true and fair view" standpoint even if Mansour topped up the sponsorship if it was at fair value, services provided and paid in full?

I get the point about circumventing the PL rules, if it did happen (which, of course, it didn't), but from a purely accounting view point - fair value, services provided for value, paid in full - would you sign off those accounts knowing Mansour part-funded the sponsorship? Would you restate the accounts to show a part equity injection? Or would you just require a note disclosure?

I have never been sure this falsified accounts allegation makes any sense.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Not true at all. Lots to see not least that it is unlikely the property transaction have the necessary "genuine commercial rationale". Regardless the THREE MILLION views in 12 hours suggests a lot of interest and plenty to see.

Think he was ironically suggesting that the PL will turn a blind eye.

 

[discopop]

Not true at all. Lots to see not least that it is unlikely the property transaction have the necessary "genuine commercial rationale". Regardless the THREE MILLION views in 12 hours suggests a lot of interest and plenty to see.

You really do need an irony alert Stefan

 

[BAB.DAB]

Quoting the Mail in order to prove a point maybe isn't the way to go :(

mail got it from sky sports news, is that the way go

 

[halfcenturyup]

Well if it's all legal they found the loop hole that will let them spend again this summer! Maybe if we tried this 10 year ago the loop hole would have been tied off! Because we know the media would be all over it till it was changed..

If Chelsea get away with this, we should sell the Etihad Campus and the right to use the stadium to CFG, make a tidy half billion profit and go buy Real Madrid :)

 

[Metal Biker]

mail got it from sky sports news, is that the way go

NO! That's even LESS reputable!

 

[BAB.DAB]

That literally validates what I said.

Other teams are going to push for us to be sanctioned because its now an open spot if we get kicked out.

Nowhere in that article does it say the Premier League is actively taking on advice from these clubs.

So these clubs just said to the Premier league, we won't give you any advice, but relegate them!

 

[Prophet of Doom]

Not true at all. Lots to see not least that it is unlikely the property transaction have the necessary "genuine commercial rationale". Regardless the THREE MILLION views in 12 hours suggests a lot of interest and plenty to see.

It’s mental that in this period where teams are having points deducted there is nothing stopping these property deals that even the EFL put a stop to years ago.

The PL been busy introducing caps and restricting related party transactions - but no probs selling the stadium and hotels to yourself !! Madness

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

That literally validates what I said.

Other teams are going to push for us to be sanctioned because its now an open spot if we get kicked out.

Nowhere in that article does it say the Premier League is actively taking on advice from these clubs.

Well of course it fucking doesn’t! As if either side would admit to such shameless collusion. The reality is though that United, Liverpool et al, are the tails that wag the dog. They raise the global profile and income streams of the PL way more than any other clubs, yet conversely are quite happy to show their utter contempt for the organisation when the need arises - the Super League debacle being the most obvious example. Do you think the PL isn’t afraid of losing its two golden geese? Why else, other than keeping those specific clubs onboard, would Masters have very publicly had lunch at Anfield and the Swamp during the nomination process. As the same paper you highlight above said at the time (I think), he was there to gain their ’seal of approval’. And, surprise surprise, the current Chair of the PL, Alison Britten, is a card carrying rag as well.
I wouldn’t want to chuck words like ‘corrupt’ at the PL, just because they’re making decisions we don’t like (and let’s face it, they couldn’t be seen to ignore the Der Spiegel emails), but if you think the red shirts aren’t making noises in the background and that the PL aren’t mindful of them, you’re dreaming…..

 

[jamielowndes]

So these clubs just said to the Premier league, we won't give you any advice, but relegate them!

I can send Pep an email with tactical analysis for the Spurs game but that doesn't mean he will pay attention to it.

The PL aren't collaborating with other teams no matter what those teams try and do.

If they actually did that and that was ever provable, the PL would be susceptible to an absolute nuclear bomb of antitrust legal action.

 

[Gordyola]

Quick question (sorry if it's been covered) - the PL have accused us of providing inaccurate accounts. Does this mean the accounts posted at Companies House or just the accounts provided to the PL after making adjustments to the statutory accounts, as required by the PL?

The charges are that we haven't supplied accurate information about remuneration for Mancini and players

I would guess that its more detail than required in the accounts submitted to Companies House

 

[BAB.DAB]

I can send Pep an email with tactical analysis for the Spurs game but that doesn't mean he will pay attention to it.

The PL aren't collaborating with other teams no matter what those teams try and do.

If they actually did that and that was ever provable, the PL would be susceptible to an absolute nuclear bomb of antitrust legal action.

How can you prove spoken words?

So these clubs just said to the Premier league, we won't give you any advice, but relegate them!