PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[oakiecokie]

Finally I’m above average at something!

Hopefully its not at your IQ Level ? ;)

 

[GOULDYBOBS]

Had an argument with a blue dipper. He said we were not proven innocent at CAS. Time barred "evidence" and everyone knows we cheated.

I paraphrased it for him.

Let's say I call you a nonce but I don't have any evidence of it,
are you a nonce?

He was defo a nonce

 

[Bozzie]

Hopefully its not at your IQ Level ? ;)

Only on a good day … most of the time I’m not that bright according to Mrs B!

 

[Coatigan]

Irrelevant to the actual process. But relevant to public opinion. Like it or not that MH post did go viral despite its flaws and errors.

Is it irrelevant to the process though? Can that ever really be possible. I don't thnk it can. They are people after all, and have inevitable human reactions to contexts.

A few weeks ago the PL was drawn into having to comment on the case, due to the increased attention as a result of runaway speculation from almost a nothing rumour. The club manage well to resist that.

But it affects the mood, the public opinion, and that surely filters at least in Some way to thise involved. If the PL has to double down, that tone will be felt by their lawyers. If there is speculation of foul play, the commission will likewise have that as a layer around it all.

I understand these are highly robust professionals and I understand that they should he able to filter all that out. But I don't see how the context of the attention and discussion doesn't in some way affect their mood towards it.

There is a reason in serious cases and actual courts, speculation and commenting on cases including online is advised against and strongly discouraged. This is obviously a different level, but I think the same reasoning behind that must surely apply.

 

[Bozzie]

I didn't read that. But it is also not true. The club has been under investigation in respect of the Etihad and Etisalat contracts since 2012. The idea that questions have not been raised consistently since then is totally implausible. And then with more detail and precision after the leaks.

I’ve only ever had the pleasure of being on the receiving end of audits but surely that’s got to be the starting point for any audit of City’s finances?. If you are aware of issues/allegations involving the company you are auditing and don’t make certain that you check them thoroughly then you’ve got to be putting yourself at risk of being accused of negligence.

 

[manimanc]

I didn't read that. But it is also not true. The club has been under investigation in respect of the Etihad and Etisalat contracts since 2012. The idea that questions have not been raised consistently since then is totally implausible. And then with more detail and precision after the leaks.

We've been under investigation since 2012?

And now we're halfway through 2024?

Does it not scream at you the total absurdity of it all? So for 14 years we've had somebody on our backs for one thing or another?

Let me say this. Winning the league from the darlings in 2012 started all this nonsense as it wasn't possible of course to beat utd on the pitch fair and square, some dodgy dealings behind the scenes obviously contributed to it.

Gill was at utd then and was also, I think, on Uefa’s board too and I'm sure as eggs are eggs he was the catalyst for the FFP changes and tweeks that tried to stifle us and stop us.

I find it outrageous and equally amusing we've been under the watchful eye since 2012, how ironic.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I didn't read that. But it is also not true. The club has been under investigation in respect of the Etihad and Etisalat contracts since 2012. The idea that questions have not been raised consistently since then is totally implausible. And then with more detail and precision after the leaks.

But up until 2018 the investigations around Etihad and Etisalat (and the rest) were about related party nature and fair values, were they not? There was nothing to suggest anything allegedly wrong with funding until 2018, and no normal audit procedure would have looked at how Etihad funded their obligations, for example.

After the leaked emails it was a different ballgame, of course.

 

[slbsn]

But up until 2018 the investigations around Etihad and Etisalat (and the rest) were about related party nature and fair values, were they not? There was nothing to suggest anything allegedly wrong with funding until 2018, and no normal audit procedure would have looked at how Etihad funded their obligations, for example.

After the leaked emails it was a different ballgame, of course.

The related party enquiries are bound to have led to relevant questions in terms of ultimate funding. Clearly a bunch of specific allegations and emails post 2018 will have heightened the concern.

 

[slbsn]

Is it irrelevant to the process though? Can that ever really be possible. I don't thnk it can. They are people after all, and have inevitable human reactions to contexts.

A few weeks ago the PL was drawn into having to comment on the case, due to the increased attention as a result of runaway speculation from almost a nothing rumour. The club manage well to resist that.

But it affects the mood, the public opinion, and that surely filters at least in Some way to thise involved. If the PL has to double down, that tone will be felt by their lawyers. If there is speculation of foul play, the commission will likewise have that as a layer around it all.

I understand these are highly robust professionals and I understand that they should he able to filter all that out. But I don't see how the context of the attention and discussion doesn't in some way affect their mood towards it.

There is a reason in serious cases and actual courts, speculation and commenting on cases including online is advised against and strongly discouraged. This is obviously a different level, but I think the same reasoning behind that must surely apply.

Well given Trump's argument that he can't get a fair trial in NY will be seen as hopeless, I don't think there is much mileage for City on the idea that some Twitter commentary has prejudiced the notion of a fair trial in the IC.

 

[Salford in the City]

Is it irrelevant to the process though? Can that ever really be possible. I don't thnk it can. They are people after all, and have inevitable human reactions to contexts.

A few weeks ago the PL was drawn into having to comment on the case, due to the increased attention as a result of runaway speculation from almost a nothing rumour. The club manage well to resist that.

But it affects the mood, the public opinion, and that surely filters at least in Some way to thise involved. If the PL has to double down, that tone will be felt by their lawyers. If there is speculation of foul play, the commission will likewise have that as a layer around it all.

I understand these are highly robust professionals and I understand that they should he able to filter all that out. But I don't see how the context of the attention and discussion doesn't in some way affect their mood towards it.

There is a reason in serious cases and actual courts, speculation and commenting on cases including online is advised against and strongly discouraged. This is obviously a different level, but I think the same reasoning behind that must surely apply.

Totally agree.
Up to now, it's been a trial by media, and we don't usually have, or allow that in this country.
It's been like an American roadshow so far. An absolute disgrace!

 

[cheekybids]

Had an argument with a blue dipper. He said we were not proven innocent at CAS. Time barred "evidence" and everyone knows we cheated.

I paraphrased it for him.

Let's say I call you a nonce but I don't have any evidence of it,
are you a nonce?

He was defo a nonce

Tell him he needs to hand over his hard drive & if he’s got nothing to hide he would do it….

 

[KS55]

I wish that 20 or 30 years ago I had mastered City’s brilliant technique for deceiving auditors for a decade. Would have saved me a lot of time and effort in finding documentation to support my account submissions and answer all their damn questions. Oh, it was BDO! (or their forerunner) should have been easy.

 

[burning blue soul]

I know its been said a million times but it struck me this morning reading your comment (as good as it is) that its so far away from conversations ive had since junior blue days ('74) up until '08. You would have no clue that we were talking about sport let alone a football club. It's sad its come to this, it's like reading contracts and docs at work but no consuming our free time as well I miss the Asa Hartford days!!

You were in the junior blues from 74 to 08???
You young looking, or summat?

 

[Coatigan]

Well given Trump's argument that he can't get a fair trial in NY will be seen as hopeless, I don't think there is much mileage for City on the idea that some Twitter commentary has prejudiced the notion of a fair trial in the IC.

I wasn't being specific to that one. I meant all of it. Including yours (and the reaction to it). And Tolmie's. And of course all the multiple opposing takes and (often unfounded) claims.

It all creates backdrops that I just don't see how they can be completely ignored. If nothing else, it all creates distractions.

 

[cheekybids]

You were in the junior blues from 74 to 08???
You young looking, or summat?

City’s very own Jlingz…

 

[manimanc]

Totally agree.
Up to now, it's been a trial by media, and we don't usually have, or allow that in this country.
It's been like an American roadshow so far. An absolute disgrace!

You nailed it there mate saying it's a trial by media.

That's been exactly it since 2012.

 

[slbsn]

I wasn't being specific to that one. I meant all of it. Including yours (and the reaction to it). And Tolmie's. And of course all the multiple opposing takes and (often unfounded) claims.

It all creates backdrops that I just don't see how they can be completely ignored. If nothing else, it all creates distractions.

Dunno. Sometimes I have a point I want to make that I think could be useful to some. Of course, I and others could just keep quiet. Not massively sure it matters. The pressure on the IC to find against City will be whether it is prepared to endorse a case theory that City have deceived the auditors for a decade.

 

[Coatigan]

Dunno. Sometimes I have a point I want to make that I think could be useful to some. Of course, I and others could just keep quiet. Not massively sure it matters. The pressure on the IC to find against City will be whether it is prepared to endorse a case theory that City have deceived the auditors for a decade.

I get that. I have welcomed it, certaunly found it both interesting and informative.

Don't think you have understood what I was trying to say, but I'll leave it, it is jot that important.

I think too many people say things way too freely with this. But I guess with nothing there to discourage it, it is inevitable.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

Dunno. Sometimes I have a point I want to make that I think could be useful to some. Of course, I and others could just keep quiet. Not massively sure it matters. The pressure on the IC to find against City will be whether it is prepared to endorse a case theory that City have deceived the auditors for a decade.

BDO and our Charterd Accounts can't be excluded from the IC submissions, witness statements etc. They are integral to these charges. The questions for them are not quantum mechanics. Who paid the sponsorship fees ? , when where they paid ? why and how were they paid ?. They cant just state "we dont know, we didnt check'. If their evidence supports our case and its corroborated by transactional evidence from banks then the Ethihad and Etisalat sponsorships were valid. End of.

 

[TueartsCossackSpray]

Tell him he needs to hand over his hard drive & if he’s got nothing to hide he would do it….

at which point he says in a high voice “i'm gonna lose mi job”