PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

LeonardoDaVnci said:
Clearly, I am not an auditor, but I am intrigued by the level of scrutiny they applied to City's accounts. So for example, on dd/mm/yyyy City's bank account received a payment in for £40M. Presumably the auditors query this either via email or in person, whatever. And the City accounts person replies "Oh that was a sponsorship payment from Ethihad Airways". Is that the end of the conversation ? the BDO person just says "thanks for that, moving on, next item..."
FFS there must be more scrutiny than that ?. We have never seen ANY leaked emails between City and BDO. Why might that be ?.
Click to expand...
It would generally also be traced through invoices/remittance notices/bookkeeping records and cross referenced accordingly.
 
give it to gordon said:
I agree City are called guilty or implied guilty on a daily basis. I do wonder how City will get a fair hearing.
I know people says it's KC and they won't let this effect them but still part of me thinks it will.
Plus I don't see how it's legal for the press/media to call us guilty
Click to expand...
Exactly, could City not say that due to total media bias they can not get a fair trial. Its not like evidence to support this is not out there.
 
johnnytapia said:
What’s the YaYa accusation?
Click to expand...
I don't know. And yet you brought it up, I hear you ask ...

There was some talk when the allegations were referred that the player remuneration charges related to Toure. Remember he was asked and he said it was all fine? Most of us on here thought the player remuneration thing was Fordham. But this is the thing. Fordham didn't start until 2013 and the allegations for player remuneration start in 2010/11. The year Toure started. So maybe it's Toure. Or maybe it's Toure and Fordham. In both cases, the issue is most probably payment for the use of image rights.

The allegations for player remuneration finish in 2015/6 iirc which is the year Fordham started to be wound down, I think. Pretty sure Toure stayed another couple of years. Make of that what you will .....
 
Having watched the play off 99 documentary, brought back fond memories and it got me thinking of a scenario that plays out that wouldnt be all that bad. It won't happen of course as confident everything will work out but what if we got found guilty relegated a few divisions and titles stripped in a clearly unfair manner by PL. We go down drawing crowds of 40k++ for games to the likes of Wycombe. We bounce of teams and climb up to championship meanwhile the club is mounting a legal case, gets us reinstated and titles restored. Promoted to the PL again. All hopes killed for rivals and we go on to dominate for another 10 years+. Doesn't sound bad to me and would a hell of a ride. Now back to reality!
 
halfcenturyup said:
Fair enough. I suppose we can agree to disagree. No problem.
Click to expand...
It doesn't really matter because even if you are right, as soon as the 2018 leak is in they have to reevaluate the historic position and put it to the company. Then again after the UEFA finding. Then again after the further leaks. Then again after the PL charge. Simply no way they could not have asked some pretty specific questions on these points.
 
bennyboy said:
Still buying from these cunts hang your head in shame.
Click to expand...
I think they deserve some more shit reviews to go with the many that they already have. I notice that many mention things such as poor value, poor quality, ripping off customers by not honouring advertised discounts, long delivery times, poor customer service. Just saying...
 
projectriver said:
It doesn't really matter because even if you are right, as soon as the 2018 leak is in they have to reevaluate the historic position and put it to the company. Then again after the UEFA finding. Then again after the further leaks. Then again after the PL charge. Simply no way they could not have asked some pretty specific questions on these points.
Click to expand...

This we can agree on. And if they weren't satisfied with the answers they would lost likely have resigned or, at least, qualified their later opinions. Which makes me think they were satisfied.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I don't know. And yet you brought it up, I hear you ask ...

There was some talk when the allegations were referred that the player remuneration charges related to Toure. Remember he was asked and he said it was all fine? Most of us on here thought the player remuneration thing was Fordham. But this is the thing. Fordham didn't start until 2013 and the allegations for player remuneration start in 2010/11. The year Toure started. So maybe it's Toure. Or maybe it's Toure and Fordham. In both cases, the issue is most probably payment for the use of image rights.

The allegations for player remuneration finish in 2015/6 iirc which is the year Fordham started to be wound down, I think. Pretty sure Toure stayed another couple of years. Make of that what you will .....
Click to expand...
We can always say those payments were a cake allowance in lieu of an actual birthday cake.
 
Statute of Limitations

So there are two possible exceptions to the six year rule.

1 Criminality
We have to be safe to assume its absolutely not applicable, no GMP, HMRC, DPP, SFO interest.

2 Concealment
So is the level detail that City are being judged on far deeper than required by the PL handbooks AND applied to EVERY other club. For example the PL can't say your guilty of not revealing some particular financial details if NO other club had done likewise. Don't forget every other Club's accounts are in the public domain.

Personally I no longer give a flying fuck about anything becoming tine barred, gone past caring and would welcome it.
 
dublinblue12 said:
Having watched the play off 99 documentary, brought back fond memories and it got me thinking of a scenario that plays out that wouldnt be all that bad. It won't happen of course as confident everything will work out but what if we got found guilty relegated a few divisions and titles stripped in a clearly unfair manner by PL. We go down drawing crowds of 40k++ for games to the likes of Wycombe. We bounce of teams and climb up to championship meanwhile the club is mounting a legal case, gets us reinstated and titles restored. Promoted to the PL again. All hopes killed for rivals and we go on to dominate for another 10 years+. Doesn't sound bad to me and would a hell of a ride. Now back to reality!
Click to expand...
No.
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
Statute of Limitations

So there are two possible exceptions to the six year rule.

1 Criminality
We have to be safe to assume its absolutely not applicable, no GMP, HMRC, DPP, SFO interest.

2 Concealment
So is the level detail that City are being judged on far deeper than required by the PL handbooks AND applied to EVERY other club. For example the PL can't say your guilty of not revealing some particular financial details if NO other club had done likewise. Don't forget every other Club's accounts are in the public domain.

Personally I no longer give a flying fuck about anything becoming tine barred, gone past caring and would welcome it.
Click to expand...
I'm intrigued by what the PL have to present to the IC in order to equitably justify alleged "Concealment".

I'm assuming it's physical evidence that must satisfy the civil burden of proof and not "hearsay". Are the emails themselves sufficient?
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
I'm intrigued by what the PL have to present to the IC in order to equitably justify alleged "Concealment".

I'm assuming it's physical evidence that must satisfy the civil burden of proof and not "hearsay". Are the emails themselves sufficient?
Click to expand...
I'd be interested to know how high the bar is in terms of burden of proof. Is it actual proof, reasonable suspicion, or just likely in the opinion of the IC?
 
halfcenturyup said:
I don't know. And yet you brought it up, I hear you ask ...

There was some talk when the allegations were referred that the player remuneration charges related to Toure. Remember he was asked and he said it was all fine? Most of us on here thought the player remuneration thing was Fordham. But this is the thing. Fordham didn't start until 2013 and the allegations for player remuneration start in 2010/11. The year Toure started. So maybe it's Toure. Or maybe it's Toure and Fordham. In both cases, the issue is most probably payment for the use of image rights.

The allegations for player remuneration finish in 2015/6 iirc which is the year Fordham started to be wound down, I think. Pretty sure Toure stayed another couple of years. Make of that what you will .....
Click to expand...
The 2010/11 stuff will be Mancini, as the allegations of player and manager remuneration are covered under the same heading.
 
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