PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Prestwich_Blue said:
That wasn't specifically set out in black and white iirc but even if not, it's a pretty safe assumption. In their submission to CAS, City talked about the 'accruals basis' of accounting, which is separate to the cash payments. That means if Etihad contract to pay us £60m a year over 10 years, we'll record £60m a year in the accounts, regardless of whether the cashflow is £60m a year.

If Etihad paid us £200m in year one, we'd still show that as £60m revenue, with £140m as deferred revenue. If they paid us nothing the following year, we'd again show £60m revenue, but with deferred revenue of £80m.

So when Harris was going on about us under-declaring the Etihad revenue, when he added up three years cash receipts and divided by three, he clearly had no idea about accruals accounting. The timing of the cashflow is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
What you mean a shoddy journalist has no idea about complex accounting practices, colour me shocked.
 
To us fans, historic,current and future context maybe relevant and critical in setting the 'DestroyCity' plans and actions of the PL & their proxy agents, the cartel.

It is likely however that the IP are unaware of the plan or will disregard it anyway....their role being to exclusively focus on the charges.

However, if one of the panel has been 'nobbled' and infiltrated by agent X, a drip,drip,drip of context might help inform their minds & opinions......

" CLEAR & OBVIOUS "

City of course would have no truck with such a scheme, but the legal profession........ ?????.

How are you this morning Lord Pannick ?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
That wasn't specifically set out in black and white iirc but even if not, it's a pretty safe assumption. In their submission to CAS, City talked about the 'accruals basis' of accounting, which is separate to the cash payments. That means if Etihad contract to pay us £60m a year over 10 years, we'll record £60m a year in the accounts, regardless of whether the cashflow is £60m a year.

If Etihad paid us £200m in year one, we'd still show that as £60m revenue, with £140m as deferred revenue. If they paid us nothing the following year, we'd again show £60m revenue, but with deferred revenue of £80m.

So when Harris was going on about us under-declaring the Etihad revenue, when he added up three years cash receipts and divided by three, he clearly had no idea about accruals accounting. The timing of the cashflow is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Knowledge be power.
 
dickie davies said:
With regards to the Etihad sponsorship being "friendly", I'm sure that quite early in this thread @Prestwich_Blue has said that in one particular year (think it was the termination of Mancini's contract) that City asked for some of the following year's money
It all worked out as the agreed amount over the period of the sponsorship, but City received something like £80m one season and a reduced amount the next
Click to expand...
Arsenal did the same thing with Emirates when they went short of cash, got 100% of the first Emirates deal upfront.
 
dickie davies said:
With regards to the Etihad sponsorship being "friendly", I'm sure that quite early in this thread @Prestwich_Blue has said that in one particular year (think it was the termination of Mancini's contract) that City asked for some of the following year's money
It all worked out as the agreed amount over the period of the sponsorship, but City received something like £80m one season and a reduced amount the next
Click to expand...

Having a friendly deals with sponsors is not a crime anyway.

I remember talk years ago about adidas or Nike (can’t remember who at the time) helping United fund buying Ronaldo back.

Based on it being a win/win, Etihad having a 10 year sponsor deal to get maximum value front loading made sense.

As did a drip fund so to speak
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
That wasn't specifically set out in black and white iirc but even if not, it's a pretty safe assumption. In their submission to CAS, City talked about the 'accruals basis' of accounting, which is separate to the cash payments. That means if Etihad contract to pay us £60m a year over 10 years, we'll record £60m a year in the accounts, regardless of whether the cashflow is £60m a year.

If Etihad paid us £200m in year one, we'd still show that as £60m revenue, with £140m as deferred revenue. If they paid us nothing the following year, we'd again show £60m revenue, but with deferred revenue of £80m.

So when Harris was going on about us under-declaring the Etihad revenue, when he added up three years cash receipts and divided by three, he clearly had no idea about accruals accounting. The timing of the cashflow is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
IIRC during the podcast when harris was talking about the etihad deal, he eluded to as you point out about the irregular amounts being that the deal was increasing with several new deals being signed off and he questioned the fair market value aspect of it, however, @slbsn seemed to agree that this was the case and argue with him it is very difficult to determine fair market value. Stefan didn't appear to correct him with what you are stating here.
I may be wrong and would gladly stand corrected.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
They must have spoken to all the candidates who turned the job down. Some of them may have spoken. Dinnage may have signed an NDA. I suspect the recruitment process for Masters goes to the heart of this whole saga. City must have checked this out.
Click to expand...
Masters is nothing more than a shiny suited consultant, who's training at Boston,McKinsey etc included not having an opinion an anything, and blowing in the wind like a paper kite.

I've met many of them over many years, most of whom couldn't run a bath.

Masters would've fitted the cartels 'Masters Master Plan' perfectly.

The weak, pasty faced jellyturd has been rope a doped from day one and won't survive irrespective of the outcome of the case.

If the previous applicants/appointee were subpoenad to appear in front of the new IR & Commons Committee for Sport under oath, the revelations could be very damaging to the integrity of some of our 'rivals'.

Could an appropriately worded and timed mail to a friendly MP start the process.

Over to you intellectuals !!
 
The opposite, you should need those things before doing a shallow dive into the charges or otherwise referencing them. I’m happy just to trust the process. And the clever chaps on here who explain it for those open to that.
 
When are the key dates again for the rest of the year in terms of the case(s). I'm confused. thanks.
 
inbetween said:
They do now but that is only based upon what is released. They only started to release their accounts in recent years in response to US pressure on anti-competition grounds, none of them are audited properly.
Click to expand...
That can’t be right as they are planning an IPO for which an authentic audit is necessary.
 
Milesvk said:
IIRC during the podcast when harris was talking about the etihad deal, he eluded to as you point out about the irregular amounts being that the deal was increasing with several new deals being signed off and he questioned the fair market value aspect of it, however, @slbsn seemed to agree that this was the case and argue with him it is very difficult to determine fair market value. Stefan didn't appear to correct him with what you are stating here.
I may be wrong and would gladly stand corrected.
Click to expand...
It is not only difficult it is completely impossible for an outside entity to determine fair market value, the market sets the value that is the nature of economics and it is baffling to me how this continues to be a talking point.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
There are no words to describe how shite this article and headline is. Total incompetence. The MEN is just a laughing stock. A whole story built on a throwaway comment from a total moron with zero understanding of finance and legal issues.
Click to expand...

Written by a 14 year old Chelsea fan from Peterborough. Absolute prick who needs to be taught a lesson in respect. The MUEN are one of those organisations that just when you think they cant descend any lower…. They do.
 
pudge said:
Can't underestimate how much I'm sure we all appreciate the efforts of those with knowledge of the situation and/or the workings of the process but I do feel as if we need a dumbed down version of events alongside such things, for the simpletons like me.
Click to expand...
City are not guilty, this is a sham brought about by red top morons, will that do?
 
nmc said:
Written by a 14 year old Chelsea fan from Peterborough. Absolute prick who needs to be taught a lesson in respect. The MUEN are one of those organisations that just when you think they cant descend any lower…. They do.
Click to expand...
the MUEN hit rock bottom and started digging
 
pudge said:
Can't underestimate how much I'm sure we all appreciate the efforts of those with knowledge of the situation and/or the workings of the process but I do feel as if we need a dumbed down version of events alongside such things, for the simpletons like me.
Click to expand...
Here it is.
1. City have been very creative as regards FFP, business practices, ground development, transfers and more besides, massively increasing our income.
The redshirts, pissed off at losing revenue as we pushed them out of the CL, have persuaded Masters to mount a campaign to nobble us. Their PR effort involves a lot of lies which their supporters in the media happily repeat. We are about to win the case they have brought against us and end the career of Masters, who is bricking it.

2. The PL changed their rules to ensure our sponsorships were downgraded. We finally got pissed off with them and are suing them for unfair practices.
3. City are the best team in the land and all the world. It infuriates the redshirts who are a bit crap and have one PL title between them since the year dot.
 
Last edited:
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