PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

I've got a good idea where it will be held. It will almost definitely be London based and close to the Chambers and offices of the firms involved - in short close to the Rolls Building which also happens to be basically next to Bird & Bird. Also needs somewhere used to holding arbitration for 30 (?) lawyers and client teams. The hearing is simply too long to be anywhere but London.

We just need to look for a building close by with blue cones outside.
 
C93U.gif
 
Can’t wait now for this to start and end.

Enough foreplay city.

Time to put an end to this sordid attempt by the historical clubs from the 80s/90s using a weak leader in masters to carry out a public execution of a great club.

We are not guilty, just better.

Cry hovac and let slip the blue dogs of war!

I have a feeling City have been waiting for this day to arrive safe in the knowledge that the premier league clowns can barely string a cohesive charge against us.

Fuck all those vested interested parties. We won’t be going quietly into the night.
 
A mate of mine who works for the FA once sat on a 3 day tribunal with David Pannick.
He described him as a "scary legal animal".
Combining that with our "irrefutable evidence" I'm totally confident that Masters and his cartel paymasters will be getting their arses handed to them with all the trimmings.
Bring it on!

The innuendo is City want all this kept hidden but can you imagine Pannick cross examining Masters….

Now that’s a showcase opportunity for dynamic ticketing.
 
I thought related party funding was allowed as long as deemed fair value?

So what exactly is the issue if the money was coming from Sheikh Mansour if the sponsorship was deemed fair value anyway?
 
I thought related party funding was allowed as long as deemed fair value?

So what exactly is the issue if the money was coming from Sheikh Mansour if the sponsorship was deemed fair value anyway?

Always been my point. From an accounting point of view I don't see how any of this affects the true and fair view given by the accounts at all.

Firstly, most of the allegations aren't material and so fall outside the true and fair determination, even ignoring time limitation.

Secondly, the only material allegation, Etihad, is the main sponsor for ground, shirt and campus. These are all unique sponsorships that every club has, or could have. It's not like Joe Bloggs giving money to someone to buy a shitload of widgets to artificially inflate his revenue. As long as the sponsorship is at fair value, the accounts wouldn't show a "truer" and "fairer" view to stakeholders of the company by leaving the revenue out. The accounts would become, effectively, meaningless for evaluation purposes. They would be less fair and less true and couldn't be compared to other clubs' accounts in any meaningful way. We can discuss note disclosures, but the actual financial statements themselves would be meaningless.

I get that the allegations do effectively represent fraud and I know lawyers wet themselves at the thought of fraud and incorrect accounts, but as an accountant I have always had trouble buying it in this case. And I mean even if Mansour turned up outside Etihad's treasury department with his Maserati full of cash.

You could argue, possibly, that it may not have been possible to find sponsors at the beginning who were willing to pay the amounts that Etihad did. But then I would point to the PL's own definition of fair market value, which is " the amount for which (.....) a service [could be] provided between knowledgable, willing parties engaging in an arm's length transaction in normal market conditions". Unless they are challenging fair market value on that basis (and I doubt very much they are), I just don't get it.

Mind you, that's probably why accountants end up in jail and lawyers end up making money .....
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top