PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

tolmie's hairdoo said:
He's having to reposition himself after Stefan made himself the go-to person for actual authority.
Click to expand...
Don't think that is true. He's been everywhere this morning. I got bumped from the Today programme. I am on Times Radio later and in the Sun this AM. But KM is the go to guy. No question.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
I won't speak for Stefan, but he has maintained all along the bar is very high and a lot will be time barred, his confidence is in the law, which is his area of expertise.
Click to expand...
I have just sensed a change of tone with Stefan as the trail has got nearer. Could be just me though, could be me misinterpreting what he means .
 
halfcenturyup said:
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 .....
Click to expand...

I thought he drove a Lamborghini....?
 
Citizen1961 said:
The findings will be timed to coincide with Masters leaving. He will leave with a fat golden bye bye and be the scapegoat.
Click to expand...

Masters leaving is an irrelevance - he’s just a patsy. The real villains work at the red shirts - when we win they’ll offer up Masters to protect their own skin but I very much doubt City will accept Masters departure as sufficient - they’ll want a radical overhaul of the PL and an independent regulator. A city win here will be a game changer.
 
supercity88 said:
It would be interesting to know what is left on the table. It may be that the PL have been completely unwilling to let anything go at this point, but typically the past few months (years) will have seen sufficient evidence presented to have a large number "dropped" where the PL's lawyers saw no legal opportunity of success. Now it's just a case of the panel asking questions of both parties and coming to their conclusion.

I would imagine the extreme confidence from City is because we are now not only armed with the same evidence accepted by CAS, but the CAS decision based on that evidence. So with each testimony or written submission we can also add their finding on that particular matter which is a pretty significant addition.
Click to expand...

Suspect the PL have left everything on the table merely to try and get something from the non cooperation charge. Maybe they think that’s a face saver.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
They're going to have to find £150m allowable expenditure to avoid a points deduction under PSR, so £50m a year. I reckon City's allowable expenditure is something like £30m a year tops. Maybe £35m in a good year.

No way they should be meeting it, unless they're going to claim some dodgy shit like they did to avoid an FFP failure.
Click to expand...
Suspect they are exempt
 
halfcenturyup said:
The PL may be thinking that, but I doubt very much the retired judges and KCs on the panel will concern themselves either with what the "whole football world" (even if it were true and not hyperbolic) wants or with the amount of money spent by the PL.

I know these are emotional times, but it's not like you to be so prone to conspiracy, DD.

Of course, it is very possible some of the less serious allegations may be proven, but it will be on the basis of evidence and legalities, not outside pressure.

All imho, of course.
Click to expand...
Although the CAS verdict was 2 - 1 with the UEFA choice dissenting despite there report saying the charges couldn't be proved. So these guys aren't all whiter than white.
 
This will be our biggest victory in all our past, present and future history.

People still talk about the Agueroooo moment 10 years on.

When we win this case it will be talked about for decades.

I can't wait for to see the red tops in the pub, sat staring into their pint pots in utter despair. They have put everything in to the PL finding us guilty. They know deep down when we come out of this smiling, that they will have nothing left!!!
 
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