PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

JewelZee said:
Running a mile from the case is NOT mutually exclusive from running from the club. That is what he suggested...
Click to expand...

How do you know? Absolutely nobody has any idea how it'll be dealt with in the event of a bad outcome. Much the same as nobody can say for certain how the verdict is going to go - people have stronger opinions than others either way but at the end of the day, we will just have to wait.

I don't think POD posted anything controversial, just speculation of which there's about 75,000 posts.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
This is the crux of the matter for me. For the PL false accounting allegations against City to be true would require a huge conspiracy theory to be true. Such a huge long-term fraud would have required dozens of senior people to lie. It would have required scores of independent auditors to turn a blind eye and remember that some of these allegations were already in the public domain when some audits were done. Those auditors themselves would had to have been dishonest themselves. The senior people at Silverlake and all our biggest sponsors would also have to have (at least) turned a blind eye. United would never have recruited Berrada (who managed our sponsorhips) as their CEO. What is City's motive when they could have just used shareholder loans to boost our finances llke other clubs did? Surely this is just one conspiracy theory too far.
Click to expand...
Just a couple of contrary points.

It's highly unlikely that BDO would have been active conspirators in this. Their auditing standards are acknowledged to be the worst of the top 6 firms but it's more likely that if there was a deliberate fraud they'd have been deceived as well. Stefan or someone else has also argued, correctly, that the UEFA accusations alone should have forced them to focus on the areas highlighted in the CAS case, namely the Etihad and other sponsorships, ensuring that everything was squeaky clean.

Also loans are not revenue. If we were looking for 'artificial' ways to boost our revenue, it would have to be 'dodgy' sponsorships, which enghance revenue in the P&L account. Loans don't do that as they go in the balance sheet.
 
ayrshire_blue said:
How do you know? Absolutely nobody has any idea how it'll be dealt with in the event of a bad outcome. Much the same as nobody can say for certain how the verdict is going to go - people have stronger opinions than others either way but at the end of the day, we will just have to wait.

I don't think POD posted anything controversial, just speculation of which there's about 75,000 posts.
Click to expand...
It's crazy as no-one knows for sure if the hearing has actually finished, how the proceedings went or when the judgement will be released. Incredibly vague tweets are seized upon as great news as a further sign of desperate straw clutching.

In the absence of a definitive leak from an unimpeachable source we have to wait for the judgement to see what happens next. Frustrating as fuck but at least it's now only months away and not years.
 
WRicko said:
I agree with what your saying that it would involve a lot of people and a lot of conspiracy especially from sponsors however I don’t know if the auditors would have to be in on it or just be deceived
Click to expand...
Once the PL issued their charges (or even earlier), you can be sure our auditors carried out a lengthy check of the relevant job bags. They will have traced the origins of monies and their route into City’s coffers. They will have reconstructed the audit trails. If not satisfied, they would have resigned.
You can be sure that we have not deceived our auditors.
 
bitterblue78 said:
Jesus wept. This rag says the result is on the dark web
Click to expand...
Their delusion is off the scale.
These are the pricks who was so cocky as they swept everything up that they sung they do what they want.
They can't match us on or off the pitch so bang goes them having any normal conversation or neutral ground to stand on so what is their go to phrase they've all adopted?
We've cheated the system. Lol. Isn't it so immature.

And I tell you why they have that outlook. It's a generational and social media thing. I played my son at table tennis ages ago. Me, I'm 50, overweight and have bad knees. My lad is young, energetic, and has that sporty streak in him. I had him dancing all around the table, and you know what his first words to me was?

I'm cheating. I'm fuckin cheating. I was literally stood still like a fat wobbling jelly but putting shots away like a pro and he couldn't hack it. So out comes the cheat phrase.
Pretty much like all the pricks on social media. They got their fingers in their ears and call us cheats. They don't know anything else.


(Well, that's my take on proceedings anyway)
 
halfcenturyup said:
Actually, that is pretty much how it will go, imo, if I understand what the gibbering idiot is trying to say .....
Click to expand...

Can you translate "non conclusive due to the source"? Not entirely sure why I'm wasting my time trying to work out what he's havering about, but since you've posted that's pretty much how you see it...what does it actually mean?
 
ayrshire_blue said:
Can you translate "non conclusive due to the source"? Not entirely sure why I'm wasting my time trying to work out what he's havering about, but since you've posted that's pretty much how you see it...what does it actually mean?
Click to expand...

He clearly means that Nick Harris / Magic Twat appearing as a witness for the PL was a bridge too far for the panel :)

Anyway, if the panel decides the evidence isn't conclusive,.or is insufficient which is more likely, I won't care how they justify it. Also if the judgment is already on the web and we all think it will take three months to write it, then it must have finished the day after it started. I can get behind that.
 
ayrshire_blue said:
How do you know? Absolutely nobody has any idea how it'll be dealt with in the event of a bad outcome. Much the same as nobody can say for certain how the verdict is going to go - people have stronger opinions than others either way but at the end of the day, we will just have to wait.

I don't think POD posted anything controversial, just speculation of which there's about 75,000 posts.
Click to expand...
How do I know what? That SM distancing himself from the case if he thought things were going bad isn't even an option? What are you smoking friend?

Also, PofD claimed that Tolmie's posts indicate that TH doesn't understand the PSR rules when in fact it's the complete opposite. Tolmie suggested we did not go the shareholder loan route because we may have been prescient enough to foresee these loans eventually having to be included in the calculations of a club's PSR. Personally, I think that's a bit of a stretch but it's 100% NOT an indication of Tolmie not knowing what he's talking about in terms of PSR. Quite the opposite.

PofD has some sort of Schleprock shtick going, I get it, but really he's just a cartoon version of the Grim Reaper...
 
KS55 said:
Once the PL issued their charges (or even earlier), you can be sure our auditors carried out a lengthy check of the relevant job bags. They will have traced the origins of monies and their route into City’s coffers. They will have reconstructed the audit trails. If not satisfied, they would have resigned.
You can be sure that we have not deceived our auditors.
Click to expand...
As once one myself 1000% correct...
 
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