Isn't that just because nobody can put any sort of figure on potential liabilities at this stage? IE there's no way of knowing what sort of fine or liability we'd hold should the allegations be upheld. If it was a straight case of " if you've breached rule X, Y or Z then that's a £100m fine" they'd be there?
Asking because you and others know more about this stuff than me.
I’d guess not seeing as it’s been mentioned in previous accounts
I'm not sure it's about the club thinking they are 'bullshit'. The club thought they were bullshit at the time of last year's report but nevertheless referenced them. It's about the likelihood of the charges carrying any significant penalties. It makes you wonder what has changed between 22-23 and 23-24. For all of the column inches about 115, nobody outside of the proceedings knows anymore than they did it on 6th February 2023.
That's more interesting than anything else.
The club is required to disclose, and the auditors are required to check, if there are any contingent liabilities unless the possibility of them crystallising is remote. If they are possible they should be noted. If they are probable, they should be provided for.
The fact the club doesn't mention the allegations at all, and the auditors are presumably happy with that, means they all think they are bullshit.
Magic hat on case if Aduit accounts can make basic error by missing on going breaches against club what else are they capable of hidingLast year it was mentioned in Going Concern and commitments, which are two strange places. This year it would have been at least disclosed in contingent liabilities if management thought the chance of a financial sanction was anything other than unlikely. It hasn't been, so we can assume management, directors and auditors consider such a sanction unlikely.
I was saying that last week, but now we have proof that the management, directors and auditors consider the chance of a financial penalty unlikely and that the whole case is no longer worthy of mention. That's quite a big change.
Everyone wanted more communication from the club. This seems quite important to me, especially at this time.
Straight relegation with no fine then ;)Last year it was mentioned in Going Concern and commitments, which are two strange places. This year it would have been at least disclosed in contingent liabilities if management thought the chance of a financial sanction was anything other than unlikely. It hasn't been, so we can assume management, directors and auditors consider such a sanction unlikely.
Could rule out financial penalties but not points penalties maybe? At least not significant points.That's more interesting than anything else.
The club is required to disclose, and the auditors are required to check, if there are any contingent liabilities unless the possibility of them crystallising is remote. If they are possible they should be noted. If they are probable, they should be provided for.
The fact the club doesn't mention the allegations at all, and the auditors are presumably happy with that, means they all think they are bullshit.
Could rule out financial penalties but not points penalties maybe? At least not significant points.
You would think so normally. But this is the PL we’re talking about.I don't see a world where we're given points deductions with no financial liabilities. That's just a complete guess with no financial background to it, but logic tells me if we're set to be deducted points then a financial penalty would in all likelihood go hand in hand with that.
Straight relegation with no fine then ;)
I think it's on the PL to proof their case to the club not the other way around now but don't know the exact wordingHas anyone got the details or a link to the changes made to the ATP rules that allow City and other PL clubs to scrutinize and challenge the PL's decisions on future sponsorship deals. The wording has been amended. Thanks.
I suspect that this only means that the auditors are satisfied that relegation, or its equivalent in points reduction, is not on the table. A points deduction of say 10 points or whatever is no different to the shit run of form we've just had and the possibility of poor form doesn't merit special mention.
I was just thinking about this. We've dropped about 15 points over Autumn already and if we don't qualify for the CL latter stages that could be $50m. I think, certainly for us fans, it's more about vindication and even a small punishment can be used to tarnish the club's greatest ever acheivements.I would say that if the management, directors and auditors agree that relegation, a significant points deduction and a significant fine are all ruled out, then they are all very, very confident that the most serious issues won't be proven, as we all thought.
If the club comes out of it with a small points deduction and/or a small fine, who cares?