PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

supercity88 said:
Do they have to reference it by law? The difficulty is there's no precedent. This is an ongoing case and largely relates to previous accounts which have been audited. If the club's position is that our legal advice confirms there's no risk and we will be cleared then would auditors go out of their way to say otherwise? There's nothing to benchmark against in terms of the risk. Everton/Forest were completely different and Leicester won their case.
Click to expand...

It's standard accounting practice to evaluate contingent liabilities. Years and years of precedent. There is nothing unusual about this case in accounting terms.
 
Didsbury Dave said:
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.
Click to expand...
A small points deduction gives oxygen to those arguing our achievements are tarnished. It’s not something we’d be thrilled about.
A fine however for non co-operation is not something they can hit us with a stick over. At least not in the sense that our accounts were found to be fraudulent.
I’m assuming non co-operation can only be punished with a fine and not a points deduction. Correct me if wrong.
 
halfcenturyup said:
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.
Click to expand...
For it to be recorded as a contingent liability, they'd have to a) be able to estimate the liability itself b) have a >50% chance of happening

Not sure we'd be able to do/know either of the above at this stage, so I don't think it would appear in there anyway.

Also, I agree with you that it's odd that it ever appeared in going concern, as I don't think any of this would stop/prevent the business from operating in the future.

That would be my take on it not being included in those areas. Where I would expect it to be, is within the risks/threats/headwinds section of the annual report, but it doesn't look as though City have anything like that within their annual report.
 
chris85mcfc said:
For it to be recorded as a contingent liability, they'd have to a) be able to estimate the liability itself b) have a >50% chance of happening
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but what is the rule these days for disclosing a contingent liability if it is possible to crystallise, ie more than unlikely but less than probable (requiring a provision)?

In my days it would have to be disclosed in the note without a number iirc.

But those days were a while ago :)
 
jrb said:
Wasn't it amended so the clubs had greater access and scrutiny over the PL deciding on the future club ATP sponsorship deals?
Click to expand...

Here is a thing.

1000000131.png


I could have sworn when I looked last Friday it had an update copy dated December 6?

Has it been removed? Or am I getting senile?
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
There will have been a serious discussion about whether or not to include it. The case must be regarded as a very low risk by City’s lawyers and insurers.
Click to expand...
It's not just the implications of any fines - if we are found to have committed serious breaches then we would be liable for tens of millions in compensation to our competitors.

Magic Hat can speculate all he likes, but there's simply no way that auditors "forget" to include the 115 in the report.
 
handsofstone said:
Expecting a points deduction that's manageable, between 10-20 points, a fine thays manageable and maybe a transfer ban or limit

Doubt we get relegated and doubt we get our titles stripped

Hopefully this sets a rocket up the board so they decide to make us the best team in the world again, no more pandering to neutrals about our net spend and sustainability... let's get aggressive
Click to expand...

you think we will?
 
Didsbury Dave said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is true. But my only point for raising this was to counter the growing bedwetting that things went badly in the hearing if we don't spend big in January, or we do, or whatever other sign we think we see.

The accounts, imho, are an important message from the management, directors and auditors nothing bad is going to happen.

Of course, we all hope nothing at all is going to happen ....
 
Interesting timing to publish our accounts. Interesting wording or non wording whichever way you look at it . Deffo a bit of the two fingered salute from the club going on there !
Everyone will have their own perception obviously !
 
halfcenturyup said:
Fair enough, but what is the rule these days for disclosing a contingent liability if it is possible to crystallise, ie more than unlikely but less than probable (requiring a provision)?

In my days it would have to be disclosed in the note without a number iirc.

But those days were a while ago :)
Click to expand...
Haha, not going to claim to deal with this daily, but it's not been too long since I last came across it!

So contingent has to be both likely and reasonably estimated, and then have to be provided for. Possible outcomes just need to be noted (so I guess this is potentially why they've been omitted, as its not even a possibility any longer).

I guess my point, was more that it wasn't disclosed at all last year, and isn't this year. The fact it was in going concern last year is just bizarre as I don't think it would have prevented us from operating in the future, so I'm not going to read too much into them taking it out of there.

As someone else mentioned, it's very interesting timing, almost as though they've held off issuing these results until now. I want to add 2 and 2 together and get the right answer, I'm just conscious that it might actually be more of the way both boxers put their arms up after a 12 round fight to influence the judges!

I hate the fact I choose to spend time on a football forum talking about Accounting!
 
handsofstone said:
Expecting a points deduction that's manageable, between 10-20 points, a fine thays manageable and maybe a transfer ban or limit

Doubt we get relegated and doubt we get our titles stripped

Hopefully this sets a rocket up the board so they decide to make us the best team in the world again, no more pandering to neutrals about our net spend and sustainability... let's get aggressive
Click to expand...
So to be clear you're saying we've done what the PL are alleging we've done?
 
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