PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

FanchesterCity said:
You can have a perfectly legitimate and audited set of accounts that the PL still deemed to be in bad faith and misleading (In terms of how you chose to account in order to circumvent their own set of rules).
If you sell shirts at the stadium shop on matchday, that could be deemed matchday revenue. However, you could alternatively just attribute them to merchandise regardless of matchday. Neither is wrong, but the PL might try to argue you've chosen a specific categorisation to give a skewed picture that favours FFP. That becomes very subjective very quickly and any club on their right mind would always choose to account for things favourably. I seem to recall Liverpool declaring huge figures for infrastructure consultancy and the PL not batting an eyelid.

As an example, you may have an internal team working on infrastructure improvements and their costs are attributed to infrastructure. The PL may take a view that they were just regular staff with a whole range of duties not attributed to infrastructure projects.

There is nothing illegal in the accounts as there can be many ways a company chooses to categorise its finances, but the PL make specific exemptions for some costs and not for others. So then it becomes a matter of the PL viewing things one way, and the City viewing them another.

Another example with a multinational might be that a department in the USA is paid as USA employees, perfectly legitimately, but once in a while they do some work for the UK branch and countercharge the UK. The countercharge might be far less than it would have cost to employ folks in the UK directly. Is this a form of disguising your real costs? I would say no, it's simply how multinationals work by using the most favourable country to gain the best tax advantages, labour and materials costs. Would the PL be irked by this? Very probably.

As for some additional damning evidence... disclosure will reveal each other's hand, so at this stage it would appear neither side has conceded and settled. It would appear both sides have maintained their stance in full knowledge of each others evidence and arguments and await the panel's decision. That really does suggest there is no smoking gun or very damning evidence, only a tight set of subjective interpretations. We can't know that for certain, but it seems a reasonable interpretation in the absence of no settlement or major leak.
Click to expand...
Oh FFS… here comes Roger Daltrey!
 
slbsn said:
There is no way the PL would win a case where a "perfectly legitimate and audited set of accounts" was deemed to be bad faith and misleading. If the accounts were "perfectly legitimate" they are by definition neither in bad faith nor misleading.

Allocation of certain lines of revenue or cost into "matchday" or "commercial" is not a breach, not bad faith and would never be pursued by the PL. City aren't accused of subjective stuff like this.
Click to expand...
As you know only too well yourself Stefan, an auditor's signature below a positive audit opinion on a set of accounts is no guarantee that those accounts are actually legitimate. Even when that opinion is supplied by supposedly reputable firms like, say, KPMG, to pick a name at random. ;-)
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
As you know only too well yourself Stefan, an auditor's signature below a positive audit opinion on a set of accounts is no guarantee that those accounts are actually legitimate. Even when that opinion is supplied by supposedly reputable firms like, say, KPMG, to pick a name at random. ;-)
Click to expand...
My company was a client of KPMG for many years. The tales I could tell, oh yes. Everyone there had a secret lover. Great trips across the EU.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
I think the point we are making is that CAS considered the evidence of our accounts an supporting testimony and conclude that City did not conceal owner investment as sponsorship revenue. This means that the PL would have to show that "on the balance of probabilities" evidence presented to the IC undermines the accounts and supporting testimony. The examples you have given of possible bad faith show that two views can be put forward of anything, but it does not constitute evidence which shows "on the balance of probabilities" that there has been deceit or dishonesty. The argument put forward is that it is going to take something compelling to contradict the evidence of our accounts and the evidence supporting them as full, complete and accurate. As Stefan says the starting point has to be that criminal activity is highly unlikely to have been perpetrated. In other words "innocent until proved guilty"?
Click to expand...
I don't disagree, but at the same time there's another legal team who believe there's merit in the PL's case, unless they are ignoring counsel's advice.
Could there be a case that the PL don't see much merit, but want to at least be seen to have taken us to task. If they lose, then so be it, they can claim to have done their utmost and let public opinion still deem we 'wangled it' somehow.

With the APT ruling we won a very significant argument regarding loans, but we didn't win every point. Some of the subjective beliefs about Middle Eastern ownership were not deemed to be valid.

It would be a wonderful outcome if not a single allegation can be substantiated. It would be a perfect outcome if we could disprove each allegation. However, I think it's fairly reasonable to wonder what the other side is coming at us with and if the panel may interpret some things negatively.
The hurried and erroneous manner in which the charges were initially published leads me to believe they were brought forward in haste. The PL must have been under pressure from within and/or without. Hopefully, that's reflected in their case, but I'm still anticipating they'll get something to stick. The old 'throw enough mud' approach. It's worked with the general public and no panel is entirely infallible.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
As you know only too well yourself Stefan, an auditor's signature below a positive audit opinion on a set of accounts is no guarantee that those accounts are actually legitimate. Even when that opinion is supplied by supposedly reputable firms like, say, KPMG, to pick a name at random. ;-)
Click to expand...
That’s not what the post says. It’s premise is the accounts are “perfectly legitimate”.

And btw I don’t agree it’s easy to get a positive audit opinion where the red flags have been raised in a very high profile company. In fact, in those scenarios companies often can’t satisfy auditors’ heightened professional scepticism so, even if a firm has historically signed off, they are forced to resign. This idea that audits happen in a vacuum is a nonsense. For years BDO have had their technical people asking for more and more comfort from the directors of City. I don’t know this from sources, I know this from absolute basic compliance requirements at professional firms.

The idea BDO haven’t asked all the tricky questions when the club has been in focus of regulators and leaks for a decade where the allegation is that the accounts are a fiction is a nonsense theory. If City are liable, BDO are either part of the cover up (they aren’t) or are another party that’s been outright lied to. But they simply must have asked many questions and been shown many key documents.
 
FanchesterCity said:
I don't disagree, but at the same time there's another legal team who believe there's merit in the PL's case, unless they are ignoring counsel's advice.
Could there be a case that the PL don't see much merit, but want to at least be seen to have taken us to task. If they lose, then so be it, they can claim to have done their utmost and let public opinion still deem we 'wangled it' somehow.

With the APT ruling we won a very significant argument regarding loans, but we didn't win every point. Some of the subjective beliefs about Middle Eastern ownership were not deemed to be valid.

It would be a wonderful outcome if not a single allegation can be substantiated. It would be a perfect outcome if we could disprove each allegation. However, I think it's fairly reasonable to wonder what the other side is coming at us with and if the panel may interpret some things negatively.
The hurried and erroneous manner in which the charges were initially published leads me to believe they were brought forward in haste. The PL must have been under pressure from within and/or without. Hopefully, that's reflected in their case, but I'm still anticipating they'll get something to stick. The old 'throw enough mud' approach. It's worked with the general public and no panel is entirely infallible.
Click to expand...

This “throw enough mud” theory is nonsense.

Any breach will have to be shown to be proven on the balance of probabilities with full and frank legally sound reasons given.

There is no world where the panel think “they’ve done fuck all wrong but to keep Dave from Leeds happy we’ll have to find something to stick”.

That’s just not a thing.
 
Anyone who calls our owners liars and cheats…

Show me concrete, unmistakable evidence of an act of falsification.

Anything at all? Not emails, not innuendos, not made up bullshit.

Black and white facts? Anyone?

Didn’t think so.

Carry on blues.
 
Last edited:
Stoned Rose said:
This “throw enough mud” theory is nonsense.

Any breach will have to be shown to be proven on the balance of probabilities with full and frank legally sound reasons given.

There is no world where the panel think “they’ve done fuck all wrong but to keep Dave from Leeds happy we’ll have to find something to stick”.

That’s just not a thing.
Click to expand...
That wasn't the intended implication.
The 'throw enough mud' was the sheer number of allegations made, admittedly many of them multiple instances across different periods.
Of course they'll have to be substantiated, but it does have a feel of 'hit them from multiple angles and if we don't win on allegation x, we have allegation y and z to go at'.
There is also the PR effect of 115 almost setting the scene for 'repeated offenses' and 'blatant disregard'. That number of allegations has a tangible effect on the public perception. It adds impact to headlines and regardless of the judgment, some of the negative PR will stick.
 
When we get the all clear from the Kangaroo tribunal we may be not guilty by the people who matter but even if that's written in the next Kings speech it'll still be the stick other fans and the media beat us with.

Unless the club show some balls and start throwing a few twats in front of the courts and suing them for all they are worth.
 
FanchesterCity said:
I don't disagree, but at the same time there's another legal team who believe there's merit in the PL's case, unless they are ignoring counsel's advice.
Could there be a case that the PL don't see much merit, but want to at least be seen to have taken us to task. If they lose, then so be it, they can claim to have done their utmost and let public opinion still deem we 'wangled it' somehow.

With the APT ruling we won a very significant argument regarding loans, but we didn't win every point. Some of the subjective beliefs about Middle Eastern ownership were not deemed to be valid.

It would be a wonderful outcome if not a single allegation can be substantiated. It would be a perfect outcome if we could disprove each allegation. However, I think it's fairly reasonable to wonder what the other side is coming at us with and if the panel may interpret some things negatively.
The hurried and erroneous manner in which the charges were initially published leads me to believe they were brought forward in haste. The PL must have been under pressure from within and/or without. Hopefully, that's reflected in their case, but I'm still anticipating they'll get something to stick. The old 'throw enough mud' approach. It's worked with the general public and no panel is entirely infallible.
Click to expand...

We know from the APT case that the Premier league ignored advice from their lawyers. It wouldn’t surprise me if they ignored in this instance.
 
slbsn said:
That’s not what the post says. It’s premise is the accounts are “perfectly legitimate”.

And btw I don’t agree it’s easy to get a positive audit opinion where the red flags have been raised in a very high profile company. In fact, in those scenarios companies often can’t satisfy auditors’ heightened professional scepticism so, even if a firm has historically signed off, they are forced to resign. This idea that audits happen in a vacuum is a nonsense. For years BDO have had their technical people asking for more and more comfort from the directors of City. I don’t know this from sources, I know this from absolute basic compliance requirements at professional firms.

The idea BDO haven’t asked all the tricky questions when the club has been in focus of regulators and leaks for a decade where the allegation is that the accounts are a fiction is a nonsense theory. If City are liable, BDO are either part of the cover up (they aren’t) or are another party that’s been outright lied to. But they simply must have asked many questions and been shown many key documents.
Click to expand...

Only this.
 
Strange times in this thread.

First we had pages of Pinto and now we have people "anticipating they'll get something to stick. The old "throw enough mud" approach".

It may very well be that the PL will get something to "stick" but that won't be anything to do with the number of allegations, it will be entirely due to the PL's evidence, on the balance of probabilities, being more persuasive than the club's counter-evidence, and much more so if there is an indication fraud or deceit is involved. The people on the panel won't be idiots reading the Mail and trying to keep the PL happy by giving them a few "wins". Every single allegation will be considered and judged on its own merits.

I can't believe what I have been reading the last few days.
 
cheekybids said:
We know from the APT case that the Premier league ignored advice from their lawyers. It wouldn’t surprise me if they ignored in this instance.
Click to expand...

It may well be true that the PL continued with the referral of allegations in February 2023 against the advice of their lawyers and under pressure from certain clubs but, personally, I'm not sure the PL had much option but to continue the process whatever the opinion of their legal team on the chances of success.

The implications for any future investigation of closing down an investigation before the PL had seen any of the significant counter-evidence available would be catastrophic and "make a mockery" of the disciplinary process, as had already been pointed out by CAS in their judgment on non-cooperation.

Once the PL had continued with the investigation after the CAS verdict, it seems to me they had no choice but see it through to its conclusion in front of an independent panel. What's more, I think the club were happy with that as it will finally draw a proper line under the whole sorry chapter. I would even go so far as to say the club manipulated the situation to force the PL down this path. A sort of "if you really want to continue with this investigation, it will cost you at least 50 million and you will still lose before a truly independent panel" approach after the CAS judgment. The club almost said as much in their statement on the allegations. Which is why I am very much of the opinion that the club has played a blinder here and has the PL exactly where it wants them.

All imho of course.

Edit: And by club I mean Mansour and Khaldoon with a sprinkling of Pearce, of course. This is way above Soriano's pay grade.
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
It may well be true that the PL continued with the referral of allegations in February 2023 against the advice of their lawyers and under pressure from certain clubs but, personally, I'm not sure the PL had much option but to continue the process whatever the opinion of their legal team on the chances of success.

The implications for any future investigation of closing down an investigation before the PL had seen any of the significant counter-evidence available would be catastrophic and "make a mockery" of the disciplinary process, as had already been pointed out by CAS in their judgment on non-cooperation.

Once the PL had continued with the investigation after the CAS verdict, it seems to me they had no choice but see it through to its conclusion in front of an independent panel. What's more, I think the club were happy with that as it will finally draw a proper line under the whole sorry chapter. I would even go so far as to say the club manipulated the situation to force the PL down this path. A sort of "if you really want to continue with this investigation, it will cost you at least 50 million and you will still lose before a truly independent panel" approach after the CAS judgment. The club almost said as much in their statement on the allegations. Which is why I am very much of the opinion that the club has played a blinder here and has the PL exactly where it wants them.

All imho of course.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree ;)

Decisions like this are made all the time based on likelihood of winning, costs, implications for the brand & competition & if the slightest amount of effort had been put into managing the fall out as it had in trying to destroy City they’d have saved millions. They have chosen to ignore breaches to other clubs & in this case they can say it’s been investigated by the highest court in sport.
 
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