PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

slbsn said:
I think it’s a different point. United convinced the PL as to £40m of Covid costs via an audited statement. Whilst i struggle to see how they got £40m, I don’t think it’s case of hiding things - it’s a case of convincing the PL and making specific representations. It will have reconciled to their audited numbers as it was extracted from them.
Click to expand...
Wasn't it a sponsor refusing to pay up. Not sure how that was put down as an exemption though
 
halfcenturyup said:
I was just answering a question about the effect if the PL succeeded in changing the nature of the Etihad transaction, for example, to an RPT.

But yes, it's all speculation. No-one knows anything. You do agree, though, that the fact he has this "understanding" suddenly and chooses to share it is interesting?

Edit: And just to be clear, I never said RPTs and FMVs are the key allegations, the key (most serious) allegations are presumably the funding of the sponsorships and its effect on the accounts. I do think it's likely they have been included in the PL's Statement of Facts, though. It's fine if you don't share that view.
Click to expand...
Surely the Premier League can’t just retrospectively declare that Etihad are a Related Party. That would be some serious straw-clutching. Even UEFA didn’t pursue that one too much but at least when they were in discussions with City about it, it was being done in real time.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Actually, they said they had been thinking about it since 2018 (I wonder why then) although there was no evidence to back it up. They also said the UEFA / CAS story "had brought to light the potential" for abusing RPTs even though UEFA accepted the sponsors weren't RPTs and were at FMV. Their other argument for APTs was the 115 case and the hearing hadn't even started then.

Seriously, their arguments for APTs were ridiculously weak and why the club didn't push back isn't clear so far.
Click to expand...
The related party issue was mentioned but not tested at CAS. It was disputed as part of the original settlement in 2014 but no consensus or decision was reached.

So it's never been tested but, as I said, as long as it's FMV then it's irrelevant in any material way.

I do agree that the PL seemed to get an easy ride over some of its evidence though.
 
Blue_eyes said:
ORGAN115ED AND CLEAR.

The "115" announcement, designed for impact and severity.

As some have eluded to, the whole process is our "punishment" for upsetting the applecart.

Publicly dragging our name through the mud at every opportunity via paid media shills.

Firing up opposing fans with cries of cheats, and twisting the truth around the case.

I have trust in the knowledge and opinions of the resident legal experts on here.

If all the pl have is non cooperation they will try to inflate the punishment for it.

If cleared of the financial, procedural and accountancy accusations we should push back against non cooperation.

We, and City will still be here when the pl is no more, so fck em.

Happy new year everyone.
Click to expand...
The transfer window is open so expect some extra bullshit this month.
 
petrusha said:
Nor does it mean that, as he seems to suggest, there must therefore be something wrong with them. Obviously, as we've done to death on here, if they're set up with a view to creating a fraudulent disguise for shareholder investment by portraying it as sponsorship income, then THAT would constitute (among other things) rule breaches along the lines of the accusations against City.

Otherwise, the arrangements presumably amount, in the final analysis, to: individuals at City with connections to the Abu Dhabi royals or government apparatus allowing AD publicly owned sponsors preferential payment delays by making funds available to MCFC pending reimbursement; AD public body shareholders of such companies providing the latter with funding to meet the sponsorships obligations; or a combination of the above.

OK, fine, but how does this constitute, as the ‘charge’ references, a failure to provide "in the utmost good faith ... accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs". Maybe there's an argument it does, and the PL obviously thinks so. It's far from evident based on the information in the public domain, though, and the explanations in the preceding paragraph are IMO prima facie far more persuasive.

As pithily stated in the post I've quoted, this field isn't an area of strength for Herbert, a lamentable illiterate in serious legal and financial matters He proclaims himself a friend as well as a former colleague of Nick Harris, on whose judgement here he's in all probability relying. Yet while Harris is more knowledgeable than Herbert on these issues, the former’s proficiency is still grievously deficient itself and, moreover, is tainted by a stench rather than a whiff of manifest bias.

There are all kinds of issues potentially at play here, none of which either Herbert or even Harris is even close to capable of analysing in competent or credible fashion (as opposed to Nick’s detailed but myopic rehashes of the ‘prosecution’ case). I could speculate what the issues at hand might possibly be, but I'm really not sure that it serves any purpose. Nonetheless, in this monster of a thread they've all had an airing at some point anyway.

That said, unless City have been improbably and monumentally stupid in the drawing up and execution of the arrangements, I'd contend that they're really not especially likely to be the subject matter of the kind of fraud or deliberate concealment that would allow the statutory time-bar to be lifted for issues before season 2016/17. And it's hard to see how the accounts didn't give a "true and fair" view thereafter.

The latter argument seems to me to apply even if one accepts the wholly contentious premise that AD sponsors should have been declared as "related parties", at least as long as the fees under the relevant contracts were broadly at market value. No doubt our accounting brethren will pull me up on this one if I have it wrong.

TL, DR. Another year, another vacuous, cheerleading piece of simplistic clickbait bullshit from Herbert, coming close to straying over the border with outright mendacity if it doesn't actually do so. No surprises there. Still, I have to give the guy credit for one thing, namely his sheer chutzpah in being that grotesquely ugly yet being prepared even so to appear in public without a bag over his head. He has looks and intellectual ability on the same level.
Click to expand...
Last time I heard anyone use the phrase "outright mendacity" was Leonard Sachs.
 
cheekybids said:
I see she was another beneficiary of New Years honours.

www.premierleague.com

Premier League director Fyfield recognised in New Year's honours list

Board member Mai Fyfield appointed CBE in King's awards, while ex-West Ham boss David Moyes also recognised
www.premierleague.com www.premierleague.com
Click to expand...
I'd still like to know why a supposedly independent non-executive director was burning the midnight oil over an operational issue, when a NED is supposed to be detached from the day-to-day running of the organisation.

And that's yet another example of getting an honour just for doing the job you're supposed to be doing.
 
M18CTID said:
Surely the Premier League can’t just retrospectively declare that Etihad are a Related Party. That would be some serious straw-clutching. Even UEFA didn’t pursue that one too much but at least when they were in discussions with City about it, it was being done in real time.
Click to expand...

Not sure, but can't see why not. Back to 2016/7 maybe unless they can show deliberate concealment of something or other? I wouldn't worry about it unduly, even if it is included in the allegations it will be devilishly difficult to prove to the standard required.

I always assumed UEFA didn't challenge because of the 2014 settlement, tbh.
 
mexico1970 said:
I got told off by my better half last night for laughing at a rag relative of hers who suggested that the rags will get free money to the tune of 2 billion for a new stadium because it's technically free money.

If it wasn't so stupid it would be embarrassing :)
Click to expand...
Interesting!
Did he say where this free money comes from.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
Wasn't it a sponsor refusing to pay up. Not sure how that was put down as an exemption though
Click to expand...
That’s one of the elements they claimed but there is no record of any sponsor going bust let alone anything material. But you’d have to think they had to prove this to the PL
 
mexico1970 said:
I got told off by my better half last night for laughing at a rag relative of hers who suggested that the rags will get free money to the tune of 2 billion for a new stadium because it's technically free money.

If it wasn't so stupid it would be embarrassing :)
Click to expand...
Jim is cutting the office tea and coffee budget and plans to have that hole in the roof patched up any day now.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Not sure, but can't see why not. Back to 2016/7 maybe unless they can show deliberate concealment of something or other? I wouldn't worry about it unduly, even if it is included in the allegations it will be devilishly difficult to prove to the standard required.

I always assumed UEFA didn't challenge because of the 2014 settlement, tbh.
Click to expand...
It isn’t why UEFA didn’t challenge but let’s say the PL do show it was a related party and that it should have been fair valued.

It’s going to be extraordinarily difficult to demonstrate, in 2024, that the 2016/17 contract was, say £10m too high. And to what end - on any case Related Party is subjective and City’s auditor clearly and consistently has disagreed with PwC and the allegations made by the PL including in 2023/24. So the PL would have won on a non-concealed, highly subjective point with a consequence that they can subjectively try to adjust an old sponsorship that the CAS decision says UEFA accepted was FMV and that was also found to be FMV in 2014 by UEFAs expert. It’s really very unlikely and if this is the fall back position (ie an alternate argument if their main fraud argument fails), I’d expect the panel to be less than impressed and to dismiss it.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I'd still like to know why a supposedly independent non-executive director was burning the midnight oil over an operational issue, when a NED is supposed to be detached from the day-to-day running of the organisation.

And that's yet another example of getting an honour just for doing the job you're supposed to be doing.
Click to expand...
If anyone reading this has watched Still Game on TV a "NED" is a Scottish "Non Educated Delinquent", not a bad comparison.
 
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