PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
I don't think anyone has disputed that the most serious allegations are those around the funding of the AD sponsorships, especially Etihad, of course.

But I am surprised you think the question of RPT and FMV is so inconsequential. Is it any more so than the allegations in respect of Mancini and Touré? Yet here we are.
Click to expand...
I think anything other than the sponsorship question is relatively inconsequential. We may have technically transgressed in the other matters but none would be considered fraudulent.
 
Just some clarification on the RPT issue and forgive me if it’s a stupid question. Who gets to decide what transactions is a RPT? My understanding (entirely from BM) was that the conditions were very specific, laid out in IS24(?) and not negotiable. So if Etihad tick all the boxes for IS24 they are a RPT, if they don’t, they aren’t and whatever City, the Premier League or UEFA think and/or would like doesn’t make a scrap of difference hence the introduction of APT’s.
 
halfcenturyup said:
But it would be absolutely crushing from a PR point of view. Would it not?

Don't get me wrong. It would be a difficult win for the PL but I am not sure we should just be disregarding its importance as an issue.
Click to expand...
As Stefan says, yes it would. Unless the PL has evidence that we're not aware of, the related party question is potentially the only chink in our armour as far as the AD sponsorships are concerned. But it's a very, very small one.

And for the cynic in me, it's yet more corroboration that this isn't about the PL acting independently of its shareholders, nobly trying to ensure there is a level financial playing field in accordance with its rules and regulations. It's about our competitors trying to nail us in any small way they can.
 
manimanc said:
www.skysports.com

Man Utd's £900m adidas kit deal could be terminated if club are relegated from Premier League - Paper Talk

Plus: Fulham fear Marseille will renew their interest in signing Andreas Pereira; Tottenham are considering delving into the transfer market to sign a new goalkeeper; Aston Villa have recalled Lewis Dobbin from his season-long loan at West Bromwich Albion
www.skysports.com www.skysports.com

Any debate about the amount?

Fair value?

Another free pass for them pricks.
Click to expand...
The rags have been doing dirty on kit and sponsorship deals for decades unchecked . Just read up the Chevrolet deal. A deal signed up with a company with links to their owners for a price that was so obscenely overpriced it resulted in the internal Chevrolet exec being sacked for misconduct
 
Bozzie said:
Just some clarification on the RPT issue and forgive me if it’s a stupid question. Who gets to decide what transactions is a RPT? My understanding (entirely from BM) was that the conditions were very specific, laid out in IS24(?) and not negotiable. So if Etihad tick all the boxes for IS24 they are a RPT, if they don’t, they aren’t and whatever City, the Premier League or UEFA think and/or would like doesn’t make a scrap of difference hence the introduction of APT’s.
Click to expand...
I think an accountant will tell you that IAS 24 is open to two differing interpretations, which was a bone of contention in 2014, but UEFA did not press it because they thought that our sponsorships were FMV anyway.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
As Stefan says, yes it would. Unless the PL has evidence that we're not aware of, the related party question is potentially the only chink in our armour as far as the AD sponsorships are concerned. But it's a very, very small one.

And for the cynic in me, it's yet more corroboration that this isn't about the PL acting independently of its shareholders, nobly trying to ensure there is a level financial playing field in accordance with its rules and regulations. It's about our competitors trying to nail us in any small way they can.
Click to expand...

Clear & organised.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
As Stefan says, yes it would. Unless the PL has evidence that we're not aware of, the related party question is potentially the only chink in our armour as far as the AD sponsorships are concerned. But it's a very, very small one.

And for the cynic in me, it's yet more corroboration that this isn't about the PL acting independently of its shareholders, nobly trying to ensure there is a level financial playing field in accordance with its rules and regulations. It's about our competitors trying to nail us in any small way they can.
Click to expand...
All of the actions speak for themselves. Deeds not words. Speech is about 18% of communication. But if you do need words, Pep told everyone that the other clubs wanted to beat us off the pitch. He knows the situation.
 
citizen_maine said:
Is the PL's contention then, that we've deliberately misinterpreted this?
Click to expand...
It would seem that's at least a significant part of their case.

In my opinion there's now a traceable path from CAS, who said that if the Abu Dhabi sponsors were related parties then we're potentially open to the charge of misreporting this in our accounts, to the APT case, where the cartel clubs also had the view that we had misreported this (maybe based on the CAS report), to the PL charges, which specifically mention related parties.

That seems to me to be the line of attack, in the absence of any other information regarding the sponsorships. But I don't believe it'll be a productive one. A bit like trying to stop a tank with a rolled-up newspaper.
 
KS55 said:
Iceberg lasts for ages.
Click to expand...
Then I'll buy a vegetable that’s grown into a rude and amusing shape...

EVvKcgeXsAoaEUk.jpg
 
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