So all you are saying is you don't believe their accounts are true, fair enough but like those that don't believe our accounts.I'm not qualified or in a position to know.
Even before David Gill had made up the rules amazingSince Aabar was part of IPIC, where HHMS was chairman of the board, and Etisalat is owned by the UAE's federal government, where he served as deputy prime minister, it can be argued that he had influence over both companies and that the sponsorship deals were not conducted at arm's length, with the compensation exceeding market value.
welcome to international business mate, there is so much wrong with this statement i domt even know where to start, if you were to go down the route of billionaires influence both direct and indirect in business you would find that it intersects so widely it would be arguable that influence could be generated almost anywhere in a direct of none direct fashion, you are talking semantics to be contradictory as you have been on this entire thread, i dont know whether you werent hugged enough as a child or if you are just desperate for attention but its boring.Since Aabar was part of IPIC, where HHMS was chairman of the board, and Etisalat is owned by the UAE's federal government, where he served as deputy prime minister, it can be argued that he had influence over both companies and that the sponsorship deals were not conducted at arm's length, with the compensation exceeding market value.
PSR is an automatic process. You submit your accounts and add back any allowable expenses. But yes, if they exceed the £105m maximum allowable loss then the PL should investigate. That's when they bring in Stevie Wonder to scrutinise the rags' accounts.You phrase it like it is an issue for them.
When in reality if a club is not investigated it cannot be found guilty.
It will be interesting to see what allowances they have as the £260 amount is total losses. I also don't think the glazers have ever invested their own money which is likely to mean the 3 year losses amount is only £15 million and not the £105 million figure (unless ineos cover this).Their accumulated losses over the last 3 years are just under £260m. They'll need to find over £150m of "allowances" to escape failing PSR.
Wasn’t there some agreement in 2014 with UEFA regarding both of those companies?Since Aabar was part of IPIC, where HHMS was chairman of the board, and Etisalat is owned by the UAE's federal government, where he served as deputy prime minister, it can be argued that he had influence over both companies and that the sponsorship deals were not conducted at arm's length, with the compensation exceeding market value.
Snap so have I do not want to hear anymore of his nonsense, had enoughlast timeKeith's back and going straight on the ignore list this time.
I won't get fooled again.
If only BDO had access to GoogleSince Aabar was part of IPIC, where HHMS was chairman of the board, and Etisalat is owned by the UAE's federal government, where he served as deputy prime minister, it can be argued that he had influence over both companies and that the sponsorship deals were not conducted at arm's length, with the compensation exceeding market value.
'My Generation' has no time for him.Keith's back and going straight on the ignore list this time.
I won't get fooled again.
And PwC, who advised UEFA that Aabar and Etisalat were classified as 'related parties.If only BDO had access to Google
I’ll guess they’ll be about £150m in ‘stadium maintenance’Be interesting to see what unforeseen allowances the PL manage to find in order to save them...........again.
Part of the 2014 Settlement Agreement with UEFA was that City don't increase the value of - IIRC - two second-tier sponsorship deals over a specified period of time. Now I don't know who those deals were with but I think we can safely guess that Etisalat and Aabar were the two companies involved so in terms of related parties and FMV it was dealt with over a decade ago and shouldn't become an issue now unless the PL want to be utter cunts about it.And PwC, who advised UEFA that Aabar and Etisalat were classified as 'related parties.
This isn’t the point you think it is. This proves that this information was known publicly by 2013. It also means BDO will have asked themselves at that point (even if they hadn’t before) if the classification in the audit was correct. Likewise even having seen the PLs position in this case, they clearly agreed with City’s position as demonstrated by the 15th(?) year of audited accounts concluding those entities are not RPs.And PwC, who advised UEFA that Aabar and Etisalat were classified as 'related parties.
Mate, you may occasionally dampen down some of the positive hyperbole on here (and well done to you for doing so by the way, it’s never a bad thing to have a more realistic voice in the thread) but every now and then you come out with a true zinger like this post.This isn’t the point you think it is. This proves that this information was known publicly by 2013. It also means BDO will have asked themselves at that point (even if they hadn’t before) if the classification in the audit was correct. Likewise even having seen the PLs position in this case, they clearly agreed with City’s position as demonstrated by the 15th(?) year of audited accounts concluding those entities are not RPs.
The idea the PL can revisit an arguable (ie subjective) accounting standards point for years outside the limitation period but chose not to
pursue either at the time or for the years from 2018 to 2024 is obviously wrong.
Furthermore, the very extension of the RP rules to APTs demonstrates that the PL did not have the necessary power to demonstrate the audits have all been wrong.
And even if these parties are RPs, the idea that the PL could now a decade on (or more) demonstrate these deals were not FMV is fanciful especially when some of them aren’t even material.
You are looking very troll like.
Take some up keep them waterfallsI’ll guess they’ll be about £150m in ‘stadium maintenance’
Nerdiest mic drop everThis isn’t the point you think it is. This proves that this information was known publicly by 2013. It also means BDO will have asked themselves at that point (even if they hadn’t before) if the classification in the audit was correct. Likewise even having seen the PLs position in this case, they clearly agreed with City’s position as demonstrated by the 15th(?) year of audited accounts concluding those entities are not RPs.
The idea the PL can revisit an arguable (ie subjective) accounting standards point for years outside the limitation period but chose not to
pursue either at the time or for the years from 2018 to 2024 is obviously wrong.
Furthermore, the very extension of the RP rules to APTs demonstrates that the PL did not have the necessary power to demonstrate the audits have all been wrong.
And even if these parties are RPs, the idea that the PL could now a decade on (or more) demonstrate these deals were not FMV is fanciful especially when some of them aren’t even material.
You are looking very troll like.
Mouse food doesn’t come cheap either.Take some up keep them waterfalls
PSR is an automatic process. You submit your accounts and add back any allowable expenses. But yes, if they exceed the £105m maximum allowable loss then the PL should investigate. That's when they bring in Stevie Wonder to scrutinise the rags' accounts.
You explained it to him far better than I did!This isn’t the point you think it is. This proves that this information was known publicly by 2013. It also means BDO will have asked themselves at that point (even if they hadn’t before) if the classification in the audit was correct. Likewise even having seen the PLs position in this case, they clearly agreed with City’s position as demonstrated by the 15th(?) year of audited accounts concluding those entities are not RPs.
The idea the PL can revisit an arguable (ie subjective) accounting standards point for years outside the limitation period but chose not to
pursue either at the time or for the years from 2018 to 2024 is obviously wrong.
Furthermore, the very extension of the RP rules to APTs demonstrates that the PL did not have the necessary power to demonstrate the audits have all been wrong.
And even if these parties are RPs, the idea that the PL could now a decade on (or more) demonstrate these deals were not FMV is fanciful especially when some of them aren’t even material.
You are looking very troll like.