PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

slbsn said:
They didn’t make or ask me to say anything. I merely explained (as I would about any club including say Chelsea) that it not the club’s responsibility to make sure the rules make sense. All clubs’ responsibility is to themselves. They are all entitled to push the rules hard - if the PL accepted United’s numbers, United have done nothing wrong. Similarly with Chelsea and the hotels.

Just to be completely clear, TalkSport have never asked me say anything at all either way. It’s a completely open forum for me to answer as I wish. In fact, they have never even hinted at a direction they would like me to go.
Click to expand...
So the Premier League would accept any clubs claims for allowances no matter how large and suspicious unless they had some reason not to ? And other clubs are not asking questions of other clubs ?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Given that PWC were being paid by UEFA, they would say that wouldn't they?

IAS 24 also says: "The following are deemed not to be related: [IAS 24.11]
- two entities simply because they have a director or key manager in common"

The fact that Sheikh Mansour chaired the entity that owned Aabar & Etisalat does not necessarily make them related parties to Manchester City. PWC would have needed to understand the full nature of HHSM's involvement in those companies to understand whether he exercised a sufficient level of influence and control over them. I doubt they did.
Click to expand...
Not sure UEFA paid works well as an argument given City pay BDO!!
 
slbsn said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sent Keith to the moon there good and proper !
 
Vic said:
I've just fast forwarded 80 pages. Anything new?
Click to expand...
Yes a lot , some shitty wannabe drummer ate loads of pinto beans, rest of 80 pages is all stinky.
edit - also sleeper cell wanking season is on full blossom
 
WRicko said:
So the Premier League would accept any clubs claims for allowances no matter how large and suspicious unless they had some reason not to ? And other clubs are not asking questions of other clubs ?
Click to expand...

Clearly, United controls the Premier League and the rules, Everton and others had allowances turned down
How United £75million in allowances was passed was a joke and was not questioned or reported in the media because it was bent and rules dodged
 
WRicko said:
So the Premier League would accept any clubs claims for allowances no matter how large and suspicious unless they had some reason not to ? And other clubs are not asking questions of other clubs ?
Click to expand...
Obviously not
 
slbsn said:
They didn’t make or ask me to say anything. I merely explained (as I would about any club including say Chelsea) that it not the club’s responsibility to make sure the rules make sense. All clubs’ responsibility is to themselves. They are all entitled to push the rules hard - if the PL accepted United’s numbers, United have done nothing wrong. Similarly with Chelsea and the hotels.

Just to be completely clear, TalkSport have never asked me say anything at all either way. It’s a completely open forum for me to answer as I wish. In fact, they have never even hinted at a direction they would like me to go.
Click to expand...

So did anybody lodged a complaint on why £75million allowances were allowed or did United explain how that figure was reached ? I think you said £45million on covid 19 and £30million on legal fees from the sale of shares

So did United have to show the figures they made before Covid 19 on match days and losses because of Covid 19
Also, Legal fees should not be included or passed because it was a sale between the Glazers and Ratcliffe and both were rich enough to pay their legal cost
 
ancoats said:
So did anybody lodged a complaint on why £75million allowances were allowed or did United explain how that figure was reached ? I think you said £45million on covid 19 and £30million on legal fees from the sale of shares

So did United have to show the figures they made before Covid 19 on match days and losses because of Covid 19
Also, Legal fees should not be included or passed because it was a sale between the Glazers and Ratcliffe and both were rich enough to pay their legal cost
Click to expand...
As much as we want United to be dragged over the coals it isn’t happening mate , it just isn’t , and we won’t be the only fanbase to think so (Forest and Everton) . They’re having a fire sale at every single aspect of their operations, Scruffy looks a lot older than his 72 years these days - they’ve banked on CL football to get them out of the shite , it will catch up with them , trying to force Rashford and Garnachio out for liquid home grown saving revenue. They’re a fucking disgrace in how to run a football club , but fuck them , this is our battle to clear our name once and for all.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
No other club has been subject to such scrutiny going back 16 years coupled with an orchestrated media smear campaign. The PL leadership has acted with bad faith. They treat City differently to most other clubs.
Click to expand...

Manchester City are used and seen as a bad company and cheating and not how a model football club should be run
Only the blind can not see the real truth because they are told otherwise, The Figures don't lie, the successful profit and turnover are all legal, The sponsorship deals are by legal companies and have to show the figures on their accounts,

The Premier League should be demanding all their clubs be run in this model way and not hide behind a wall of history and debt, The so-called greatest club in England and the world is debt-riddled and wants to stop anybody from progressing and challenging them, Even if it's in the best possible way and built on fantastic foundations and great for football at all levels,

The truth is Manchester United does not care for anybody else but themselves, even at grassroots levels or the ladies' games, The Premier League's only job is to protect United at all cost
 
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