PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

Sent Keith to the moon there good and proper !

Not really, I get the point that he is a pain in the ass and is like a dog with a bone when he thinks he has a point, but I will almost guarantee that when the judgment comes out, it will show the panel will have been asked to review the related party nature of the AD sponsors.

You could apply most of the arguments I have seen against that to the other allegations as well, yet here we are.

 

[city2]

Only 2 clubs who should be investigated are rags and scousers but will never happen unfortunately.

 

[slbsn]

So how did the Premier League let United have £40million in allowances for Covid 19
Did they really lose £40million in match revenue ?? that's over £2million a game, the maths just doesn't add up

Also, we all know about the fake attendance figures they put out compared to the official police figures

They sent them an audit schedule showing multiple categories where they claim they lost £40m

 

[slbsn]

Not really, I get the point that he is a pain in the ass and is like a dog with a bone when he thinks he has a point, but I will almost guarantee that when the judgment comes out, it will show the panel will have been asked to review the related party nature of the AD sponsors.

You could apply most of the arguments I have seen against that to the other allegations as well, yet here we are.

You also believe this case will review the audited accounting treatment of Aabar, Etisalat and Etihad as related parties and attempt to FMV the value of those contracts 2009-2018 rerunning the publicly known work of UEFA before 2014 and contrary to the position established in CAS? Be specific.

If you are right BDO were bonkers allowing City to put out the 23/24 numbers early because there is no doubt BDO had access to the PLs opening and expert reports on these points before signing off the accounts.

 

[give it to gordon]

So United failed Uefa FFP and was fined, So will the Premier League Open up a case against United

Also, if I create a fake hacked email and state I have found United had broken the rules with the Carlos Tevez loan and 3rd party ownership and payments were made to the 3rd party, City had to buy out Carlos Tevez ownership from KIa because you are not allowed 3rd party ownership in the Premier League, West Ham was punished for that reason
so how did United get around that for 2 seasons,

​

I really hope once this case is finished City bring up these points and demand rags and overs are investigated.
If other clubs support City than the pl can't just brush it under the carpet.

It stinks that the press/media, the pl all ignore the dodge deals between the rags and the pl

 

[WRicko]

They sent them an audit schedule showing multiple categories where they claim they lost £40m

So when you went on talkSPORT and implied the figures they used seemed a bit high dodgy and and then subsequently went on and ignored there situation you where wrong to bring attention to it the first time round as it’s all above board and squeaky clean ? And what’s more it’s always followed the same procedure so you didn’t know what the procedure was ? Or raised it anyway because ? And rowed back from it because ?

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

You also believe this case will review the audited accounting treatment of Aabar, Etisalat and Etihad as related parties and attempt to FMV the value of those contracts 2009-2018 rerunning the publicly known work of UEFA before 2014 and contrary to the position established in CAS? Be specific.

If you are right BDO were bonkers allowing City to put out the 23/24 numbers early because there is no doubt BDO had access to the PLs opening and expert reports on these points before signing off the accounts.

It depends on the level of integrity one attributes to this whole process, I suppose. Personally, I'm inclined to be wary of an organisation, whose CEO had to be 'wined and dined' at the Swamp and Anfield and given their 'seal of approval' prior to being elected to his post, then needlessly announced our charges tally as being 115, rather than the 6 it should have been, and then selected an Arsenal supporting judge to in turn select the hearing panel.
I know you will put the last of the above (if not all) down to paranoia, but I'm with @halfcenturyup. The PL has thrown all its resources at this and seems hell bent on securing whatever kind of conviction they can get their hands on. Attempting to retrospectively re-examine the related party angle of our sponsorship deals, falls well within the levels of chicanery to which I think they would stoop. They're cnuts.....

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

They're cunts.....

 

[halfcenturyup]

You also believe this case will review the audited accounting treatment of Aabar, Etisalat and Etihad as related parties and attempt to FMV the value of those contracts 2009-2018 rerunning the publicly known work of UEFA before 2014 and contrary to the position established in CAS? Be specific.

If you are right BDO were bonkers allowing City to put out the 23/24 numbers early because there is no doubt BDO had access to the PLs opening and expert reports on these points before signing off the accounts.

Good morning. I knew that would do it :) Happy New Year btw, I don't think I've said it yet.

What I actually think is the following:

The related party nature of the AD sponsorships is part of the allegations referred to the disciplinary process by the PL. The issue is well-known, has been unresolved since 2014 and before, has been referred to in the APT case (imho explicitly) and was stated in the PL's press release as part of the allegations.

I suppose you can disagree with this. That's fine, but I think it's a reasonable position.

Just to be clear, I don't think they will succeed, as it happens, because it's pretty much a judgement call and the PL would need some pretty good evidence to obtain a conclusion from the panel that goes against 15 years of the treatment in signed, audited accounts. But nothing is certain. If we are to believe that the PL wouldn't have proceeded with the Etihad allegations, for example, without an indication that they could be successful then we should apply the same thinking to this matter?

That's my position in a nutshell.

As always, no problem if everyone thinks it's bollocks :)

 

[halfcenturyup]

So when you went on talkSPORT and implied the figures they used seemed a bit high dodgy and and then subsequently went on and ignored there situation you where wrong to bring attention to it the first time round as it’s all above board and squeaky clean ? And what’s more it’s always followed the same procedure so you didn’t know what the procedure was ? Or raised it anyway because ? And rowed back from it because ?

Not sure you can criticise anyone for reporting a potential issue based on the information available at the time who then clarified the situation a week later after new facts became available.

It was an unfortunate look, though. It pretty much looked like United had been on the blower that week. Have to accept that stuff like that will happen when you are visible in the media, I suppose.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Unless the media make a song & dance about it nothing will happen.

Now imagine if Silverlake sent questions like this to the board & it got in the papers….

The 99 questions that turned Old Trafford red

Attached to the letter from John Magnier's company to Manchester United were the following 99 questions which go to the heart of the way the club is run

m.independent.ie

Many of those questions, particularly the ones in the first section concerning the presentation and accuracy of financial information, were completely idiotic to be honest.

 

[Centurions]

It depends on the level of integrity one attributes to this whole process, I suppose. Personally, I'm inclined to be wary of an organisation, whose CEO had to be 'wined and dined' at the Swamp and Anfield and given their 'seal of approval' prior to being elected to his post, then needlessly announced our charges tally as being 115, rather than the 6 it should have been, and then selected an Arsenal supporting judge to in turn select the hearing panel.
I know you will put the last of the above (if not all) down to paranoia, but I'm with @halfcenturyup. The PL has thrown all its resources at this and seems hell bent on securing whatever kind of conviction they can get their hands on. Attempting to retrospectively re-examine the related party angle of our sponsorship deals, falls well within the levels of chicanery to which I think they would stoop. They're cnuts.....

Don't forget that they forced us to use an Arsenal fan as our lead counsel as well.

 

[Centurions]

So how did the Premier League let United have £40million in allowances for Covid 19
Did they really lose £40million in match revenue ?? that's over £2million a game, the maths just doesn't add up

Also, we all know about the fake attendance figures they put out compared to the official police figures

Wasn't it something to do with a pre season tour rather than just match day allowances?

 

[SSBlue]

Yeah
@slbsn and @Prestwich_Blue are debating which hill the Premier League is standing on

Killamancity?

 

[Marvin.]

What does a balance of probability mean as far as this case is concerned? 50.1% to 49.9%? A balance of probability is not a very meaningful phrase. How do you quantify conviction in the interpretation of rule breaking? It seems to me that the legal process is inherently subjective, therefore the in-house process makes me wary. For example, the UEFA in-house commission & CAS reviewed similar material, and arrived at different conclusions.

I do not trust the regulatory regime when I see Chelsea and Man Utd reporting extraordinary losses, and I see that Man Utd are given unusual deductions and allowances that no other football club receives, and Chelsea have reportedly been allowed to use the proceeds of hotel sales in the breakeven calculation. It feels like Manchester City are being targeted by rival clubs because their is huge financial benefit to rival clubs in doing so.

 

[slbsn]

Good morning. I knew that would do it :) Happy New Year btw, I don't think I've said it yet.

What I actually think is the following:

The related party nature of the AD sponsorships is part of the allegations referred to the disciplinary process by the PL. The issue is well-known, has been unresolved since 2014 and before, has been referred to in the APT case (imho explicitly) and was stated in the PL's press release as part of the allegations.

I suppose you can disagree with this. That's fine, but I think it's a reasonable position.

Just to be clear, I don't think they will succeed, as it happens, because it's pretty much a judgement call and the PL would need some pretty good evidence to obtain a conclusion from the panel that goes against 15 years of the treatment in signed, audited accounts. But nothing is certain. If we are to believe that the PL wouldn't have proceeded with the Etihad allegations, for example, without an indication that they could be successful then we should apply the same thinking to this matter?

That's my position in a nutshell.

As always, no problem if everyone thinks it's bollocks :)

The difference is one is highly subjective, well trodden publicly and clearly time barred. The other is sufficiently serious (very) and concealed to be capable of breaching the SoL. Furthermore, it is something worth pursuing - a disagreement on RP is not and, if it was, you have failed to address why they waited 10 years to pursue and haven't pursued the ongoing "breach" all founded on the same factual background. Of course you can believe what you like but you haven't addressed any of the questions including how you prove the subject RP point, how you now demostrate the FMV of 10 year old deals with good clarity.

PS related party and FMV only commenced in the PL rules in 2013-14 so "related party" couldn't relate to any charge for any year prior to that.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Don't forget that they forced us to use an Arsenal fan as our lead counsel as well.

Ha ha! My paranoia has no answer to that!

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

It depends on the level of integrity one attributes to this whole process, I suppose. Personally, I'm inclined to be wary of an organisation, whose CEO had to be 'wined and dined' at the Swamp and Anfield and given their 'seal of approval' prior to being elected to his post, then needlessly announced our charges tally as being 115, rather than the 6 it should have been, and then selected an Arsenal supporting judge to in turn select the hearing panel.
I know you will put the last of the above (if not all) down to paranoia, but I'm with @halfcenturyup. The PL has thrown all its resources at this and seems hell bent on securing whatever kind of conviction they can get their hands on. Attempting to retrospectively re-examine the related party angle of our sponsorship deals, falls well within the levels of chicanery to which I think they would stoop. They're cnuts.....

You are right to be skeptical of the entire proocess. The PL leadership and some of its Club Directors have behaved despicably The disparaging public comments, the anonymous vicious media briefings, the letters, the partisan press releases. And all this has happened in plain sight. Can you imagine what has happened behind closed doors? It would be insane to trust the current leadership at the PL. The detailed evidence from the APT case alone is proof of bad faith.

 

[slbsn]

So when you went on talkSPORT and implied the figures they used seemed a bit high dodgy and and then subsequently went on and ignored there situation you where wrong to bring attention to it the first time round as it’s all above board and squeaky clean ? And what’s more it’s always followed the same procedure so you didn’t know what the procedure was ? Or raised it anyway because ? And rowed back from it because ?

You are one of the very few people on ignore on this forum (perhaps the only one), I couldn't remember why but it appears for good reason.

I did none of those things detailed above.

I explained a story nobody had previously mentioned on national radio, it got plenty of coverage (contrary to the view here), I clarified that my point was not that United had done wrong fighting their own corner (a position I stand by be it City, Chelsea, United or anyone else), never said it was squeaky clean and explained some of the other relevant points like the audited amounts for 2021/22 in every other clubs accounts inc Arsenal (£2m). United responded by briefing Maguire with a list of categories and since then I have explained repeatedly why those categories do not appear to add up to £40m nor are detailed in any set of accounts. I have also explained here and elsewhere that despite my scepticism as to the £40m figure, they would only have got approval with an audited schedule of information submitted to the PL for review. Finally, I made it clear UEFA did not accept the £40m (per United's accounts).

I would say that contrary to your suggestion what I actually did was present quite a wide ranging objective look at the subject with lots of near exclusive detail.

As for your questions at the end, you obviously didn't listen properly to what I said. Do so next time rather than misleading the reader and making idiotic attacks.

 

[Bez]

It depends on the level of integrity one attributes to this whole process, I suppose. Personally, I'm inclined to be wary of an organisation, whose CEO had to be 'wined and dined' at the Swamp and Anfield and given their 'seal of approval' prior to being elected to his post, then needlessly announced our charges tally as being 115, rather than the 6 it should have been, and then selected an Arsenal supporting judge to in turn select the hearing panel.
I know you will put the last of the above (if not all) down to paranoia, but I'm with @halfcenturyup. The PL has thrown all its resources at this and seems hell bent on securing whatever kind of conviction they can get their hands on. Attempting to retrospectively re-examine the related party angle of our sponsorship deals, falls well within the levels of chicanery to which I think they would stoop. They're cnuts.....

The PL was set up as a protection racket and as new money has gone into clubs, other than the red cartel (plus Spurs), the PL have turned the screw and created more and more ridiculous rules to prevent the new money from being spent. This is a desperate attempt to stop the PL from becoming more competitive in the top 6.

The PL is a political organisation and where there's politics there will be power groups influencing the PL to do what they want them to do. It's entirely possible Richard Masters is a stooge. Why did the other candidates pull out of the running for this role? Perhaps they were told it was going to be a tough brief. We may never know the truth on this. We can only speculate.

I don't think you are paranoid.

My main concern is lawyers, particularly KCs, are very clever people and clever people can find angles/subtleties/nuances in order to make their case. That said, the lawyers on both sides will be very adept at nullifying the other's case. The hearing will be attritional and without new damning evidence I cannot see the PL succeeding in the way they hoped. No doubt the PL may have some small wins, but if City's owners are as good as we think they are we will prevail and come back stronger after this.

Finally, I also agree with your last sentence. However, I need to note there is a spelling error.