Ok I won't encourage you but I fail to see how you have come up with a 2000 word fact base analysis without the facts?
That's without discussing how impartial you were in your approach.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
That's without discussing how impartial you were in your approach.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
That's the whole point. There's no way they are related parties but that's the last hope the red cartel had.Quite…. If neither Etihad nor City’s auditors have flagged this why would either party bother to declare the other as a related party. Even in City’s latest accounts the auditors did not declare Etihad a related party - and given the charges etc they must have discussed and reexamined the point.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
Sorry, that's not the case. If the authorities become aware of a possible crime being committed, they're legally bound to act. There's been over 10 years of very public accusations leveled at City, with thousands of pages of supposed evidence. The authorities can't failed to have noticed this, so where are they?Yes, but they are not required to jump the gun. They could only be alerted when the current case reports. If the PL had a smoking gun would they not already have alerted the authorities?
They won't act on a non-statutory bodies findings. If they become aware a criminal act may have taken place, they'll acquire the assembled evidence & conduct their own investigation, & proceed (or not) based on their findings.
Imagine the legal & political shitshow if the authorities failed to act on a publicly alleged crime (corporate fraud, money laundering, tax evasion etc) because they were waiting on the conclusion of a non-statutory body's tribunal? The law doesn't work like that.
There doesn't need to be a formal reporting of an alleged crime for the authorities to act either. They just need to be made aware that a crime may have been committed to trigger an investigation by first asking for, or acquiring a court warrant to seize the claimed evidence of the criminal act.
Those claiming this isn't the legal reality of UK law, really have no clue how statutory bodies or UK Law works. They only have to conduct a quick Google search if they continue to be ignorant of these facts after so many years.
Again just like @Prestwich_Blue once I stepped back & took a global overview of FFP, PSR & APT, it all became crystal clear to me. The PL's private club "rules" have zero standing in UK Law, hence why I suggest at worst City maybe found guilty of non-compliance. So following the CAS example, it may or may not follow with a heavy fine on that basis only.
I’d say it is controversial. UEFA did conclude in 2014 Etihad was related - so I’d say that was controversial.Another "soft" signal re 115/130 or are you waiting for the IPO listing and full info?
Why do you say in the tweet "conroversially, City have never identified Etihad as a related party?"
I'm aware of the non-related/related debate on here over the years and, if Eitihad had been declared as related at the outset if anything our lives might have been easier and has always been accepetd as FMV in anycase (excluding the recent submission).
Probably should wait for the prospectus
I’ve explained many times what the reality is on this along these lines. But I’d still say the issue is controversialQuite…. If neither Etihad nor City’s auditors have flagged this why would either party bother to declare the other as a related party. Even in City’s latest accounts the auditors did not declare Etihad a related party - and given the charges etc they must have discussed and reexamined the point.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,903
I get your point.
But if it comes back that we are innocent on all charges possibly with the exception of some non-cooperation charges.
(I get we don’t know the outcome so its a big if)
Why the PL would push all these charges on us.
Make a big song and dance of it after we have been cleared by CAS on similar accusations.
The PL have spent a fortune on legal fees. They have some very experienced and knowledgable solicitors.
Surely masters has been advised by these and for him to allow us to be charged without a very strong likelihood of success is beyond stupid and will make them as an entity and him especially look incredibly incompetent.
I can’t think of another logical reason as to why they would do it if it wasn’t to aid our rivals in trying to destroy our reputation.
However, I’m no expert and we are still unaware of the outcome.
So that’s just my humble opinion.
Personally, I think the PL have been manipulated into this situation by certain rival clubs, by a particularly weak PL management team and by a combative club management.
I am not sure it's in the PL's interests to destroy the club's reputation even if that, through their weakness and incompetence, is one of the consequences.
Bluewonder
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 4,698
It isn't controversial under actual accounting standards, though, because there's no commonality of shareholders, directors, their spouses or their dependents.I’d say it is controversial. UEFA did conclude in 2014 Etihad was related - so I’d say that was controversial.
Probably should wait for the prospectus
nmc
Well-Known Member
I’ve explained many times what the reality is on this along these lines. But I’d still say the issue is controversial
Not being argumentative but BDO and Grant Thornton clearly don’t seem too worried about being wrong footed. Ultimately their reputations are somewhat in the spotlight.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
This.Personally, I think the PL have been manipulated into this situation by certain rival clubs, by a particularly weak PL management team and by a combative club management.
I am not sure it's in the PL's interests to destroy the club's reputation even if that, through their weakness and incompetence, is one of the consequences.
I knowNot being argumentative but BDO and Grant Thornton clearly don’t seem too worried about being wrong footed. Ultimately their reputations are somewhat in the spotlight.
Again, points have made many times.
But again, in the wider world there remains scepticism and controversy.
PwC disagreed in 2014It isn't controversial under actual accounting standards, though, because there's no commonality of shareholders, directors, their spouses or their dependents.
lol i honestly didn’t know there’s actually a lawyers magazineThe Lawyer magazine - very good on all City
In your first paragraph You are assuming the existence of the case is evidence. It is not. You sound like the Daily Mail..”there’s 115 charges so they must be guilty of something” What evidence or even hint of a crime do you think has been brought to their attention or could be? In your second paragraph you accept this is unlikely. If I were the fraud squad, I would do nothing till the data was handed to me on my asking at the end of the case. Anything else would be a waste of time and money. Your argument is a straw man. And you are factually wrong in one aspect. It is common practice to time any intervention to best advantage, not necessarily at the first hint, as the SFO admit with their proposed new policy.Sorry, that's not the case. If the authorities become aware of a possible crime being committed, they're legally bound to act. There's been over 10 years of very public accusations leveled at City, with thousands of pages of supposed evidence. The authorities can't failed to have noticed this, so where are they?
They won't act on a non-statutory bodies findings. If they become aware a criminal act may have taken place, they'll acquire the assembled evidence & conduct their own investigation, & proceed (or not) based on their findings.
Imagine the legal & political shitshow if the authorities failed to act on a publicly alleged crime (corporate fraud, money laundering, tax evasion etc) because they were waiting on the conclusion of a non-statutory body's tribunal? The law doesn't work like that.
There doesn't need to be a formal reporting of an alleged crime for the authorities to act either. They just need to be made aware that a crime may have been committed to trigger an investigation by first asking for, or acquiring a court warrant to seize the claimed evidence of the criminal act.
Those claiming this isn't the legal reality of UK law, really have no clue how statutory bodies or UK Law works. They only have to conduct a quick Google search if they continue to be ignorant of these facts after so many years.
Again just like @Prestwich_Blue once I stepped back & took a global overview of FFP, PSR & APT, it all became crystal clear to me. The PL's private club "rules" have zero standing in UK Law, hence why I suggest at worst City maybe found guilty of non-compliance. So following the CAS example, it may or may not follow with a heavy fine on that basis only.
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
If we're being pedantic, PWC, who were representing UEFA, claimed that Etihad was a related party but that was never formally tested.I’d say it is controversial. UEFA did conclude in 2014 Etihad was related - so I’d say that was controversial.
Probably should wait for the prospectus
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
lol i honestly didn’t know there’s actually a lawyers magazine
There’s even a Panini stickerbook.
Mike S
Well-Known Member
Don't you mean a Pannick sticker book :-)There’s even a Panini stickerbook.
hahaha ffs that’s wildThere’s even a Panini stickerbook.
silvathechihuahua
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2020
- Messages
- 624
- Team supported
- city
Arsenal are the instigators!Personally, I think the PL have been manipulated into this situation by certain rival clubs, by a particularly weak PL management team and by a combative club management.
I am not sure it's in the PL's interests to destroy the club's reputation even if that, through their weakness and incompetence, is one of the consequences.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
The authorities have had 10 years to time their intervention. What are they still waiting for? Round four of The PL & UEFA vs City?In your first paragraph You are assuming the existence of the case is evidence. It is not. You sound like the Daily Mail..”there’s 115 charges so they must be guilty of something” What evidence or even hint of a crime do you think has been brought to their attention or could be? In your second paragraph you accept this is unlikely. If I were the fraud squad, I would do nothing till the data was handed to me on my asking at the end of the case. Anything else would be a waste of time and money. Your argument is a straw man. And you are factually wrong in one aspect. It is common practice to time any intervention to best advantage, not necessarily at the first hint.
Mate, just do a quick Google search on the reporting of crimes in the UK, & this will easily prove the authorities only need to be made aware of a criminal act to investigate. They don't need a crime to be formally reported to act, especially if it's in the public interest.
We've seen in Italy & with UEFA & FIFA how the authorities take a serious & dim view of fraud. So again all I ask is you conduct a Google search of whether a crime needs to be formally reported for the authorities to act, & to consider that with all the wild reports of City's many wrongdoings, why they're still waiting to pounce on us with actual criminal charges 12 years after this witch hunt began?