The importance of the cabinet is that every emirate is represented, so they all formally agree to federal legislation.
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
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
The phrase used in IAS 24 is 'significant influence' but there's no real definition of what that means, so it's open to interpretation.I'm not quite following the initial part of the post. Unless I'm missing something, DPM in the UAE is a title that, in the 21st century there, has been conferred on people who are influential members of the Cabinet, either upon their appointment to their Cabinet role or later.
The four (not three) current incumbents are respectively President of the Presidential Court (Mansour), Minister of the Interior, Minister of Finance and Minister of Defence. They're all members of the Cabinet, and those roles arguably earned them the title DPM. Mansour has been in the Cabinet 5 years longer than he's held the DPM role. I don't see how one can mount a credible argument that he's not a member of the UAE government in those circumstances. Anyway, just a throwaway point. I don't really give a toss about that.
As far as what PwC's thought process was, here goes. The argument rested around the wording in IAS 24 that was copied over into UEFA's FFP rules as Appendix 10, applying to City's case in 2014. I don't have time to find the exact quotation, but it doesn't just cover influence achieved by common familial and business connections. There's also a catch-all wording about otherwise having an opportunity to exercise influence achieved otherwise and this is what PwC seized on, with their main evidence being the Etisalat sponsorship.
IIRC, they believed (I forget on what basis) that City had procured an increase in the Etisalat contract to take it above market value in the year that Mancini and his staff were dismissed. This was allegedly done with a view to keeping our losses for that year below a threshold figure where a sanction would have been triggered had we exceeded it. City had hoped at the time to avoid a sanction for the first FFP reporting period by deducting GBP 80 million or so of pre-2010 wages.
IIRC, PwC argued: (i) the above showed that City had the opportunity to influence Etisalat because it was impossible to contemplate that an arm's-length sponsor would agree to amend a contract that still had time to run so that it would pay more for the services received; (ii) that one could credibly infer that an Abu Dhabi publicly owned company had thus been influenced owing to the positions of Mansour, Khaldoon and Pearce in that Emirate; and (iii) if City had the opportunity to influence Etisalat on this basis, the same would apply to other AD sponsors.
NB - The above is from memory. If anyone ahs the time and inclination to go back and dig through it all (both in terms of the wording of IAS 24 and of PwC's arguments, please do. In the discussion below, meanwhile, I defer to accountants who know more about IAS 24 than I do.
However, I have been involved in various tax cases where there were related party issues. In other words, a tax authority relied on a statutory right to adjust the value of a related party transaction (RPT) that wasn't at fair market value and resulted in less tax being paid than should have been. My recollection is that it's necessary to demonstrate, for a transaction to qualify as an RPT, that not only does the opportunity to exist, but the fact of influence being exercised on more than just a one-off basis must also be present.
PwC's argument seemed weak to me in this event, as it appeared to be based on what in effect was a one-off request for a favour from mates being viewed as ongoing influence. City, I suspect, believed that PwC had prized supplying an analysis that would be palatable to their client, UEFA, over one in which the rules were outlined and applied properly and Cliff's comments suggest the club was prepared to litigate. Ultimately, UEFA didn't push the point and the settlement agreement treated the AD sponsors as non-related.
One more quick point. I saw @slbsn criticised on here last night for misrepresenting the seriousness of the case against City. Seems to be way back in the thread, where it much better placed, but such arrant nonsense really deserves to disappear altogether. Stefan is the Lord Pannick of the commentators on this thread (and elsewhere, too). The rest of us are mere hapless juniors with the odd valuable contribution to make but otherwise floundering slightly as we try to keep up.
I'm going to focus on the bolded bit though. While I understand how the framing and narrative around these charges encourages the view that they are serious, maybe even existentially so, my view (as expressed recently in this thread) is that there is little substance to them.
I could well be wrong on that and it looks like we'll know soon, maybe in a month, but the whole point of the way they have been framed is to maximise their impact. I see LinkedIn entries for people I work with, who present themselves as 'Head of..", "Leader of...", "Strategic Delivery..." etc. when they're really not anything of the sort. They're Project Managers or something similar, or their title overstates their level of responsibility.
As I've said, these appear to me to be largely inconsequential matters that, at worst, barely make a dent in our overall finances. The Mancini AJ contract is a perfect case in point, where he was paid a sum of less than £6m over three years, at a time when (a) FFP wasn't even in place for some of it and (b) we were making aggregate losses of over £300m.
That's hardly Enron or Madoff levels of fraud, even if it was knowingly fraudulent (which is highly unlikely). So while they look serious, superficially, I'm going to stake my reputation on there being something of the Emperor's new clothes about them.
I call all the stuff other than false accounting as de minimis. A fine is the worst we could expect on those matters. It wouldn’t stop the redshirts calling us cheats, though.The phrase used in IAS 24 is 'significant influence' but there's no real definition of what that means, so it's open to interpretation.
I'm going to focus on the bolded bit though. While I understand how the framing and narrative around these charges encourages the view that they are serious, maybe even existentially so, my view (as expressed recently in this thread) is that there is little substance to them.
I could well be wrong on that and it looks like we'll know soon, maybe in a month, but the whole point of the way they have been framed is to maximise their impact. I see LinkedIn entries for people I work with, who present themselves as 'Head of..", "Leader of...", "Strategic Delivery..." etc. when they're really not anything of the sort. They're Project Managers or something similar, or their title overstates their level of responsibility.
As I've said, these appear to me to be largely inconsequential matters that, at worst, barely make a dent in our overall finances. The Mancini AJ contract is a perfect case in point, where he was paid a sum of less than £6m over three years, at a time when (a) FFP wasn't even in place for some of it and (b) we were making aggregate losses of over £300m.
That's hardly Enron or Madoff levels of fraud, even if it was knowingly fraudulent (which is highly unlikely). So while they look serious, superficially, I'm going to stake my reputation on there being something of the Emperor's new clothes about them.
Omar the King
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2025
- Messages
- 219
- Team supported
- City
If I remember it correctly City argued in CAS that Sheikh Mansour was a member of the federal UAE gov and not the emirate of Abu Dhabi govt so he had no influence over companies that was owned by the Abu Dhabi gov.Thanks, Petrusha, for enlightening me for the first time on PWC’s argument. I wonder if PL has presented this to the panel. It seems to me to be a huge fuss about nothing.
As for Mansour being a member of the gov, you have to look at the role of the cabinet. Words in the English version of the UAE constitution do not have the same meaning as you would expect.
The UAE cabinet, described as the supreme sovereign body, has one function: to give formal approval to legislation passed by the Executive Council. It does the same as our king when he says or writes (if he still does) “Le Roi le veult.” and signs an act. Doing that does not make Charlie a member of the gov. Mansour is not a member of the Executive Council of UAE.
There was nothing published here when Mansour received his latest grand title of Vice President, so I don’t know whether it elevates his status from what I call ‘super civil servant’.
It rather depends on how you define influence. I’m sure even Etihad are actually influenced by Mansour, but who cares? (The PL, apparently!)If I remember it correctly City argued in CAS that Sheikh Mansour was a member of the federal UAE gov and not the emirate of Abu Dhabi govt so he had no influence over companies that was owned by the Abu Dhabi gov.
They are all shit scared of us.
It's an anagram of Simon Jordan"Great word that I had to look up :)
To save time for anyone else:
"An ultracrepidarian is someone who offers opinions or advice on a subject they don't have much knowledge about. The word is often used to describe someone who is presumptuous or speaks as an authority on a topic they are not well-versed in.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Even 'false accounting' covers the presumed charges around potentially failing to declare related party transactions, which make zero difference to our financial position. It's a technical accounting issue, not a fraud or concealement issueI call all the stuff other than false accounting as de minimis. A fine is the worst we could expect on those matters. It wouldn’t stop the redshirts calling us cheats, though.
blue b4 the moon
Well-Known Member
Sorry to cut your post down but, this is where it starts and ends for the sheep.The media do what's necessary to attract viewers or readers. Many rival fans are happiest believing anything that raises a talking point in the pub or allows them to sleep more soundly at night.
I too have had several exchanges with opposition fans, & when I begin unloading the empirical, independently verified, fact checked evidence, you soon see them zone out.
They live by hyperbolic headlines. They don't do detail. They want simple explanations to complex issues, & the few who do scratch the surface are usually in pursuit of information which merely confirms their bias.
It certainly is whenever I've bothered to engage with them.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,895
It rather depends on how you define influence. I’m sure even Etihad are actually influenced by Mansour, but who cares? (The PL, apparently!)
They are all shit scared of us.
Correct. At the end of the day, the accounting definitions are subjective. It's a great strength of accounting that judgement plays a large part (at least until the bloody lawyers start over-analysing it) :)
It would take some pretty spectacular arguments from the PL to overturn the accounting treatment of the City / Etihad relationship in the accounts of two companies, with two different audit companies, over sixteen years. They don't have a chance imho. It seems to me this is just another unresolved area where the PL is looking for closure. On the bright side, when found in the club's favour, it will give the club ammunition to go after these continual state-owned narratives, should they wish so to do.
On the other hand, including RPTs was useful for the PL in defending the need for the APT rules. Although that may still come back to bite them on the arse.
Last edited:
Spanishbob
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2020
- Messages
- 1,431
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Everyday is a school day on here.Great word that I had to look up :)
To save time for anyone else:
"An ultracrepidarian is someone who offers opinions or advice on a subject they don't have much knowledge about. The word is often used to describe someone who is presumptuous or speaks as an authority on a topic they are not well-versed in.
Didsbury Dave
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2007
- Messages
- 39,147
I only used it because I christened another poster "The Bloviator" which would probably also be applicable.Everyday is a school day on here.
mcfcinprague
Well-Known Member
I learn more on here than I ever did at school!Everyday is a school day on here.
The big irony for me at least is that without the investment from sheikh Mansour, the Agueroooo title race wouldn’t have happened and as such the premier league would have got substantially less for their TV rights and other product offerings when the new contracts were renewed in the summer of 2012. From memory the PL boasted the previous seasons title race had resulted in a bumper renewal. So much for gratitude!The phrase used in IAS 24 is 'significant influence' but there's no real definition of what that means, so it's open to interpretation.
I'm going to focus on the bolded bit though. While I understand how the framing and narrative around these charges encourages the view that they are serious, maybe even existentially so, my view (as expressed recently in this thread) is that there is little substance to them.
I could well be wrong on that and it looks like we'll know soon, maybe in a month, but the whole point of the way they have been framed is to maximise their impact. I see LinkedIn entries for people I work with, who present themselves as 'Head of..", "Leader of...", "Strategic Delivery..." etc. when they're really not anything of the sort. They're Project Managers or something similar, or their title overstates their level of responsibility.
As I've said, these appear to me to be largely inconsequential matters that, at worst, barely make a dent in our overall finances. The Mancini AJ contract is a perfect case in point, where he was paid a sum of less than £6m over three years, at a time when (a) FFP wasn't even in place for some of it and (b) we were making aggregate losses of over £300m.
That's hardly Enron or Madoff levels of fraud, even if it was knowingly fraudulent (which is highly unlikely). So while they look serious, superficially, I'm going to stake my reputation on there being something of the Emperor's new clothes about them.
First thanks for those kind words from @petrusha - fortunately, I don't think I saw the allegations that I've misrepresented the seriousness.The phrase used in IAS 24 is 'significant influence' but there's no real definition of what that means, so it's open to interpretation.
I'm going to focus on the bolded bit though. While I understand how the framing and narrative around these charges encourages the view that they are serious, maybe even existentially so, my view (as expressed recently in this thread) is that there is little substance to them.
I could well be wrong on that and it looks like we'll know soon, maybe in a month, but the whole point of the way they have been framed is to maximise their impact. I see LinkedIn entries for people I work with, who present themselves as 'Head of..", "Leader of...", "Strategic Delivery..." etc. when they're really not anything of the sort. They're Project Managers or something similar, or their title overstates their level of responsibility.
As I've said, these appear to me to be largely inconsequential matters that, at worst, barely make a dent in our overall finances. The Mancini AJ contract is a perfect case in point, where he was paid a sum of less than £6m over three years, at a time when (a) FFP wasn't even in place for some of it and (b) we were making aggregate losses of over £300m.
That's hardly Enron or Madoff levels of fraud, even if it was knowingly fraudulent (which is highly unlikely). So while they look serious, superficially, I'm going to stake my reputation on there being something of the Emperor's new clothes about them.
On PB's response, you have to separate your view of the outcome (ie emphatically convinced City will be cleared) and the nature of the allegations. I think you are conflating your view of the outcome with the allegations themselves. Regardless of whether someone successfully defends an allegation of fraud, it doesn't make the allegation any less serious.
Unless every analysis in the media is guided by my analysis as to the substance of what is alleged (clearly not the case), then the parties themselves are guiding (or at very least not dissuading writers) that the serious false accounting allegations detailed at CAS are being re-litigated here but with an English law process and, inevitably, a lot more disclosure. And of course, a raft of other less substantial matters to bulk up the case.
For me, that plus a 12 week hearing makes it look like that these allegations, whether proven or not, are obviously as serious as those at CAS or more. We don't need to repeat City's own words at CAS but they were clearly not "inconsequential". If what you mean is that here there are a bunch of serious allegations and some less consequential ones then we can all agree with that.
Nobody would suggest that the Mancini allegations are as serious as the CAS allegations and if your point is that there was no need to frame it all as ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN CHARGES, you know I also agree. But nobody should lose sight of the fact that no unserious matter is "tried" over 12 weeks and costs, perhaps £50m of legal costs.
Last edited:
It's the bedrock of this forum..... ultracrepidarianism.....
They really would not be pursuing this case if this was top and bottom of it and the hearing would not have taken so long or required specialist civil fraud counsel (Phillip Marshall KC is known for his civil fraud work).Even 'false accounting' covers the presumed charges around potentially failing to declare related party transactions, which make zero difference to our financial position. It's a technical accounting issue, not a fraud or concealement issue
When @petrusha called out those criticising you, I’m sure that all sensible members here agreed with him.First thanks for those kind words from @petrusha - fortunately, I don't think I saw the allegations that I've misrepresented the seriousness.
On PB's response, you have to separate your view of the outcome (ie emphatically convinced City will be cleared) and the nature of the allegations. I think you are conflating your view of the outcome with the allegations themselves. Regardless of whether someone successfully defends an allegation of fraud, it doesn't make the allegation any less serious.
Unless every analysis in the media is guided by my analysis as to the substance of what is alleged (clearly not the case), then the parties themselves are guiding (or at very least not dissuading writers) that the serious false accounting allegations detailed at CAS are being re-litigated here but with an English law process and, inevitably, a lot more disclosure. And of course, a raft of other less substantial matters to bulk up the case.
For me, that plus a 12 week hearing makes it look like that these allegations, whether proven or not, are obviously as serious as those at CAS or more. We don't need to repeat City's own words at CAS but they were clearly not "inconsequential". If what you mean is that here there are a bunch of serious allegations and some less consequential ones then we can all agree with that.
Nobody would suggest that the Mancini allegations are as serious as the CAS allegations and if your point is that there was no need to frame it all as ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN CHARGES, you know I also agree. But nobody should lose sight of the fact that no unserious matter is "tried" over 12 weeks and costs, perhaps £50m of legal costs.
Cheers. BTW all I am doing here or wherever I give a view, is piece together what I hear and what is known publicly. I absolutely can be wrong and often am.When @petrusha called out those criticising you, I’m sure that all sensible members here agreed with him.
manimanc
Well-Known Member
I'm sure our representatives marched into court armed to the back teeth with files and documents, threw them on the Premier League's desk and said fill your boots.
12 weeks later, not a single thing was found, not one leak to the press of anything and let's get it right that if something was found the usual nobheads of ziegler, nostrils harris and cock-a-doodle doo harris would be plastering every little detail on every social media platform.
The white noise backing us and saying the club is absolutely clean couldn't sound more sweeter, pep saying the other day he couldn't wait for the outcome speaks volumes.
12 weeks later, not a single thing was found, not one leak to the press of anything and let's get it right that if something was found the usual nobheads of ziegler, nostrils harris and cock-a-doodle doo harris would be plastering every little detail on every social media platform.
The white noise backing us and saying the club is absolutely clean couldn't sound more sweeter, pep saying the other day he couldn't wait for the outcome speaks volumes.
First thanks for those kind words from @petrusha - fortunately, I don't think I saw the allegations that I've misrepresented the seriousness.
On PB's response, you have to separate your view of the outcome (ie emphatically convinced City will be cleared) and the nature of the allegations. I think you are conflating your view of the outcome with the allegations themselves. Regardless of whether someone successfully defends an allegation of fraud, it doesn't make the allegation any less serious.
Unless every analysis in the media is guided by my analysis as to the substance of what is alleged (clearly not the case), then the parties themselves are guiding (or at very least not dissuading writers) that the serious false accounting allegations detailed at CAS are being re-litigated here but with an English law process and, inevitably, a lot more disclosure. And of course, a raft of other less substantial matters to bulk up the case.
For me, that plus a 12 week hearing makes it look like that these allegations, whether proven or not, are obviously as serious as those at CAS or more. We don't need to repeat City's own words at CAS but they were clearly not "inconsequential". If what you mean is that here there are a bunch of serious allegations and some less consequential ones then we can all agree with that.
Nobody would suggest that the Mancini allegations are as serious as the CAS allegations and if your point is that there was no need to frame it all as ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN CHARGES, you know I also agree. But nobody should lose sight of the fact that no unserious matter is "tried" over 12 weeks and costs, perhaps £50m of legal costs.
I very much hope it'll emerge that the PL has overstretched itself in prosecuting allegations that basically amount to City having committed serious accounting fraud for the best part of a decade. I also understand the inherent difficulties in making out allegations of that nature to a satisfactory standard of proof.
I'm therefore cautiously optimistic from an MCFC perspective as to an outcome I'd regard as satisfactory. And before anyone asks why caution, it's due to a large degree because that quality is inculcated in anyone who trains and then works for an extended period as a lawyer. Nonetheless, the aspects you mention do make it look as though the PL has given nailing us a proper shot.