PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

cheekybids said:
I think there’s a case to answer that the Rags would have failed PSR if not given special allowances…

It’s easy this case to answer business……
Click to expand...
I’ve always been of the opinion that there were questions that we needed to answer once the e-mails came to light but there’s a world of difference between that and having a case to answer. Without cogent evidence - and yes, none of us know for sure that there isn’t any but I think we’d have all heard if there was a smoking gun by now - it should never have gotten this far.
 
bluwes said:
John Magnier asked Ferguson 99 questions…see here

www.independent.ie

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
www.independent.ie www.independent.ie
Click to expand...
I don’t get this

Why would you ask Ferguson accounting questions ?

I don’t think there is necessarily y anything wrong in some of the stuff. In fact some of it would look to be normal accounting practice
 
WRicko said:
I don’t get this

Why would you ask Ferguson accounting questions ?

I don’t think there is necessarily y anything wrong in some of the stuff. In fact some of it would look to be normal accounting practice
Click to expand...

One question everyone wants to ask Slur Alex is, what does Horse jizz taste like?
 
slbsn said:
I know it is not a criticism etc but I don't understand this point. Firstly, I don't recall giving any view about the evidential basis of the UEFA case. We had almost no information about that case before CAS. Plus we know for sure, the PL has loads of documents far beyond UEFA. So where does that fit in?

The reality is the investigation is both political and legitimate. Whether the charges are we will see in time.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I have transposed that onto you. It was a while ago for my head. There were those at the time who couldn’t believe, and perfectly understandably, that UEFA must have had more than a political motive and a few emails in their push to get us banned.
 
its-been84years-titanic.gif
 
Jam Tomorrow said:
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!
Click to expand...
Sky even made a ‘feature’ advert around that day in May 2012
 
WRicko said:
I don’t get this

Why would you ask Ferguson accounting questions ?

I don’t think there is necessarily y anything wrong in some of the stuff. In fact some of it would look to be normal accounting practice
Click to expand...
You don’t think senior management taking back handers has any bearing on the veracity of the accounts of the organisation to which they relate?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
You don’t think senior management taking back handers has any bearing on the veracity of the accounts of the organisation to which they relate?
Click to expand...
Your clearly missing my point

Should Pep answer questions on accounts ? Last I checked Ferguson and Pep are not accountants CEOs or CFOs

Second I haven’t read all the questions but one of the questions was about amortization over life’s or contracts and why or if this is what happens.

We know from this thread that that’s correct accounting procedure ? The other first few questions seem to follow the same pattern. I didn’t read any that suggested anything especially wrong and nothing about back handers or false funding. Plus it’s all old anyway
 
WRicko said:
Your clearly missing my point

Should Pep answer questions on accounts ? Last I checked Ferguson and Pep are not accountants CEOs or CFOs

Second I haven’t read all the questions but one of the questions was about amortization over life’s or contracts and why or if this is what happens.

We know from this thread that that’s correct accounting procedure ? The other first few questions seem to follow the same pattern. I didn’t read any that suggested anything especially wrong and nothing about back handers or false funding. Plus it’s all old anyway
Click to expand...

Does Peps brother scout homeless tramps through his sons agency?
 
M18CTID said:
I’ve always been of the opinion that there were questions that we needed to answer once the e-mails came to light but there’s a world of difference between that and having a case to answer. Without cogent evidence - and yes, none of us know for sure that there isn’t any but I think we’d have all heard if there was a smoking gun by now - it should never have gotten this far.
Click to expand...

It’s about the appetite to believe versus charge.

There is no appetite to investigate the Stanley Park stadium costs.

There s no appetite to investigate stories that Arsenal made payments off the books as alleged in Ray Parlours divorce settlement.

There’s no appetite to investigate why the Rags are provided PSR allowances that no one else was.

Then spurs owner has been charged & found guilty of insider trading & yet there’s very little appetite to investigate if this illegal activity has overflowed into football.

& there appears very little appetite to charge Chelsea for the off the book payments.

Who decides what to investigate & charge? Who are the people that make these calls? What’s their background? Who influences them? Who is allowed to report suspicious activity? Who audits this department?

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil when it comes to certain clubs but we have a case to answer. Do me a fucking favour!
 
We should get our Abu Dhabi ambassadors onto the UK ambassadors again. The press fuckin love when do that.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
The starting point for any prosecution, or any civil proceedings where proof of criminality is required for a claim to succeed, should never be ‘is there a case to answer?’

If that’s not the case why hasn’t Ferguson faced any charges for the 99 questions?

Because he unquestionably has a case to answer.

What about Liverpool’s allowances for the Anfield redevelopment?

They unquestionably have a case to answer.

It’s a meaningless test in the context of these proceedings.
Click to expand...

All fair points but, without wanting to belabour the point, this non-lawyer can hardly be criticised for using the term when CAS itself said "the panel finds that, based on the leaked emails, MCFC clearly had a case to answer, as the emails exchanged at executive and board level of MCFC describe an arrangement ... " and this debate was only started when one of your fellow lawyers agreed with the **** Jordan's thinking that the club has a case to answer.

On the other hand, I am happy to accept I may be using the wrong terminology, so maybe I should just have said the PL had a proper basis for investigation and for referring allegations to the disciplinary process if they thought the answers from the club weren't satisfactory.

But my main point was that, just because I can accept those two things doesn't mean I think the PL has a snowflake's chance in hell of landing the most serious allegations.

And to refer to @petrusha 's point about lawyers. I get that lawyers are naturally cautious by nature and professional responsibility but I, as an accountant (amongst other things) and a retired one at that, have no such qualms about saying that.
 
halfcenturyup said:
All fair points but, without wanting to belabour the point, this non-lawyer can hardly be criticised for using the term when CAS itself said "the panel finds that, based on the leaked emails, MCFC clearly had a case to answer, as the emails exchanged at executive and board level of MCFC describe an arrangement ... " and this debate was only started when one of your fellow lawyers agreed with the **** Jordan's thinking that the club has a case to answer.

On the other hand, I am happy to accept I may be using the wrong terminology, so maybe I should just have said the PL had a proper basis for investigation and for referring allegations to the disciplinary process if they thought the answers from the club weren't satisfactory.

But my main point was that, just because I can accept those two things doesn't mean I think the PL has a snowflake's chance in hell of landing the most serious allegations.

And to refer to @petrusha 's point about lawyers. I get that lawyers are naturally cautious by nature and professional responsibility but I, as an accountant (amongst other things) and a retired one at that, have no such qualms about saying that.
Click to expand...

We don’t know the answers from the club weren’t satisfactory. After seeing how we were treated in the APT hearing, it’s possible the response should have satisfied.
 
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