PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

slbsn said:
Whilst I’ve never been convinced the related party aspect of sponsors was the key element of the 115 charges, I hadn’t previously looked at Abu Dhabi sponsors’ accounts. We can look at Etisalat’s and Aldar’s as both are listed. Aldar since 2011.

Etisalat are audited by E&Y. Aldar by Deloitte. Neither of those firms audit CFG or MCFC.

No City entity is a related party under IFRS according to their accounts. So that’s at least 3 different auditors (also possible/probable that Etihad have another auditor and I’d guess Etihad also don’t declare CFG as related) who don’t assess CFG and these sponsors to be related.

Looks very challenging against that backdrop for the PL to prove all of those professional firms wrong on this point of detail.

Click to expand...

I said a while ago on this thread that they aren't related parties as there is no commonality of ownership or senior directorship.

This is a straightforward and indisputable accounting standard, even for the mugs at the PL.
 
vincent said:
Only thing I would disagree with is the Haaland contract. Why sign such a long contract and why did he sign it a couple of months prior to the decision. Surely he could have waited 2-3 months before signing a 10 year deal…
Click to expand...
So Madrid could help pay our massive fine by buying him…….
 
vincent said:
Only thing I would disagree with is the Haaland contract. Why sign such a long contract and why did he sign it a couple of months prior to the decision. Surely he could have waited 2-3 months before signing a 10 year deal…
Click to expand...
Have you seen his new car all paid for by signing 2 .months early
 
vincent said:
Only thing I would disagree with is the Haaland contract. Why sign such a long contract and why did he sign it a couple of months prior to the decision. Surely he could have waited 2-3 months before signing a 10 year deal…
Click to expand...

I don't read anything into it at all.
If we lose the substantive case that contract will not mean very much.
 
cibaman said:
I always thought that a delayed verdict suggested bad news, necessitated by lengthy discussions about the severity of punishments. Now I’m hoping that it’s simply that the Panel’s report will be several hundred pages long and will take time to author, print, proof read, review etc.

I also hadn’t realised until recently that any appeal wouldn’t be a rerun of the case but would require the appellant to prove that the original decision was manifestly unfair. That would seem to centre on identifying flaws in the written judgment. From the Panel’s viewpoint it seems essential that the written verdict is watertight. Which will take time
Click to expand...
Based upon which logic, as we are the only side claiming to have irrefutable evidence, I would posit that there is a higher possibility of the t being a case of us having a watertight position that would require a once and for all judgment to confirm.

Trying to shore up a ruling in favour of what has so far appeared to be a smoke and mirrors fishing expedition would probably be a nigh impossible case to make watertight, so they’d just cut to the chase, knowing that there would in all certainty be so many holes into which an appeal stick could be poked.

Hope springs eternal…
 
vincent said:
Only thing I would disagree with is the Haaland contract. Why sign such a long contract and why did he sign it a couple of months prior to the decision. Surely he could have waited 2-3 months before signing a 10 year deal…
Click to expand...
I bet he would be allowed to leave if things changed dramatically and we would be happy for him to do so
Therefore I don’t see any real relevance in the Haaland contract
 
slbsn said:
Whilst I’ve never been convinced the related party aspect of sponsors was the key element of the 115 charges, I hadn’t previously looked at Abu Dhabi sponsors’ accounts. We can look at Etisalat’s and Aldar’s as both are listed. Aldar since 2011.

Etisalat are audited by E&Y. Aldar by Deloitte. Neither of those firms audit CFG or MCFC.

No City entity is a related party under IFRS according to their accounts. So that’s at least 3 different auditors (also possible/probable that Etihad have another auditor and I’d guess Etihad also don’t declare CFG as related) who don’t assess CFG and these sponsors to be related.

Looks very challenging against that backdrop for the PL to prove all of those professional firms wrong on this point of detail.

Click to expand...


I think it's fair to say that, when any auditors are looking at the related party nature of transactions, one of the first things they will do is look at the accounts of the other party.

It would be very unusual for a relationship to be described as related by one party and not the other, so it's no real surprise that the accounts back themselves up.

If the PL is looking through the nature of City's ownership, though, to some sort of "state ownership" that would make a difference. I have no idea if they are doing that but I wouldn't be surprised (the stated justification for the APT rules being that City weren't properly reporting related parties, together with that same claim in the allegations, may support this). It's no more far-fetched than the allegation of a fraudulent conspiracy that they seem to be pursuing.

Maybe the Mohammed reference with the CPC is more to do with that, than with Etisalat, explaining why it has been raised recently?

In a way, it may not be bad for the club if they are trying that, as it will finally clear all this sort of stuff up after 15 years.

Hopefully :)

Btw, I always wondered what caused the change in ownership halfway through the investigation from ADUG to Newton. I suppose it could have been to clarify (or confuse) ownership .....
 
Bluewonder said:
I said a while ago on this thread that they aren't related parties as there is no commonality of ownership or senior directorship.

This is a straightforward and indisputable accounting standard, even for the mugs at the PL.
Click to expand...

It's straight-forward as long as the PL is accepting the substance of the ownership structure.
 
wolviedinho said:
Risky, especially with spending £200 million on transfers. On the outside, city appears to be a club going about their business. As you said what else can we do? The confidence is seen as a signal that the club thinks its evidence is enough but they must have more than a wink and a nod from a KC?

Anyway, it don’t really matter. I have always held the opinion that the charges are bullshit underhanded behaviour from a few clubs.

Does they club unofficially know the verdict? that’s a question we can’t seem to get to…soft signals or indeed know nothing more than a confident KC’s steer.

Anyway, sorry for derailing the thread with my musings. Whats the latest topic? Chicken curry recipes or still muffin debate? -:)
Click to expand...
Although no guarantee, would the club be carrying on with building the north stand extension, hotel & museum if they had heard whispers from Pannick that we'd lost the major charges
 
LTW said:
The polarised opinions of both pro/anti-City agendas on this are blinkered.

Did the status quo want to suppress rogue competitors for ‘their’ honours with obstructive new rules and criteria? Absolutely yes. Did we take the piss with creatively mobilised AD central funds and likely fall into traps? Also yes.

What’s more damning: petrodollar rich Arabian states throwing their wealth around to create best-in-class super clubs, or the fact seeing as that that’s seemingly the only way to compete with the previously perpetual top 6?

They set that standard, so our owners obliged.
Click to expand...
Care to explain how City took the piss seeing as there were no controls on spending prior to Sheikh Mansour buying City or like the illegal apt rules the club should just accept those rules that make a mockery of the word Fair when it comes to ffp.

If we had won what we have won since Pep had arrived under the ownership of Todd Boehly or Elon Musk would that be ok with your xenophobia
 
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