PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Goodlove said:
It’s all gone very quiet. Not even a peep from opposition fans at the minute. Curious.
Click to expand...
MSN (NZ) had a 'bombshell' article a couple of days ago - simply regurgitating the crap that has been rolled out over and over. It was so old it had a statement that Stefan expected a decision in the new year - 2025!!!!!!
 
slbsn said:
London. Fulham on Tuesday. No confirmed news either way since mid last week. But pretty confident nothing came on Friday.

Spending £65m in early Jan would be another soft signal of continued confidence of course.
Click to expand...

Whilst you're here, I thought I'd mention this. For the last two years I've been largely dismissing (at least in my own mind) the suggestion that the 115(ish) charges have included any significant allegations that we have not properly reported sponsorship deals as related party transactions.

However.

When I looked back recently at the original statement made by the League in Feb 23, I noticed that it said that City had failed to provide

"“in the utmost good faith, accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs.”

(Emphasis added.)

I have to say, I doubt very much that it was simply by accident that this (ie he bit about related parties) got into the charging statement.

Surely they can't be arguing that Etihad (say) was a related party?

Can they?
 
Last edited:
Chris in London said:
Whilst you're here, I thought I'd mention this. For the last two years I've been largely dismissing (at least in my own mind) the suggestion that the 115(ish) charges have included any significant allegations that we have not properly reported sponsorship deals as related party transactions.

However.

When I looked back recently at the original statement made by the League in Feb 23, I noticed that it said that City had failed to provide

"“in the utmost good faith, accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs.”

(Emphasis added.)

I have to say, I doubt very much that it was simply by accident that this got into the charging statement.

Surely they can't be arguing that Etihad (say) was a related party?

Can they?
Click to expand...
It has been discussed before - here and elsewhere
forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk

PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Stop being such an attention-seeking idiot. You clearly know fuck all about this issue and refuse to listen to those who do know something. But just to try to hammer some facts into your skull, I'll respond. The evidence presented at CAS from several sources made it clear where the bulk of the...
forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk
forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk

PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Still nothing. See you tomorrow. 9:30….. don’t be late ;)
forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk

In short, it is probably some weak argument in the alternative and on the list of issues but not the predominant point largely because it feels bound to fail given the auditors must have looked at the issue closely given the historic allegations in 2014 and 2020. Furthermore neither Etihad and Etisalat are related to City in their respective accounts and everyone has different auditors. So either everyone is wrong and has been mislead or the PL fail. In bringing in APT they also admit they have no way of undermining the audited position anyway ie even if the PL disagree, they can't undermine it so needed new APT rules.
 
I don't want to seem like I have gone full on Scouse conspiracy theorist, but is there a possibility that HM Government/The Foreign Office might be involved in this malarky?

A verdict against us would piss off some mighty influential trading partners with very deep pockets.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chris in London said:
Whilst you're here, I thought I'd mention this. For the last two years I've been largely dismissing (at least in my own mind) the suggestion that the 115(ish) charges have included any significant allegations that we have not properly reported sponsorship deals as related party transactions.

However.

When I looked back recently at the original statement made by the League in Feb 23, I noticed that it said that City had failed to provide

"“in the utmost good faith, accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs.”

(Emphasis added.)

I have to say, I doubt very much that it was simply by accident that this (ie he bit about related parties) got into the charging statement.

Surely they can't be arguing that Etihad (say) was a related party?

Can they?
Click to expand...
Of course it's not by accident and although we don't know for sure of course, I suspect they are arguing exactly that.

As I've said before, this issue about Etihad, Etisalat, et al being related parties has been rumbling on since 2014, when PWC, acting on behalf of UEFA, claimed they were, which we refuted. This issue wasn't properly tested then, so was still open.

It came up again at CAS, who didn't pronounce one way or the other on the issue but they did say in their summary that if they were related parties, and we didn't disclose it in the accounts, then we could be guilty of misreporting. I strongly suspect this is what the PL is basing its case on for that group of charges. That's why I've argued against the posters talking about us being accused of conducting a major fraud, as this is best classed as a technical accounting breach and doesn't in any way impact the numbers.

We don't know but the fact they've explicitly specified it, suggests it certainly forms a key part of the charges.
 
hoppy said:
I don't want to seem like I have gone full on Scouse conspiracy theorist, but is there a possibility that HM Government/The Foreign Office might be involved in this malarky?

A verdict against us would piss off some mighty influential trading partners with very deep pockets.
Click to expand...
In short, no. If that were the case then HMG would have pressured the PL to do some sort of deal before all of this happened and charges might never have seen the light of day. This has gone to an independent panel over which the neither the government nor the PL has any control. The die is cast and it's too late to influence things now.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Of course it's not by accident and although we don't know for sure of course, I suspect they are arguing exactly that.

As I've said before, this issue about Etihad, Etisalat, et al being related parties has been rumbling on since 2014, when PWC, acting on behalf of UEFA, claimed they were, which we refuted. This issue wasn't properly tested then, so was still open.

It came up again at CAS, who didn't pronounce one way or the other on the issue but they did say in their summary that if they were related parties, and we didn't disclose it in the accounts, then we could be guilty of misreporting. I strongly suspect this is what the PL is basing its case on for that group of charges. That's why I've argued against the posters talking about us being accused of conducting a major fraud, as this is best classed as a technical accounting breach and doesn't in any way impact the numbers.

We don't know but the fact they've explicitly specified it, suggests it certainly forms a key part of the charges.
Click to expand...
My concern was more that the charge was City had breached the duty to report "in good faith" a contract as a related party transaction. How can the claim be sustained that City failed to declare in good faith when their own auditors said this is not an RPT? I simply don't see how City was not entitled to rely on its auditors' opinion.

Quite apart from the point, as Stefan says, that Etihads/Etisalats/etc own auditors did not say the sponsorship contracts were RPTs.

I think as you say there must be significance in the presence of the phrase "related parties" in the original charging statement, but even so I'm sticking with the "they are really scraping the barrel here" school of thought.
 
we will appeal and and whole thing restarts with new panel and another 6/12/18/24 months isnt it? or the red cartel will want appeal if we are found innocent.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Of course it's not by accident and although we don't know for sure of course, I suspect they are arguing exactly that.

As I've said before, this issue about Etihad, Etisalat, et al being related parties has been rumbling on since 2014, when PWC, acting on behalf of UEFA, claimed they were, which we refuted. This issue wasn't properly tested then, so was still open.

It came up again at CAS, who didn't pronounce one way or the other on the issue but they did say in their summary that if they were related parties, and we didn't disclose it in the accounts, then we could be guilty of misreporting. I strongly suspect this is what the PL is basing its case on for that group of charges. That's why I've argued against the posters talking about us being accused of conducting a major fraud, as this is best classed as a technical accounting breach and doesn't in any way impact the numbers.

We don't know but the fact they've explicitly specified it, suggests it certainly forms a key part of the charges.
Click to expand...
The club is effectively accused of false accounting and fraud over many years unrelated to whether they were related parties or not. It isn't debatable. It is confirmed to be the case. The PL may also allege that Etihad and Etisalat were related parties (yet again) but that is not the core of the most severe allegations and nor would assessing that take months and years to decide. The issue has been properly tested in multiple companies' audit processes and by other experts - not one of Etihad, Etisalat or City have the others as related parties in their respective audits for over a decade.
 
Chris in London said:
Whilst you're here, I thought I'd mention this. For the last two years I've been largely dismissing (at least in my own mind) the suggestion that the 115(ish) charges have included any significant allegations that we have not properly reported sponsorship deals as related party transactions.

However.

When I looked back recently at the original statement made by the League in Feb 23, I noticed that it said that City had failed to provide

"“in the utmost good faith, accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs.”

(Emphasis added.)

I have to say, I doubt very much that it was simply by accident that this (ie he bit about related parties) got into the charging statement.

Surely they can't be arguing that Etihad (say) was a related party?

Can they?
Click to expand...

Yes, they can and I am sure they are. Why wouldn't they? It has never been tested.

I also think they are questioning ownership. I always found it strange when the ownership vehicle was changed to a different legal form. And the timing of it. May be nothing, of course. Incidentally, I also found it strange in the APT case that the club gave in so easily on the notion that APT was an essential part of the financial rules when the evidence provided by the PL was so weak. Part of some strategy, I thought. Probably tin foil hat stuff but I miss the days of debating things like that in here instead of just asking when the fucking judgment is coming.
 
slbsn said:
The club is effectively accused of false accounting and fraud over many years unrelated to whether they were related parties or not. It isn't debatable. It is confirmed to be the case. The PL may also allege that Etihad and Etisalat were related parties (yet again) but that is not the core of the most severe allegations and nor would assessing that take months and years to decide. The issue has been properly tested in multiple companies' audit processes and by other experts - not one of Etihad, Etisalat or City have the others as related parties in their respective audits for over a decade.
Click to expand...
We don't know the exact nature of the charges with any certainty so that's just an opinion, not a fact.

Edit: If they're accusing us of overstating sponsorship income or disguising equity investment as revenue, then you'd have a point. I tend to think if they were revisiting that after the CAS outcome, they'd need some sort of smoking gun to prove it, and this whole farce probably wouldn't have reached this point if they had.

If we'd failed to report players' image rights payments, then UEFA would almost certainly have charged us. But they didn't

If they're accusing us of not declaring related parties, strictly speaking that probably breaches the Companies Act and the relevant accounting standards but can't be described as fraud.
 
Last edited:
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