1. that is not the caseWe don't know the exact nature of the charges with any certainty so that's just an opinion, not a fact.
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.
And your evidence for that is what exactly?1. that is not the case
Because it's complete horseshit?Yes, they can and I am sure they are. Why wouldn't they?
feels like it needs asking.... which new year?If it isn’t announced this month then it’s likely going to be in the new year.
Because it's complete horseshit?
They may be scraping the bottom of the barrel, but I am assuming they aren't idiots (I know, I know). They didn't have to include a related party reference in the most serious charges section if it was a hail Mary or an insignificant allegation. There are probably other minor allegations included in there that they haven't specifically referenced. So I wouldn't pooh pooh the idea, tbh.
In fact, I am less comfortable about what the PL could prove on ownership and related parties than on the funding of the sponsorships on which I feel very comfortable. If the club aren't squeaky clean on those, it could be damaging in the wider football environment if not in terms of sporting sanctions.
Numerous conversations. And 2. in the comment above if you don't believe me in 1.And your evidence for that is what exactly?
There is a good chance that is there because if the PL's main case theory is proven, the consequence may also be that Etihad was a RPT all along. Although that would beg the question where that goes because if the truth turns out that the Etihad deal was only ever very small in reality, then the actual contract was actually BELOW market value.You are perhaps, if I may say so, missing the point of the charge, which is an allegation that City breached the duty to submit its accounts in good faith. Whether a transaction is with a related party is not a black and white issue, its a judgment call. So the League will have to demonstrate that City's judgment call was not made in good faith. As I say I just don't see how you can show that call was made in bad faith when its the same call that was made by the auditors.
As to motivation for the charges, of interest and relevance may be this little snippet from para 185 of the first APT decision
"We accept the evidence of Mr. Herbert and the clubs that gave evidence in these proceedings that both the PL and the clubs had concerns since at least 2018 that the PSR were being circumvented by the failure to report sponsorship agreements with RPTs"
I wonder whether that may provide a suggestion as to where the motivation for the inclusion of this, assuming it to be included at all, within the 115 charges may have originated.
Conversations with who?Numerous conversations. And 2. in the comment above if you don't believe me in 1.
It is lovely that you want to wrap an arm around fellow fans and tell them it is all nothing but it just isn't true. As it wasn't true that City learned of the decision months ago. I'm sorry it is not true but it is not.
Who told you they had the results months ago?Conversations with who?
You are perhaps, if I may say so, missing the point of the charge, which is an allegation that City breached the duty to submit its accounts in good faith. Whether a transaction is with a related party is not a black and white issue, its a judgment call. So the League will have to demonstrate that City's judgment call was not made in good faith. As I say I just don't see how you can show that call was made in bad faith when its the same call that was made by the auditors.
As to motivation for the charges, of interest and relevance may be this little snippet from para 185 of the first APT decision
"We accept the evidence of Mr. Herbert and the clubs that gave evidence in these proceedings that both the PL and the clubs had concerns since at least 2018 that the PSR were being circumvented by the failure to report sponsorship agreements with RPTs"
I wonder whether that may provide a suggestion as to where the motivation for the inclusion of this, assuming it to be included at all, within the 115 charges may have originated.
No chance whatsoever.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.
I suspect he'a desperate to get back to coaching the team given that this will be the only day to do so.At risk of overthinking, anyone concerned about Pep’s conference today? Lasted just two minutes and very blunt.
Reading between the lines, something definitely not right. Hopefully not 115!
Source?If it isn’t announced this month then it’s likely going to be in the new year.
A calendarSource?
Nothing gets past you does it?If it isn’t announced this month then it’s likely going to be in the new year.