PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Keith Moon said:
From the annual report:

"As at the date of publishing these financial statements the independent Commission is still in the process of reviewing the matter. Based on their evaluation of the Group’s prospects and viability, the Directors confirm that they have a reasonable expectation that the Group will be able to continue in operation and meet its liabilities as they fall due within the 12 months following the approval of these financial statements."

When the Board states that it has a reasonable expectation of continued operation, this means that the auditor has reviewed and assessed the Board’s evaluation of the ongoing legal process, including reasonable worst-case scenarios. The conclusion is that, regardless of the outcome, the process is not expected to have any material adverse impact on the club’s financial position or liquidity over the next twelve months.

Soft signal, or simply the Board’s view that a final ruling — including appeals — is unlikely to be reached during the upcoming fiscal year?
Click to expand...
Neither, it's just the usual financial bollocks that every single set of accounts ever includes (if applicable of course). Means absolutely nothing.
 
Centurions said:
Neither, it's just the usual financial bollocks that every single set of accounts ever includes (if applicable of course). Means absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...
Well, there are different depths of hell.

1.“Will be able to / Expects with certainty”
2. “Is confident that”
3. “Expects that”
4. “Has a reasonable expectation that”
5. “Believes that”
6. “The Directors consider that the Group has adequate resources”
7. “The Directors consider the going concern basis to be appropriate”
8. “No material adverse impact is expected”
9. “May be impacted / Could affect”

1–3: Very strong confidence – the Board signals a high level of certainty
4–6: Normal/acceptable risk – continued operation is considered reasonable
7–9: Cautious tone – uncertainty is acknowledged, no assurances are given
 
The maximum number of points possible in a premier league season is 114.

38 x 3 = 114

Clearly the premier league wanted it to be this plus one more to say we can never get 115. Or so Bigfoot told me.

Surely there had to be a spinal tap inspired comeback for when we win? One louder than reality!

Manchester City: The only club in history to find a way to score more points in the courtroom than is mathematically possible on the pitch.

Normal teams think the most that's possible is a 114-point 'Perfect' season. City got the 115-point 'Exoneration' season.

Premier League spent years trying to stop us getting 114 points, only to realize City's biggest win would be beating 115 charges.

Most clubs celebrate a Golden Premier League trophy. City are holding out for the Golden Gavel.
 
Keith Moon said:
From the annual report:

"As at the date of publishing these financial statements the independent Commission is still in the process of reviewing the matter. Based on their evaluation of the Group’s prospects and viability, the Directors confirm that they have a reasonable expectation that the Group will be able to continue in operation and meet its liabilities as they fall due within the 12 months following the approval of these financial statements."

When the Board states that it has a reasonable expectation of continued operation, this means that the auditor has reviewed and assessed the Board’s evaluation of the ongoing legal process, including reasonable worst-case scenarios. The conclusion is that, regardless of the outcome, the process is not expected to have any material adverse impact on the club’s financial position or liquidity over the next twelve months.

Soft signal, or simply the Board’s view that a final ruling — including appeals — is unlikely to be reached during the upcoming fiscal year?
Click to expand...

Where does your second paragraph come from?
 
jaiguruKun said:
It's own analysis which is quite sound.
Click to expand...

It's? You mean @Keith Moon 's own analysis? It sounds a little AI-like but it misses the fact that the second quoted sentence doesn't follow on from the first quoted sentence. The second quoted sentence is just talking about the going concern assessment, not an assessment of the case. It's been the exact same wording for going concern since the year dot. So "reasonable expectation" means nothing special this year.

There are a couple of interesting things in the going concern paragraph, though: the fact that the 115 case is mentioned there at all is one. Last year it was in "Risks and Uncertainties", which would seem to be its natural home, with the same wording although a new sentence has been added saying the panel is still considering. I don't know why it is there, actually; the other is that the auditors have asked the club to get a letter of support from CFG for the next twelve months. This may just be due to the loss made this year, though, I suppose. Maybe the projections for the current year also show a loss?

In any case, the most important fact is that the possibility of a significant negative outcome is remote in the view of the directors and the auditors otherwise the matter would have to be properly explained and analysed in a note to the accounts.

I think that's how it still works. It was a while ago for me .....
 
halfcenturyup said:
It's? You mean @Keith Moon 's own analysis? It sounds a little AI-like but it misses the fact that the second quoted sentence doesn't follow on from the first quoted sentence. The second quoted sentence is just talking about the going concern assessment, not an assessment of the case. It's been the exact same wording for going concern since the year dot. So "reasonable expectation" means nothing special this year.

There are a couple of interesting things in the going concern paragraph, though: the fact that the 115 case is mentioned there at all is one. Last year it was in "Risks and Uncertainties", which would seem to be its natural home, with the same wording although a new sentence has been added saying the panel is still considering. I don't know why it is there, actually; the other is that the auditors have asked the club to get a letter of support from CFG for the next twelve months. This may just be due to the loss made this year, though, I suppose. Maybe the projections for the current year also show a loss?

In any case, the most important fact is that the possibility of a significant negative outcome is remote in the view of the directors and the auditors otherwise the matter would have to be properly explained and analysed in a note to the accounts.

I think that's how it still works. It was a while ago for me .....
Click to expand...
The club no longer see it as a risk or uncertainty. Although I know nothing about book-keeping, this seems quite significant
 
Fancy taking regulatory action against football clubs? Sign up here

Senior Analysts (Multiple Roles) | UKRN: the UK Regulators Network

The Independent Football Regulator (IFR) has been established to protect and promote the sustainability of English football, for the benefit of fans and the local communities football clubs serve. The IFR will help improve financial sustainability of clubs, ensure resilience across the leagues...
ukrn.org.uk ukrn.org.uk
 
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