PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

The Premier League's internal rulebook and judicial system provide the framework for how the case is conducted.

What's more, the independent commission judging the case against Manchester City was appointed by Murray Rosen KC, the independent chair of the Premier League's Judicial Panel.

The commission is composed of three members, who were selected by Rosen to hear the charges and are independent of the Premier League and its member clubs.


Just to highlight something, it is the commission, that was appointed by the Premier League and not by City, that is taking forever to complete their work.

And to highlight that the entire framework for the case was laid out by the Premier League.


My point?

No-one should be blaming City when complaining about how long this is taking. It's all on the Premier League.

Yes we may have spun out our defence but our involvement was over after 10-12 weeks.
 
halfcenturyup said:
That's a positive. But the fact they are implying the case could have an effect on the ability of the club to continue as a going concern for the next twelve months (when it apparently couldn't in previous years) is ..... weird. Not concerning, really - because as I said, if management and auditors were really concerned about it, it would have been handled in the notes to the accounts completely differently, I think. Just weird.

It isn't even built into the going concern note in a particularly coherent way. It's just bolted into the middle of the previous years' wording. Which led to the initial confusion by the OP that the "reasonable expectation" was somehow related to it.

It's just poorly thought through and poorly drafted, imho. But what the fuck do I know? I haven't been in this game for thirty years.
Click to expand...
Ongoing legal proceedings have to be mentioned in the notes if they could materially affect the club’s finances — that’s just basic accounting.

My guess is the annual report was delayed because they were hoping the panel decision would land before finalising it. That didn’t happen, so the legal bit just got dropped into the middle of last year’s going concern wording. Which is why it feels a bit clunky.

That said, when the directors say they have a “reasonable expectation” based on their evaluation, that means they’ve already taken all the relevant risks into account — including the legal case. You’re not allowed to say that otherwise.
 
Keith Moon said:
Ongoing legal proceedings have to be mentioned in the notes if they could materially affect the club’s finances — that’s just basic accounting.

My guess is the annual report was delayed because they were hoping the panel decision would land before finalising it. That didn’t happen, so the legal bit just got dropped into the middle of last year’s going concern wording. Which is why it feels a bit clunky.

That said, when the directors say they have a “reasonable expectation” based on their evaluation, that means they’ve already taken all the relevant risks into account — including the legal case. You’re not allowed to say that otherwise.
Click to expand...

Possibly. I don't think it really matters from the point of view of signing off the accounts but it's a complicated area - the letter of support adds another layer - and we don't know enough to come to a judgement about the balance between the treatment of future events considered to be remote against the need for transparency, really.

I think there is a new lead auditor? Maybe this guy is less comfortable with how the whole thing was disclosed in previous years hence the need for some different audit procedures and disclosures.

In any case, it doesn't really matter. The Directors still consider a significantly negative outcome as, at the worst, a remote possibility. And it would seem the auditors still agree (otherwise the case would have to be described in much more detail, or it would be necessary to explain why such descriptions weren't made - for reasons of sensitivity, for example). It's all just accounting nonsense really, no special signals, imho.

I think :)
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
What a good awful website the Manchester evening news is. Why do that shit, nobody wants all the spam and ads stopping you read what you actually went there for.

Anyway last paragraphs says this and it confused me tbh



"Borson also believes that neither the club nor the Premier League should be held responsible for the case dragging on for years.

"Well, look, nobody knows because even the parties themselves expected to have been told by now," he added.

"All the lawyers are surprised there is no decision at this stage, and that's on both sides. I'll tell you who's holding it up - the panel making the decision. They hold the pen.

They are the people who everybody waits for to deliver the decision. Well, nobody knows. We know the long list - you can cobble it together from all of the people on the judicial panel - but we don't know who is on that list.

"We can make some guesses that it's probably two lawyers and maybe one accountant. But we don't know who is on the panel and what they were told to produce by when.

"We can now assume I think, given how long it has been and that everybody is so surprised that they don't have a decision, that actually there's very little guidance given to them and they weren't effectively paid for their time from the moment the case ended."
Click to expand...
I sincerely hope you mean god awful not good?!
 
This whole imminent bollox that is spouted out on the socials has made some erm informed people look very foolish.

Pay day = any time you say 115, city, imminent, charges in any particular order.

No wonder so many people have lost the plot.

Backhander incoming -:)
 
halfcenturyup said:
Possibly. I don't think it really matters from the point of view of signing off the accounts but it's a complicated area - the letter of support adds another layer - and we don't know enough to come to a judgement about the balance between the treatment of future events considered to be remote against the need for transparency, really.

I think there is a new lead auditor? Maybe this guy is less comfortable with how the whole thing was disclosed in previous years hence the need for some different audit procedures and disclosures.

In any case, it doesn't really matter. The Directors still consider a significantly negative outcome as, at the worst, a remote possibility. And it would seem the auditors still agree (otherwise the case would have to be described in much more detail, or it would be necessary to explain why such descriptions weren't made - for reasons of sensitivity, for example). It's all just accounting nonsense really, no special signals, imho.

I think :)
Click to expand...
Possibly — and I’d actually say the signal here is that there isn’t a signal.

The key point for me is that this is the first set of accounts after the hearing has concluded. At that point, the Directors will inevitably have a better sense of the range of potential outcomes than they did before, even if the final decision is still pending.

If, having gone through the hearing, their assessment of either the likelihood or the severity of an adverse outcome had materially shifted, you would normally expect that to show up somewhere — either through more cautious language, expanded disclosure, or a move away from the “reasonable expectation” formulation.

The fact that the same wording is retained suggests that, having taken everything into account, their overall risk assessment hasn’t changed in a way that affects the going concern conclusion. That doesn’t mean the risk is zero, just that it hasn’t been reclassified.

And as you say, the letter of support adds another layer. Knowing how our owner operates, if the club were to be sanctioned you would expect a significant level of additional investment. On that basis, it seems highly unlikely that the group would face any cash-flow constraints.
 
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