Keith Moon
Well-Known Member
Well, not bad for a drummer. Not acting in ‘utmost good faith’ doesn’t necessarily mean anyone lied or acted fraudulently?
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 14,367
Other way round.
Premier League have to show that (a) City & Aabar are related parties, and (b) City submitted accounts saying Aabar were not related parties when they knew full well they were.
The problem for the PL is that “related party” is both a term of art and a judgment call. The term of art is defined in IAS24. The judgment call is that both City’s auditors and Aabar’s separately and independently took the view that City and Aabar were not related parties within the meaning of IAS24. It’s pretty difficult to say you were acting in bad faith when you were acting in accordance with the auditor’s view.
Especially when it’s not your auditor.
Mancity1980
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 May 2011
- Messages
- 11,923
Look pal, play your cards on the line, do you think we are innocent or you are a red cartel bast@rd???
Blue_Lightsaber
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2022
- Messages
- 6,156
- Team supported
- Man City
Beat Solitaire in 115 moves TWICE now..
What else is left to do to unlock the 115 verdict???
Our breach of uefa rules and subsequent penalty we accepted didn't lead to a PL investigation.
I mean the 'pinch' one fyi, not the cas overturned nonsense one.
Mid Wales blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 4,956
I suspect it’ll take at least another 113 times!
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
Yes what a terrible crime of Villa to invest in their squad. Perhaps they should do things “the United way” and run up debts of £1bn and make no attempt to pay them back. And while they are at it surely Villa should base the bulk of their business offshore in the Cayman Islands and pay zero tax in this country. That’s the correct way to do things. It’s “the United way.”
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 15,574
What he said.
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,449
You forgot the bit about begging taxpayers for a billion pounds for a new stadium.
The pinch one was a settlement rather than a proper guilty verdict though, wasnt it?
There’s a premier league rule that states you must adhere to UEFA rules too.
The settlement which involved a penalty was still an acknowledgement and acceptance that the rules were broken. Albeit down to interpretation differences and goalposts shifting.
There is indeed a rule relating to uefa, but I'm not sure it's as simple as if you are found to breach their rules you automatically get investigated. I don't knoe the detail so won't argue it, but my understanding was more the other way, if you breach PL rules, you them may jave breached Uefa rules as you submit the same info to them to qualify. And their threshold is or was lower than ours, so it is possible to fail their rules but pass ours.
I don't think (but I don't know) that a uefa investigation or even breach leads to a PL one. In our first case it didnt. In our second it did, but not as a consequence of being charged and ultimately cleared (which then should have ended the PL case), but because the PL opened an independent investigation as a reaction to the der spiegel claims. And subsequent pressures and appearences to maintain.
Is how I see it.
Didn’t the settlement state the exact opposite of this?
IIRC it was specifically included in the settlement that it was not an admission of guilt or that a breach had taken place.
Don't think so, from memory. Could be wrong. But I could be influenced by how it has since been presented/spun and effectively accepted in the mainstream.
The general impression still remains that we took a (settled) punishment for breathing the rules. With both sides satisfied to avoid a further fight over it.
Yeah, it seems to be widely held view that it was a settlement of a breach and admission of guilt to avoid a heavier punishment.
I’m pretty sure (but like you, could be wrong!) that it was specifically stated to not be an admission of guilt.
It’s a an oddity considering our reputation for financial charges that, currently, City are one of clubs who have not been found guilty of any FFP breaches.
United have had more FFP breaches than City.
Even the CAS non-cooperation isn’t an FFP charge.
Last edited:
It is all in the language. You are right, that was the club take and statement. But we still ultimately accepted a penalty and sanction one way or the other.
Bbc, so obviously their language is very different to the club's, even immediately after a direct quote. But the impression has stuck.
Manchester City fined and squad capped for FFP breach
Manchester City are fined £49m and will have a reduced Champions League squad next season after failing financial rules.
www.bbc.co.uk
It is all in the language. You are right, that was the club take and statement. But we still ultimately accepted a penalty and sanction one way or the other.
Bbc, so obviously their language is very different to the club's, even immediately after a direct quote. But the impression has stuck.
Manchester City fined and squad capped for FFP breach
Manchester City are fined £49m and will have a reduced Champions League squad next season after failing financial rules.
Yes, the sanction/penalty was very real with inevitable interpretation of guilt by the masses.
Looking back now, it makes you wonder if Khaldoon would still have taken the pinch.
If City thought the pinch would draw a line under everything then they got it spectacularly wrong in hindsight!
Khaldoon probably underestimated the determination of Bayern and others to try to nobble us, not to mention UEFA caving in to such pressure.
Arsenal etc and the PL was just a replay of that scenario, but Khaldoon’s response was much more robust.
Forecast: PL 1 City 129.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
The perception that City are breaking the rules has unfortunately been fueled from day 1 of our owners takeover.
On field or off field we endure pedantic forensic scrutiny with follow up media exaggeration and often lies.
So yes, possibly a mistake by Mr K to accept a pinch but at the time we were part way through our investment strategy and vulnerable. These days we are self sufficient .
Mr K gave them a chance to be reasonable which they rubbed in our face so the no mercy approach now being shown will prevent any further misunderstanding.
On field or off field we endure pedantic forensic scrutiny with follow up media exaggeration and often lies.
So yes, possibly a mistake by Mr K to accept a pinch but at the time we were part way through our investment strategy and vulnerable. These days we are self sufficient .
Mr K gave them a chance to be reasonable which they rubbed in our face so the no mercy approach now being shown will prevent any further misunderstanding.
In hindsight, I have zero doubt it was the right thing to do and has turned out to be. Even if it did cost us a potential back to back title that year.
Keith Moon
Well-Known Member
Thanks Chris. Isn’t it enough for the Premier League to say the auditors got it wrong, and that the club ought to have known, meaning “utmost good faith” can be breached without anyone being dishonest?