PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Stoned Rose]

Give it a fucking rest. Two sets of auditors have decided, over many years, and presumably with external advice given the scenario, that Aabar and City are NOT related parties. That view has been taken in utmost good faith. The PL have no chance of proving otherwise, unless they have evidence that we knew they were related parties and deliberately chose to ignore that, so please STFU.

Pumped.

 

[Keith Moon]

Give it a fucking rest. Two sets of auditors have decided, over many years, and presumably with external advice given the scenario, that Aabar and City are NOT related parties. That view has been taken in utmost good faith. The PL have no chance of proving otherwise, unless they have evidence that we knew they were related parties and deliberately chose to ignore that, so please STFU.

You obviously hold auditors in higher regard than I do. If there are publicly available court documents showing Sheikh Mansour’s close involvement in IPIC, and official Aabar documents confirming that he played an active role in Aabar’s business, how do City’s auditors justify the view that he had no significant influence?

 

[give it to gordon]

You obviously hold auditors in higher regard than I do. If there are publicly available court documents showing Sheikh Mansour’s close involvement in IPIC, and official Aabar documents confirming that he played an active role in Aabar’s business, how do City’s auditors justify the view that he had no significant influence?

Isn't it down to the pl to prove it not for City to disprove it ?

 

[manimanc]

You obviously hold auditors in higher regard than I do. If there are publicly available court documents showing Sheikh Mansour’s close involvement in IPIC, and official Aabar documents confirming that he played an active role in Aabar’s business, how do City’s auditors justify the view that he had no significant influence?

You have to be a wum.

Surely.

You aren't taking anything in from posters who are well up with their knowledge on these charges.

It's almost as if you want us to be charged because someone comes back with an answer but you always come back "but what about this and what about that.."

It is peculiar when you read the back and forth and it seems like it is only you who has a problem with certain replies.

@Prestwich_Blue knows his stuff and knows his stuff well.

And to add you only seem post in here, I've never seen you on a post match thread which seems odd to me but each to their own.

 

[WRicko]

You obviously hold auditors in higher regard than I do. If there are publicly available court documents showing Sheikh Mansour’s close involvement in IPIC, and official Aabar documents confirming that he played an active role in Aabar’s business, how do City’s auditors justify the view that he had no significant influence?

So you’re saying the auditors not just one firm not just one year ignored public evidence ? And provided false report / signed off false reports ? Presumably breaking various professional codes and regulations etc. Why ? A bribe ? Or just for fun ? Or what ?

 

[Blue Pete]

You obviously hold auditors in higher regard than I do. If there are publicly available court documents showing Sheikh Mansour’s close involvement in IPIC, and official Aabar documents confirming that he played an active role in Aabar’s business, how do City’s auditors justify the view that he had no significant influence?

Hey I'm an auditor of 20+ years. Got a problem with that ?

If the signed off accounts state they are not related, the Premier League would have to show why their interpretation of FRS102 was wrong, and I seriously doubt they could. 'Involvement' alone wouldn't be enough, active control would be the issue, and I doubt sufficient evidence would be available to provide enough doubt on the auditors assessment to overturn it.

 

[Phil1]

I get the feeling Keith doesn't get invited to many work nights out.

 

[manimanc]

I get the feeling Keith doesn't get invited to many work nights out.

He reminds me of that Harry Enfield character that says you don't want to do it like that, you do it like this.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Without knowing what the EPL has in the way of evidence, its difficult to know what there angle of attack is, but it certainly isnt a smoking gun & City changing the risk of these allegations in last years accounts foe me is telling.

The Epl can insinuate whatever they want, but without evidence then it's meaningless

CAS who are more official than the Epl found us not guilty under the basis of probability, so I don't see how the 3 KCs will vote against the same decision unless there is new evidence.

I don't see it either on the most serious charges.

You haven't quite understood the issue. The first assessment was based on 2 years' accounts, namely 2011/12 and 2012/13. The original calculation of the provision to exclude pre-2010 wages required 2011/12 accounts to meet a certain criterion and there was a worked example in the original 'toolkit' to show how that should have been calculated. Without meeting that criterion, you couldn't use the other two tests that had to be met.

We submitted accounts in 2011/12 which met that criterion, as it stood at the time we filed them. However, just after we did that, and had filed those accounts, in April 2013 UEFA released a new version of the FFP toolkit in which the worked example was changed, meaning the 2012 FY accounts didn't then meet the amended criterion and they couldn't be amended.

Once that happened there was nothing we could do, as we could no longer meet the first key criterion for claiming mitigation and I know the club were furious as they'd been working with UEFA to ensure they were on the right lines, which UEFA said they were, up to the time they changed the guidance.

As I said, the sale of IP under Fordham arrangement and to the newly set up CFS and CFM, were solely designed to bring in enough revenue to try to meet the Annex XI provision, and for no other reason. But late in the day, because of UEFA's sneaky action, there was no point in doing that.

I strongly suspect that, knowing what he knows now, Khaldoon would have gone to town on UEFA in 2014, because they'd seemingly lured us into a trap. But I suspect he decided to 'take the pinch' as he wanted to draw a line under it.

There was some talk about pre-2010 amortisation but Khaldoon explicitly mentioned the difference in the treatment of wages, and it was that which sent me back to scrutinise the two versions of the Annex XI working examples.

Fair enough. It was a long time ago :)

 

[halfcenturyup]

Hey I'm an auditor of 20+ years. Got a problem with that ?

If the signed off accounts state they are not related, the Premier League would have to show why their interpretation of FRS102 was wrong, and I seriously doubt they could. 'Involvement' alone wouldn't be enough, active control would be the issue, and I doubt sufficient evidence would be available to provide enough doubt on the auditors assessment to overturn it.

Good man.

 

[BringBackSwales]

Give it a fucking rest. Two sets of auditors have decided, over many years, and presumably with external advice given the scenario, that Aabar and City are NOT related parties. That view has been taken in utmost good faith. The PL have no chance of proving otherwise, unless they have evidence that we knew they were related parties and deliberately chose to ignore that, so please STFU.

He may have got it wrong but he was only asking a question ffs, assume by your reaction he and you must have done history?

 

[Keith Moon]

Hey I'm an auditor of 20+ years. Got a problem with that ?

If the signed off accounts state they are not related, the Premier League would have to show why their interpretation of FRS102 was wrong, and I seriously doubt they could. 'Involvement' alone wouldn't be enough, active control would be the issue, and I doubt sufficient evidence would be available to provide enough doubt on the auditors assessment to overturn it.

Not at all. I love auditors. My point is that major firms like PwC, KPMG and EY have, at times, been sanctioned for failing to properly challenge related-party-type arrangements, for insufficient professional scepticism, and for placing reliance on documentation that later proved to be inadequate.

 

[Centurions]

He may have got it wrong but he was only asking a question ffs, assume by your reaction he and you must have done history?

You must have not been following the thread closely as "Keith" keeps asking the same question over and over, framed slightly differently each time. He's an out and out wum and has been obvious for a while to my eyes.

 

[No One Understands]

Yeah City got what they went for and the video makes it clear….not sure how he knows for sure as it’s supposed to be undisclosed but these things get leaked.

Newcastle the losers but that’s what you get if you sit on the fence.

I get the feeling that no one is in charge at Newcastle. I just find their behaviour or lack thereof in all of this baffling.

 

[bluemc]

You must have not been following the thread closely as "Keith" keeps asking the same question over and over, framed slightly differently each time. He's an out and out wum and has been obvious for a while to my eyes.

Yet people keep falling for it so Keithy boy gets the attention he's looking for.

Don't feed the troll!

 

[chesterbells]

He reminds me of that Harry Enfield character that says you don't want to do it like that, you do it like this.

Reads a bit like a journalist fishing to me.

 

[dadnlad]

Yet people keep falling for it so Keithy boy gets the attention he's looking for.

Don't feed the troll!

so his second name is wyness say's alot

 

[Stoned Rose]

You obviously hold auditors in higher regard than I do. If there are publicly available court documents showing Sheikh Mansour’s close involvement in IPIC, and official Aabar documents confirming that he played an active role in Aabar’s business, how do City’s auditors justify the view that he had no significant influence?

I’ve been an auditor of posts on here for ages and you’re going on my pied list.

 

[Chris in London]

I assume the Premier League would need to show that Sheikh Mansour had significant influence over IPIC and Aabar. If there are publicly available documents from other court cases suggesting that he was closely involved in IPIC, and official Aabar documents where the CEO confirms that Sheikh Mansour played an active role in Aabar’s business, then—if the Premier League were to put that material before the panel—would that give the panel a basis to conclude that the auditors’ assessment was wrong?

No.

It’s not about whether the auditors were wrong.

It’s about whether the Pl can show, given the auditors’ stance (including Aabars own auditors), that in saying this is not a related party transaction City were acting in bad faith.

 

[BringBackSwales]

You must have not been following the thread closely as "Keith" keeps asking the same question over and over, framed slightly differently each time. He's an out and out wum and has been obvious for a while to my eyes.

I haven’t got the mental capacity to follow this thread too closely tbh, sneaked into it today for the first time in ages, thanks for the heads up

PS I remember when football was a game, played on a football pitch