PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[bobbyowenquiff]

The PL don’t seem to have a process for anything. No set bands for punishments no idea how to fairly cover legal expenses when clubs come and go. Dodgy appointment sign offs. Nothing to deal with assets sales to related parties. No way of investigating overseas finances seemingly no scrutiny of Covid loses.

The PL finance team is essentially a handful of people in a room. They use external legal advice. They admitted they were “overwhelmed” by the simple APT case. Masters has no qualifications to be a CEO and the PL Board does not seem to scrutinise anything. It is supposed to be impartial but has weaponised its comms team to issue partisan press releases attacking member clubs like Forest, Everton, and especially City. It is totally amateurish. Masters has been exposed again and again at Commons Select Committees. He does not have a clue what he is doing.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Was enjoyable to see that twat Masters sat next to Wenger last night and drinking in that Gabriel penalty.

 

[Giovinco]

Was re-reading the club’s statement this morning from back in 2023.

Based on the club’s surprise at the allegations and the continual provision of documentation I don’t think we are even going to accept the non compliance charge

 

[CC1]

It's not any news. Means nothing, although the main point about the auditors being very careful for the last 3 (or more likely at least 7) years is a good one, as discussed on here since the allegations were referred.

What about from 2010 to when BDO were exposed? Could they have been “turning a blind eye” or is there no real connection between what they have done at the construction company & how they audited our accounts - in view of the number of sponsor accounts that were audited by different auditors ( if that make ANY sense from a KFA ordinary fan)

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Was re-reading the club’s statement this morning from back in 2023.

Based on the club’s surprise at the allegations and the continual provision of documentation I don’t think we are even going to accept the non compliance charge

I don't think we will either. We complied with public accounting rules and had everything audited and signed off as per the regulations (law). The PL have essentially acted like a mouthpiece for the letter writing cunts instead of a credible governing body.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

What about from 2010 to when BDO were exposed? Could they have been “turning a blind eye” or is there no real connection between what they have done at the construction company & how they audited our accounts - in view of the number of sponsor accounts that were audited by different auditors ( if that make ANY sense from a KFA ordinary fan)

I had a quick read through the Financial Reporting Council's review of BDO's conduct in that audit. The issues were much more complex than ours would have been.

Essentially an audit is about managing risk. You can't possibly track every penny in and out so you devise an audit plan to mitigate that risk as far as possible. You work out what is material and what isn't. If a payment doesn't match an invoice by 20p, then you wouldn't care about that.

As an auditor, you'd want high percentage coverage of the largest revenue sponsorship contracts, with decreasing coverage of lower value contracts. So you might dig into all of the highest ten revenue earners, half the next ten and just randomly select a handful of the smaller ones. You'd want to check the contracts fully and ensure cashflow matched the terms of that contract. You'd also want to check that the amounts received had been correctly accounted for and were represented correctly in the accounts themselves.

The issues at NMCM were complex and around contracts where there could be some variability in what revenue or potential losses could be reported. BDO seemingly devised a reasonable audit plan but didn't follow some of those plans through properly, and didn't challenge the management view of these robustly enough.

 

[johnny crossan]

Again ,I’d like to know who and when they conduct pl audit?

plaudits to them if they do

 

[Bez]

We've been under heavy scrutiny for years. Initially, it was UEFA in the 2010s and now its been the PL for the last 8 years. That's about 15 years where City have had to justify what they have been doing financially on a regular basis. That suggests to me our auditors will have been fully alert to the high levels of scrutiny on all things finance related. Therefore, the likelihood of City doing anything illegal or technically incorrect is low. I just hope the fat cat lawyers and the paralegals have been busy writing up the decision. Like City have been under scrutiny, the final decision opens up the PL to scrutiny too. Those that live I glass houses should not throw stones. Come on City!

 

[CC1]

I had a quick read through the Financial Reporting Council's review of BDO's conduct in that audit. The issues were much more complex than ours would have been.

Essentially an audit is about managing risk. You can't possibly track every penny in and out so you devise an audit plan to mitigate that risk as far as possible. You work out what is material and what isn't. If a payment doesn't match an invoice by 20p, then you wouldn't care about that.

As an auditor, you'd want high percentage coverage of the largest revenue sponsorship contracts, with decreasing coverage of lower value contracts. So you might dig into all of the highest ten revenue earners, half the next ten and just randomly select a handful of the smaller ones. You'd want to check the contracts fully and ensure cashflow matched the terms of that contract. You'd also want to check that the amounts received had been correctly accounted for and were represented correctly in the accounts themselves.

The issues at NMCM were complex and around contracts where there could be some variability in what revenue or potential losses could be reported. BDO seemingly devised a reasonable audit plan but didn't follow some of those plans through properly, and didn't challenge the management view of these robustly enough.

Many thanks @Prestwich_Blue

 

[JASR]

What about from 2010 to when BDO were exposed? Could they have been “turning a blind eye” or is there no real connection between what they have done at the construction company & how they audited our accounts - in view of the number of sponsor accounts that were audited by different auditors ( if that make ANY sense from a KFA ordinary fan)

Following on from PB, the partner (and there team) who audited the construction company, was a different one to the multiple partners (and teams) who have audited City over the years (change every few years - good practise, stops ‘cozy’ relationships and complacency).
As Slbsn said in his article, the partner involved in the construction company is likely to never be able to work again in that job, due to the failure to follow auditing established practises. Not great to go from such high salary to zero. The chances of X partners (and teams) doing the same shambolic audit for City is negligible, even before the 2014 UEFA settlement, let alone before the CAS stuff, and certainly not before the PL stitchup.
There could have been one, maybe, but your having a giraffe if you believe that X number of partners and teams failed in their duty to such an extent, as alleged, time after time. Each smear attack attempt would raise the level of auditing in the next FY - you wouldn’t want to be the partner (or team) responsible for cocking up such a high media profile audit

 

[citymad]

That is just pure comedy gold. You just knew it was coming but still funny when it happened. I would love to know if the freekick taker had a grudge against his team mate. Poor geezer was left by himself out cold while play kept going.

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Did anyone else see Masters in the stands sat with his his chum Wenger last night?
Fucking pair of wankers

 

[lasereyes]

I had a quick read through the Financial Reporting Council's review of BDO's conduct in that audit. The issues were much more complex than ours would have been.

Essentially an audit is about managing risk. You can't possibly track every penny in and out so you devise an audit plan to mitigate that risk as far as possible. You work out what is material and what isn't. If a payment doesn't match an invoice by 20p, then you wouldn't care about that.

As an auditor, you'd want high percentage coverage of the largest revenue sponsorship contracts, with decreasing coverage of lower value contracts. So you might dig into all of the highest ten revenue earners, half the next ten and just randomly select a handful of the smaller ones. You'd want to check the contracts fully and ensure cashflow matched the terms of that contract. You'd also want to check that the amounts received had been correctly accounted for and were represented correctly in the accounts themselves.

The issues at NMCM were complex and around contracts where there could be some variability in what revenue or potential losses could be reported. BDO seemingly devised a reasonable audit plan but didn't follow some of those plans through properly, and didn't challenge the management view of these robustly enough.

Tbh, I dont think you can place much stock in auditors. Most famously, Enron where the red flags were flying at full mast and Arthur Andersen were completely asleep at the switch. Similar with Lehman Brothers (Ersnt & Young) with their highly irregular financing practices that grossly distorted their balance sheet.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Tbh, I dont think you can place much stock in auditors. Most famously, Enron where the red flags were flying at full mast and Arthur Andersen were completely asleep at the switch. Similar with Lehman Brothers (Ersnt & Young) with their highly irregular financing practices that grossly distorted their balance sheet.

Long story with some relevance. When I started as accountant it was with a one man firm in Tibb Street mostly preparing accounts from shoeboxes of cheque stubs and invoices. So not actually relevant at all.

Then the firm was taken over by Tansley Witt, a medium sized firm where I was introduced to risk analysis based audits for the first time which basically determined the extent of transaction testing, amongst other things. Quite a strict process which determined the scope and severity of transaction testing on a combination of the most significant transactions with a sample of smaller transactions. I don't remember any cases where the risk analysis and subsequent testing was found deficient.

Then that firm was taken over by Arthur Andersen's and I was introduced to a much more "scientific" (dare I say American) approach to risk assessment which was pretty much designed to reduce the amount of work in favour of depending more on the risk assessment. They were more interested in those bloody doors (if you know, you know) than robust process. That may be an unfair description, it was a long time ago now, but I couldn't believe how weak the system was compared to that I was used to and it was no surprise to me that Enron happened and completely did for Andersen's.

In the meantime, I was spending my last ten years as an audit manager with Coopers where I oversaw risk assessments, process definitions, audit conclusions and opinion approvals from the partners. I even signed a couple of opinions under proxy.

My point is - you can't really say you can't trust auditors. It depends who the auditors are (which firm and which people). After Enron, risk procedures were tightened up everywhere and procedures increasingly standardised. I am pretty sure that BDO, in the case of a high-profile and high-risk (at the moment) client like City, have received enough satisfaction from the Board to support their audit procedures and their "true and fair" audit opinion. If they hadn't, their opinions would have been qualified or they would have resigned.

Or maybe not :) Who knows?

 

[pepguardiola'smoustache]

Assume it is to 100% hide the ball from the view of the keeper to potentially wrong foot him. Would be a nice idea to get the ball over the wall though

nah, i'm sticking with my theory...

the fella who got twatted in the face is a bigmouth who nobody likes.
the coach invented this cock'n'bull idea and talked him into it simply so the taker could knock him out.
the other kneeler was in on it too.
have another look at the quick glance back the taker immediately gives to the fella he's just left sparko on the deck, as if to say, that'll shut you up ****.

 

[pepguardiola'smoustache]

When I started as accountant it was with a one man firm in Tibb Street

Tib, matey, Tib.

was it one of the porno shops? :)

 

[Blue_Lightsaber]

The PL finance team is essentially a handful of people in a room. They use external legal advice. They admitted they were “overwhelmed” by the simple APT case. Masters has no qualifications to be a CEO and the PL Board does not seem to scrutinise anything. It is supposed to be impartial but has weaponised its comms team to issue partisan press releases attacking member clubs like Forest, Everton, and especially City. It is totally amateurish. Masters has been exposed again and again at Commons Select Committees. He does not have a clue what he is doing.

Yes men are amateurish.

If they had intellect they would not be yes men.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Tib, matey, Tib.

was it one of the porno shops? :)

Sorry :) Not lived in Manchester for 45 years. Memory going.....

 

[Bournemouth Blue]

Now Arsenal lost the Champions League final, and City’s women won the FA Cup, this would be the perfect time to announce the result of the hearings, whatever the outcome. That said, legal things don’t tend to follow the football callendar.

 

[Nephin Man]

Now Arsenal lost the Champions League final, and City’s women won the FA Cup, this would be the perfect time to announce the result of the hearings, whatever the outcome. That said, legal things don’t tend to follow the football callendar.

Nope. The best time will be after John Stones heads home England's winner in the 121st minute of the World Cup Final. It'll be buried in the World Cup.