PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Carrl said:
I don't understand how you can be so confident we are proven innocent when you admit "we don't really know what the detailed allegations actually are"
Click to expand...

Because I have presumed the worst possible set of allegations around fraud and still come to the conclusion that they don't have a snowflake's chance in hell of proving them to the standard required. I really don't care if they can prove the odd misdemeanour (they could find a couple for any club after a four year investigation) - all I care about is that my club doesn't suffer a serious sporting sanction. And it won't.

I could explain why I think that again, but nobody wants to hear it for the umpteenth time.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
ADUG absolutely did underwrite Fordham's losses but I doubt that's the issue here. That's probably whether we showed those Fordham payments as player income in our FFP submissions to the PL/UEFA or whether we left those out. Given that UEFA didn't charge us over these, I'm tempted to suggest that it was just the fact they were paid through a third party. And we know why that arrangement was originally set up.

I'm less convinced that the sponsorship charges are quite as serious as has been made out. I'm more of the opinion that these are more to do with the related parties issue, although the disguised equity investment issue may play a part. But that was dismissed by CAS and I'd be very surprised if the PL got a different outcome. All this is why I'm convinced these charges are more about the optics than serious financial issues.
Click to expand...

Fair points.

I just find it hard to believe the PL would have allowed all the discussion and conclusion around fraudulent behaviour with sponsorships without correction.

If the reasoning for the award is finally released and it turns out the only problems around sponsorship were some esoteric discussions around ownership, related parties and fair value, it will be absolutely shocking to almost everyone, imho, and damning on the PL. I can't imagine anyone is getting relegated for accounting interpretations and that potential penalty has been left hanging over the club, without any correction, for nearly three years now.

Of course, we are talking about the PL, so maybe I am giving them too much credit :)

I wouldn't have any problem at all if you turn out to be right.
 
slbsn said:
Although there could be limitation arguments here a) it’s probably moot either way as PL would argue the matters were concealed b) it’s not entirely clear how limitation fits into disciplinary cases (like this) vs arbitration cases (under rule X).
Click to expand...

That's interesting. The messaging in here, as far as I have understood it, has always been that the rule book has to comply with English law and so limitation would apply to section W disciplinary cases as a matter of principle. Is there a possibility that that is not now the case?
 
halfcenturyup said:
Fair points.

I just find it hard to believe the PL would have allowed all the discussion and conclusion around fraudulent behaviour with sponsorships without correction.

If the reasoning for the award is finally released and it turns out the only problems around sponsorship were some esoteric discussions around ownership, related parties and fair value, it will be absolutely shocking to almost everyone, imho, and damning on the PL. I can't imagine anyone is getting relegated for accounting interpretations and that potential penalty has been left hanging over the club, without any correction, for nearly three years now.

Of course, we are talking about the PL, so maybe I am giving them too much credit :)

I wouldn't have any problem at all if you turn out to be right.
Click to expand...

I’m shocked you’d be shocked ;)
 
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