Clevers said:dario2739 said:Ducado said:Eh? You know all this as fact? Or are you speculating that all the above is true? Its an important distinction, do you know what UEFA have said?
I think every football club worldwide is guilty of 'creative accounting'!
Frankly, if the Independent told me it was raining I'd go outside to check.
BringBackSwales said:jimbopm said:Didsbury Dave said:That article shows you how much of our revenue is actually fudged.
I think we have to hold our hands up as supporters and recognise that City have been indulging in 'creative' accounting practices. However I would offset that by saying that I believe we are not the only club doing this kind of thing, and that ultimately there would be no need for these questionable revenue streams if it wasn't for FFP.
UEFA's accountants have obviously decided that they want to single us out for punishment, I believe our only course of action will be challenging FFP legally on the grounds that it is anti-competitive.
when you say that City "have been indulging in creative accounting", are you aware that City's accounts get fully audited, by PWC I believe, who are 1 of the big 4 audit firm in the world, and as much as City are an important client to them, we would not be worth them losing their reputation for and they would not therefore allow unrealistic "creative accounting" if they felt that it would not meet reasonable challenge. Did you know that 15 years or so ago there used to be a "big 5" of audit and accounting firms, the other one being Arthur Andersen, and they had a big client called Enron with whom Arthur Andersen did not exercise proper audit controls, and it completely wiped them out and they no longer exist
Prestwich_Blue said:In accountancy, there's rarely any black and white in the way things are recorded or reported. That's why they have Accounting Standards, in order to try to achieve an element of consistency and transparency. But if we've sold some IP to MC NYC, who aren't even in operation properly yet, and to Melbourne Heart, who we bought after the IP sale took place, then I agree there's bound to be questions asked.jimbopm said:When I say creative, I am not implying illegal. I'm sure our accounts have passed all of the audits but I still think that UEFA have a bee in their bonnet about us setting up companies that have paid us money for 'intangible assets'.
UEFA will want to get to the bottom of what these so-called intangible assets are and why these new companies - registered outside the football clubs jurisdiction - have paid large sums to us.
Prestwich_Blue said:In accountancy, there's rarely any black and white in the way things are recorded or reported. That's why they have Accounting Standards, in order to try to achieve an element of consistency and transparency. But if we've sold some IP to MC NYC, who aren't even in operation properly yet, and to Melbourne Heart, who we bought after the IP sale took place, then I agree there's bound to be questions asked.jimbopm said:When I say creative, I am not implying illegal. I'm sure our accounts have passed all of the audits but I still think that UEFA have a bee in their bonnet about us setting up companies that have paid us money for 'intangible assets'.
UEFA will want to get to the bottom of what these so-called intangible assets are and why these new companies - registered outside the football clubs jurisdiction - have paid large sums to us.
Bodicoteblue said:These ladders - are they the same ones that the cartel pulled up behind them?
jrb said:Question.
NYCFC and Melbourne adside, where has the money come from to pay MCFC from MCWFC?
Let's be honest about this, there is no way they could afford to pay for image rights, etc.
You could probably apply that to NYCFC and Melbourne as well.
Where have those 3 clubs got the money from to pay City, who effectively own the 3 of them?
Let's not duck the issue. One that many on here think is one off, if not, the main reason why City failed FFPR.
It's obvious UEFA aren't buying this either/at all.
I know which I think takes precedencejimbopm said:Prestwich_Blue said:In accountancy, there's rarely any black and white in the way things are recorded or reported. That's why they have Accounting Standards, in order to try to achieve an element of consistency and transparency. But if we've sold some IP to MC NYC, who aren't even in operation properly yet, and to Melbourne Heart, who we bought after the IP sale took place, then I agree there's bound to be questions asked.jimbopm said:When I say creative, I am not implying illegal. I'm sure our accounts have passed all of the audits but I still think that UEFA have a bee in their bonnet about us setting up companies that have paid us money for 'intangible assets'.
UEFA will want to get to the bottom of what these so-called intangible assets are and why these new companies - registered outside the football clubs jurisdiction - have paid large sums to us.
That's where I think this process is at a standstill. UEFA trying to impose sanctions based on them not believing these sanctions to be legit in a FFP sense, Man City fighting the sactions based on them believing them to be legit in an accounting sense.
jrb said:Question.
NYCFC and Melbourne adside, where has the money come from to pay MCFC from MCWFC?
Let's be honest about this, there is no way they could afford to pay for image rights, etc.
You could probably apply that to NYCFC and Melbourne as well.
Where have those 3 clubs got the money from to pay City, who effectively own the 3 of them?
Let's not duck the issue. One that many on here think is one off, if not, the main reason why City failed FFPR.
It's obvious UEFA aren't buying this either/at all.