City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Can someone explain to me what's going on with this PL case against us?
As far as I am aware the PL opened an investigation based on the alleged "evidence" of a couple of emails from Der Spiegel as part of UEFAs case which when examined with context and other evidence and testimony in the courts at CAS turned out to be nothing more than a fart in the wind from 2010. The courts findings were there was no evidence, no smoking gun, that is NOTHING substantiating any of the allegations. Yes we were fined for none co-operation after Panja and his buddies started printing sensitive case material which most likely came from Parry.
How is this PL investigation still in the High Court?
Do the PL intend on having all the evidence heard again. (About matters from 2010 - 2013), really?
If so surely the same outcome is likely in which case we should hammer them for costs and Sue for reputational damages. What was the outcome of the hearing that Harris insisted on being present at?
As far as I can gather things are still in obeyance unless the court has requested something from either party with a lengthy time limit. Anyone know?

I think the PL are considerably behind where you think they are. What's going on with the PL case against us? Isn't that a little flattering to the PL? As I understand it the PL are still at the stage of trying to establish what they can possibly charge City with and after more than 3(?) years they still haven't found anything! They have no "case". And no hope?

 

[Centurions]

Can someone explain to me what's going on with this PL case against us?
As far as I am aware the PL opened an investigation based on the alleged "evidence" of a couple of emails from Der Spiegel as part of UEFAs case which when examined with context and other evidence and testimony in the courts at CAS turned out to be nothing more than a fart in the wind from 2010. The courts findings were there was no evidence, no smoking gun, that is NOTHING substantiating any of the allegations. Yes we were fined for none co-operation after Panja and his buddies started printing sensitive case material which most likely came from Parry.
How is this PL investigation still in the High Court?
Do the PL intend on having all the evidence heard again. (About matters from 2010 - 2013), really?
If so surely the same outcome is likely in which case we should hammer them for costs and Sue for reputational damages. What was the outcome of the hearing that Harris insisted on being present at?
As far as I can gather things are still in obeyance unless the court has requested something from either party with a lengthy time limit. Anyone know?

Still awaiting resolution from the High Court over what and the timeframe they can investigate and demand evidence from us. It seems like the PL just want us to give them everything regardless of relevance.

City v PL | Legal Dispute/Appeal

Sorry if this has been mentioned elsewhere - I never really start threads but couldn't immediately see it on the main forum page.

forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk

 

[waspish]

Still awaiting resolution from the High Court over what and the timeframe they can investigate and demand evidence from us. It seems like the PL just want us to give them everything regardless of relevance.

City v PL | Legal Dispute/Appeal

Sorry if this has been mentioned elsewhere - I never really start threads but couldn't immediately see it on the main forum page.

forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk

We handed everything over months ago when they went to court to make us release all documentation!

You see how bitter these history clubs are!! Going through a court to try and do us?! Well they must of been through them with fine tooth comb by now?! They probably getting some pointers on how the next premier ffp rules should be set up to do clubs that are not the scousers or the scum!

 

[WRicko]

More talk in mail of regulation to stop inflated sponsorship deals I am baffled it’s already against the rules further more won’t it start affecting teams lower down that have an owner who sponsors them eg Stoke not Prem but and I am sure many others it’s not just City Newcastle it looks like a good way to make the Prem worse or better for Liverpool and United and any club owned by a finance company rather than an owner with other interests

Also noticed we have a new sponsor on Noom and another that’s newish on Expo wonder if they will be allowed by the Prem

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

More talk in mail of regulation to stop inflated sponsorship deals I am baffled it’s already against the rules further more won’t it start affecting teams lower down that have an owner who sponsors them eg Stoke not Prem but and I am sure many others it’s not just City Newcastle it looks like a good way to make the Prem worse or better for Liverpool and United and any club owned by a finance company rather than an owner with other interests

Also noticed we have a new sponsor on Noom and another that’s newish on Expo wonder if they will be allowed by the Prem

In what way does it favour the yank clubs? I don't understand it yet but FFP was obviously there to protect the interests of the big boys, how are the changes going to keep that advantage?

 

[Centurions]

In what way does it favour the yank clubs? I don't understand it yet but FFP was obviously there to protect the interests of the big boys, how are the changes going to keep that advantage?

It'll protect them (and everyone else) from Newcastle taking their place at the top of the table. There is no way it can affect us, the Mail just like to drag us in to anything negative.

 

[laserblue]

Can someone explain to me what's going on with this PL case against us?
As far as I am aware the PL opened an investigation based on the alleged "evidence" of a couple of emails from Der Spiegel as part of UEFAs case which when examined with context and other evidence and testimony in the courts at CAS turned out to be nothing more than a fart in the wind from 2010. The courts findings were there was no evidence, no smoking gun, that is NOTHING substantiating any of the allegations. Yes we were fined for none co-operation after Panja and his buddies started printing sensitive case material which most likely came from Parry.
How is this PL investigation still in the High Court?
Do the PL intend on having all the evidence heard again. (About matters from 2010 - 2013), really?
If so surely the same outcome is likely in which case we should hammer them for costs and Sue for reputational damages. What was the outcome of the hearing that Harris insisted on being present at?
As far as I can gather things are still in obeyance unless the court has requested something from either party with a lengthy time limit. Anyone know?

Neither the PL nor City have stated what the investigation is about.

 

[cptaidan88]

It'll protect them (and everyone else) from Newcastle taking their place at the top of the table. There is no way it can affect us, the Mail just like to drag us in to anything negative.

It would affect any future deals theoretically. Going to be very difficult from a legal point of view for the PL to get those rules in place.

 

[Newman Noggs]

In what way does it favour the yank clubs?

I think that those of us of a suspicious disposition are presuming that any Saudi company sponsoring Newcastle, or Abu Dhabi company sponsoring us, will be presumed to be a "related party"unless proved otherwise.

Meanwhile any American company such as a money-laundering bank, or a car manufacturer with negligible presence in the UK, sponsoring an American-owned club will be waved through without scutiny.

 

[richards30]

I think that those of us of a suspicious disposition are presuming that any Saudi company sponsoring Newcastle, or Abu Dhabi company sponsoring us, will be presumed to be a "related party"unless proved otherwise.

Meanwhile any American company such as a money-laundering bank, or a car manufacturer with negligible presence in the UK, sponsoring an American-owned club will be waved through without scutiny.

Standard Chartered fined $1.1bn for money-laundering and sanctions breaches

Settlements with US and UK authorities force bank to take hit in first-quarter results

www.theguardian.com

 

[Del_Bosque]

More talk in mail of regulation to stop inflated sponsorship deals I am baffled it’s already against the rules further more won’t it start affecting teams lower down that have an owner who sponsors them eg Stoke not Prem but and I am sure many others it’s not just City Newcastle it looks like a good way to make the Prem worse or better for Liverpool and United and any club owned by a finance company rather than an owner with other interests

Also noticed we have a new sponsor on Noom and another that’s newish on Expo wonder if they will be allowed by the Prem

I think it's fair enough getting accountants to sign off on it.

But I read that it was going to be up to PL board members to decide which is surely illegal.

 

[Keeper!]

I think that those of us of a suspicious disposition are presuming that any Saudi company sponsoring Newcastle, or Abu Dhabi company sponsoring us, will be presumed to be a "related party"unless proved otherwise.

Meanwhile any American company such as a money-laundering bank, or a car manufacturer with negligible presence in the UK, sponsoring an American-owned club will be waved through without scutiny.

100% true and add Italian owned American car companies to that list ie Jeep ( Juventus/Fiat)

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

So, do our related party investments (Whether deemed improper or not) make up a large part of our income? I mean is that really a big problem?

 

[Keep the Faith]

So, do our related party investments (Whether deemed improper or not) make up a large part of our income? I mean is that really a big problem?

My concern regarding this is whether or not sponsorship from a connected source ( Nissan and our part ownership of Yokohama) will start to get classed as related.
Likewise if we get an big indian sponsor from Mumbai.

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

We don't have ANY related party investments (or sponsorship), so say our accounts as per International Accounting Standards (IAS).
If you mean sponsors from our owners country, Abu Dhabi, I believe they make up 15% or so of our total revenue.

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

My concern regarding this is whether or not sponsorship from a connected source ( Nissan and our part ownership of Yokohama) will start to get classed as related.
Likewise if we get an big indian sponsor from Mumbai.

I would politely suggest that like a lot of "other" fans of other clubs that you have no idea what makes up a "related" party in so far as sponsorship is concerned. (Not a criticism) You can look up on this very thread (see the accountants on here) the basis on which this is, in great detail. However the basics are that our owner has to have a controlling interest in those companies placing the sponsorship. As far as I am aware there is no such control of any of these other major companies that sponsor us or might sponsor us.

 

[Newman Noggs]

I would politely suggest that like a lot of "other" fans of other clubs that you have no idea what makes up a "related" party in so far as sponsorship is concerned. (Not a criticism) You can look up on this very thread (see the accountants on here) the basis on which this is, in great detail. However the basics are that our owner has to have a controlling interest in those companies placing the sponsorship. As far as I am aware there is no such control of any of these other major companies that sponsor us or might sponsor us.

I think that is understood. What people are concerned about is that the PL will attempt to abandon the accepted "related party" accounting standard in favour of something a bit more, shall we say, "focused".

They'd be on dodgy ground there, of course, but that hasn't stopped them trying in the past.

 

[Centurions]

We don't have ANY related party investments (or sponsorship), so say our accounts as per International Accounting Standards (IAS).
If you mean sponsors from our owners country, Abu Dhabi, I believe they make up 15% or so of our total revenue.

Spot on and if/when the shirt/stadium naming rights get sorted the 'market value' will be way higher than it was 10+ years ago, not least because of everything we've done since then. Read it and weep.

 

[Gaz (FMwkdsoul)]

Pity they hate each other, just sponsor each others teams.. :)

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

I think that is understood. What people are concerned about is that the PL will attempt to abandon the accepted "related party" accounting standard in favour of something a bit more, shall we say, "focused".

They'd be on dodgy ground there, of course, but that hasn't stopped them trying in the past.

Just like FFP this will be legally murky - someone will have to challenge it in court to test it.

Clubs wont want to take the league to court - the league wont want to go to court. Clubs also wont want the bad PR around challenging a regulation intended to make the game 'fair'. But because they wont want to go down that road you will get regulation via a murky process of discussion and threat. We wont know how this is working as everyoen will hold their cards close to their chest - until/unless it ends up in court.