Manchester City releases 2023-24 Annual Report | Record £715m revenue, profit of £73m

[Bluewonder]

I’m not an accountant, but isn’t this conclusive?

Surely if we were even aware of a possibility of an impending financial impairment, we are legally bound to disclose it in our audited accounts?

Unless I am misunderstanding, doesn’t this mean that we KNOW that we are off the hook?

I'm afraid I wouldn't use the word conclusive, but it's certainly very good news.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Is there a possibility that we have posted these accounts a little later as we waited for the hearing to be over, so we could get our legal team to advise BDO on the hearing/ chances etc. allowing us to have them taken out.

Surely not having them in helps with investment, sponsors etc. for the club.

Auditors have to get a legal letter from a company's lawyers stating the likely outcomes of any outstanding cases.

But the accounts are dated October 8, and the hearing had barely started then so no, the auditors won't have taken into account the lawyers' view of all the hearing. They would have been very careful how they assessed the risk and potential liability, though, and they concluded a significant financial penalty was unlikely as was any other sanction that would affect the company's ability to continue as it has been.

 

[Keeper!]

Big wage bill (not just playing staff) and bonuses for winning trophies. Don't think we'll need to worry about the latter in the next edition:). You'd imagine that Walker, Gundogan, De Bruyne and Ederson likely leaving next summer will free up nearly £50m a year in wages and bonuses. Given the allowed losses of £105m over a three-year cycle, I'd say we're in a very good place. A new Etihad deal is also on the horizon.

A huge new signing and wage in Lord Pannick and Co, that's going to show up !!!

 

[Keeper!]

Cheating b@stards

130 times la, 130!!!

 

[LesBleuMiserable]

130 times la, 130!!!

I’ll raise you…10 more?

Or will they deduct 100 plus?

To be or not to be guilty eh?!

Who cares We are City!

 

[ChicagoBlue]

You’re talking about the 2020 CAS case. He’s talking about the 2014 fine & settlement.

Thank you for the clarification. My apologies.

 

[M23 Citizen]

 

[WRicko]

Auditors have to get a legal letter from a company's lawyers stating the likely outcomes of any outstanding cases.

But the accounts are dated October 8, and the hearing had barely started then so no, the auditors won't have taken into account the lawyers' view of all the hearing. They would have been very careful how they assessed the risk and potential liability, though, and they concluded a significant financial penalty was unlikely as was any other sanction that would affect the company's ability to continue as it has been.

So if not to do with the hearing what else ? I mean the evidence rather how the case is constructed or received is the same as it has always been.

 

[halfcenturyup]

So if not to do with the hearing what else ? I mean the evidence rather how the case is constructed or received is the same as it has always been.

I am not so sure it is what has changed since last year that is interesting but the fact that management, directors and auditors together with declarations from their lawyers, have all concluded, as at October 8 and with all the developments of the last year, that an outcome that has a significant negative impact on the club is unlikely and so the matter doesn't have to be disclosed in a note to the actual accounts.

It's not definitive proof of anything, but the confidence shown by the club should least be a counterweight to those of a nervous disposition on here who think that, as the judgment is getting closer, it is worth worrying more about.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

So if not to do with the hearing what else ? I mean the evidence rather how the case is constructed or received is the same as it has always been.

Our lawyers have now seen all the evidence or lack of evidence from the PL which was not the case last year.