PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Too many posts to check if this has been mentioned, but in regard the incorrect references in the initial charges. Apparently these were correct references for old(er) revisions of the rules.

Does this not suggest these charges were compiled some time ago ? only to be pushed out now ?
 
Impeccable One said:
Too many posts to check if this has been mentioned, but in regard the incorrect references in the initial charges. Apparently these were correct references for old(er) revisions of the rules.

Does this not suggest these charges were compiled some time ago ? only to be pushed out now ?
Click to expand...

There is a different rule book for each season! That’s why going back so many years is joke
 
Watching the game on TV & all I can see is Revenue flashing flashing all around the pitch, all around the middle tier. Someone give Neville a nudge & tell him that’s why we’re massive, look at the companies, look at the deals before you comment you ****!

& tell the **** it’s clear he turned up with a narrative that Cancelo missing will affect us. He keeps looking for a fault on Bernardo & he’s running the show.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
It's a possible implication, depending on the amounts, the frequency and how that relates to acceptable accounting standards, but it's possible to have broken the PL rules (e.g. by misrepresentation to them), but not have broken UK law (fraud).

What it is is an easy tag to use for the hard of thinking.
Click to expand...
But they are not alleging just that we broke FFP or did not cooperate remember loosing too much money would also be a breach of FFP. They’re not even alleging that we miss represented the accounts in some FFP way not sure what that would be maybe allowances. I don’t know how FFP works do they look at the accounts or specially accounts prepared for FFP.

They are alleging that we paid people off the books ( that’s a tax / fraud implications) they are alleging that we increased revenue in a dishonest way again that would have tax implications probably for benefit of the tax man but negative ones for other investors.

Remember spurs sponsor getting done for inflating revenue ? Just before it got bought out for far more than it was worth
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Usually it's described as "converting it to equity", but you're right. In this case, he waived it/included it in the club value; as I understand it, there's no difference if you own 100% of the business.

I'm pretty certain that our owner has supplied short term loans that have then been converted to equity (shares, in this case).
Click to expand...
Most of the short term loans have been repaid to Mansour. They tided us over the low cash flow summer.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.