PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[bluenova]

I don’t think city fans think anything is up with Bayern or other sponsorships or at least not seriously so and all of what to say is true. It’s also true that it makes sense for example Etihad to pay more to sponsor City than other clubs be it due similar synergies as with Bayern and there sponsors. That being said there is an assumption that city sponsors are related or at least acting as related parties and over paying yet there is less crossover (no common share ownership involved in Etihad etc and City) however there is with Bayern and it’s key sponsors yet it’s not even questioned in the media or elsewhere and I don’t believe but correct me if I am wrong declared as such or been valued by anyone UEFA etc to check it’s fair value. I think the same would apply to stoke bet 365 Leicester King Power etc

It's not a coincidence that Bayern have for years had the highest sponsorship income in football.

Quite astonishing that they were one of the chief complainers about our owner funding.

 

[Dubai Blue]

No, GDPR and Sarbanes Oxley (SOX) are entirely different things. All UK companies absolutely need to adhere to GDPR (around data protection) but not Sarbanes Oxley (which is US federal law around accounting and business controls). As we are not a US entity we are not bound by the requirements of SOX.

I didn't say they were the same things. But GDPR can apply to organizations outside the EU just as SOX can apply to organizations outside the US.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

I get that Tolm but BDO have do have a past record of messing up

BDO faces FRC investigation over audit of collapsed construction firm - City AM

The Financial Reporting Council is opening an investigation into the challenger company's audit of collapse building firm NMCN.

www.cityam.com

BDO auditor fired for altering files earmarked for inspection

Accountant found to have made changes after UK regulator told the firm it would be reviewing a public sector audit

www.ft.com

BDO International faces audit negligence accusation

By Pascal Fletcher

www.reuters.com

SEC.gov | SEC Charges BDO and Five Partners in Connection With False and Misleading Audit Opinions

www.sec.gov

BDO may have to bail out sister firm in Spain after €126.8m penalty

Spain’s highest civil court found BDO, among others, guilty of falsifying accounts of fishing firm Pescanova

www.theguardian.com

BDO pays $3.5-million fine over audit of fraudulent mutual funds

The fine stems from BDO’s auditing of mutual funds offered by Crystal Wealth Management Systems Ltd., a Burlington, Ont.-based investment company that was later found by the OSC to have overstated the value of its assets

www.theglobeandmail.com

FRC launches probe of BDO over NMCN audit

The Financial Reporting Council announced the launch of an investigation into BDO in relation to its audit of U.K. construction and engineering company NMCN, which filed for administration earlier this month.

www.complianceweek.com

Oh dear. Just glanced through them rather than read the precise wording of every article but they all seem to suggest BDO completely missing misleading or fraudulent accounts, that doesn't bode well.

 

[M18CTID]

Read from 274-285 of the CAS findings

I've just read it and to be honest, I don't see anything of real note that might've led to CAS to come to a different decision. There's reference in there to what constitutes a reasonable request for evidence and where that line is. I think what CAS are saying is that it's ambiguous. They also make the point that sponsors can't be expected by UEFA to tip up swathes of information. I also think it's important to note that City would've been worried about handing over certain bits of confidential information that may fall into the hands of our competitors. You only have to look at some of the people involved at UEFA's end to see that they have clear links to certain rival clubs.

For me, City provided plenty of evidence at the appeal to convincingly debunk what was being alleged. CAS also appears to infer that if City had offered up the witness evidence to UEFA in the first instance then it might never have got that far anyway and City may well have been cleared by UEFA, so I think it's a leap to suggest that if certain documents had been presented then that would've led to CAS coming to a different verdict.

And speaking of evidence, I still find it astonishing that of the time-barred evidence, UEFA were prepared to use one e-mail that pre-dated their own FFP rules - something which would've rendered that particular accusation irrelevant anyway.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I've just read it and to be honest, I don't see anything of real note that might've led to CAS to come to a different decision. There's reference in there to what constitutes a reasonable request for evidence and where that line is. I also think it's important to note that City would've been worried about handing over certain bits of confidential information that may fall into the hands of our competitors. You only have to look at some of the people involved at UEFA's end in the investigation to see that they have clear links to certain rival clubs.

For me, City provided plenty of evidence at the appeal to convincingly debunk what was being alleged. I still find it astonishing that of the time-barred evidence, UEFA were prepared to use one e-mail that pre-dated their own FFP rules - something which would've rendered that particular accusation irrelevant anyway.

What he said.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The charges are vast 130? But according to @projectriver & @Prestwich_Blue those charges fall under 4/5 headings. So why is it taking so long? Lawyers will want it to drag on for financial gain. City will want each claim contested and then wait for the league to respond.

So what is it? Trumped up charges with no substance or 4/5 main charges? The irrefutable evidence should be able to squash the majority of claims levied against us.

4 years and over a hundred charges! City must have been keeping a record every time the premier asked for more and specifically what area they wanted to constest. City say we have nothing further to give you as it doesn’t exist but we have irrefutable proof that all was above board.

The amount of time this is going to take would led me to believe that it’s about defamation and fuck all else. The financial charges are a side show.

Almost like, the premier got sick of the non co operation and thought fuck you. We will charge you will everything.

I think there are just three substantive issues behind these charges:

1. Mancini's contract,
2. Sponsorships,
3. Image rights.

That's it. All derive from the Der Spiegel allegations. For each of those issues, there are charges covering multiple rules over multiple years.

Based on those, there are charges derived about incorrect accounts, because if any of those three are proven, our accounts may have been misstated. That again covers multiple rules over multiple years.

If our accounts have been misstated, then that may well contravene FFP (more charges over multiple years) and the P&L's own rules (more charges over multiple years).

Then there's the multiple rules around non-cooperation, each covering multiple years with a separate charge for each year. If you count each charge, for each individual year, there are 127 of them according to my reckoning.

But in the end, it comes down to these three things.

- Was Mancini's contract a sham?
- Were our sponsorships inflated or used to disguise owner investment?
- Were we wrong to sell those image rights and have a third party pay them?

I think they'll really struggle to land the first two, leaving image rights as the only one they've got any sort of hope of bringing home. And that might be a slim hope, if we've got all the legal and financial issues tied up tight. And as both Stefan and I have said, if those three issues aren't proven, then pretty well everything else should fall by the wayside, bar maybe the non-cooperation one.

 

[blueparrot]

I think there are just three substantive issues behind these charges:

1. Mancini's contract,
2. Sponsorships,
3. Image rights.

That's it. All derive from the Der Spiegel allegations. For each of those issues, there are charges covering multiple rules over multiple years.

Based on those, there are charges derived about incorrect accounts, because if any of those three are proven, our accounts may have been misstated. That again covers multiple rules over multiple years.

If our accounts have been misstated, then that may well contravene FFP (more charges over multiple years) and the P&L's own rules (more charges over multiple years).

Then there's the multiple rules around non-cooperation, each covering multiple years with a separate charge for each year. If you count each charge, for each individual year, there are 127 of them according to my reckoning.

But in the end, it comes down to these three things.

- Was Mancini's contract a sham?
- Were our sponsorships inflated or used to disguise owner investment?
- Were we wrong to sell those image rights and have a third party pay them?

I think they'll really struggle to land the first two, leaving image rights as the only one they've got any sort of hope of bringing home. And that might be a slim hope, if we've got all the legal and financial issues tied up tight. And as both Stefan and I have said, if those three issues aren't proven, then pretty well everything else should fall by the wayside, bar maybe the non-cooperation one.

Am I right in saying we were wrong with the image rights thing, but when UEFA told us we were wrong we stopped, and nothing was hidden ?

 

[VOOMER]

I get that Tolm but BDO have do have a past record of messing up

BDO faces FRC investigation over audit of collapsed construction firm - City AM

The Financial Reporting Council is opening an investigation into the challenger company's audit of collapse building firm NMCN.

www.cityam.com

BDO auditor fired for altering files earmarked for inspection

Accountant found to have made changes after UK regulator told the firm it would be reviewing a public sector audit

www.ft.com

BDO International faces audit negligence accusation

By Pascal Fletcher

www.reuters.com

SEC.gov | SEC Charges BDO and Five Partners in Connection With False and Misleading Audit Opinions

www.sec.gov

BDO may have to bail out sister firm in Spain after €126.8m penalty

Spain’s highest civil court found BDO, among others, guilty of falsifying accounts of fishing firm Pescanova

www.theguardian.com

BDO pays $3.5-million fine over audit of fraudulent mutual funds

The fine stems from BDO’s auditing of mutual funds offered by Crystal Wealth Management Systems Ltd., a Burlington, Ont.-based investment company that was later found by the OSC to have overstated the value of its assets

www.theglobeandmail.com

FRC launches probe of BDO over NMCN audit

The Financial Reporting Council announced the launch of an investigation into BDO in relation to its audit of U.K. construction and engineering company NMCN, which filed for administration earlier this month.

www.complianceweek.com

Who do you support?

 

[wolviedinho]

I think there are just three substantive issues behind these charges:

1. Mancini's contract,
2. Sponsorships,
3. Image rights.

That's it. All derive from the Der Spiegel allegations. For each of those issues, there are charges covering multiple rules over multiple years.

Based on those, there are charges derived about incorrect accounts, because if any of those three are proven, our accounts may have been misstated. That again covers multiple rules over multiple years.

If our accounts have been misstated, then that may well contravene FFP (more charges over multiple years) and the P&L's own rules (more charges over multiple years).

Then there's the multiple rules around non-cooperation, each covering multiple years with a separate charge for each year. If you count each charge, for each individual year, there are 127 of them according to my reckoning.

But in the end, it comes down to these three things.

- Was Mancini's contract a sham?
- Were our sponsorships inflated or used to disguise owner investment?
- Were we wrong to sell those image rights and have a third party pay them?

I think they'll really struggle to land the first two, leaving image rights as the only one they've got any sort of hope of bringing home. And that might be a slim hope, if we've got all the legal and financial issues tied up tight. And as both Stefan and I have said, if those three issues aren't proven, then pretty well everything else should fall by the wayside, bar maybe the non-cooperation one.

Thanks for the reply @Prestwich_Blue.

Time to get the non co operation tattoo? -:)

 

[Gordyola]

IIRC Pep asked at the press conference about "who pays" when we win Is this a hint that the club will seek damages