PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Chris in London]

Makes sense to me, we're breaking PL rules, not the law. Is that correct?

The allegation is that City breached rules relating to the provision of accurate financial information, "in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs"

The obligation we are said to be in breach of is the rule that requires the club to provide accurate financial information to give the league a "true and fair view" of the club's revenues.

'True and fair' information is a widely used and even more widely recognised term in accountancy and company law. Company directors are under a legal obligation not to approve accounts, for instance, unless they give a true and fair view of that company's finances.

So when the PL alleges that our accounts do not comply with PL rules because they do not provide a true and fair view of the club's finances, they are implicitly alleging that we have broken the law.

 

[remember arthur mann]

What's a wank??

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

The allegation is that City breached rules relating to the provision of accurate financial information, "in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs"

The obligation we are said to be in breach of is the rule that requires the club to provide accurate financial information to give the league a "true and fair view" of the club's revenues.

'True and fair' information is a widely used and even more widely recognised term in accountancy and company law. Company directors are under a legal obligation not to approve accounts, for instance, unless they give a true and fair view of that company's finances.

So when the PL alleges that our accounts do not comply with PL rules because they do not provide a true and fair view of the club's finances, they are implicitly alleging that we have broken the law.

And if we have broken business law... Is that really for the PL to investigate? I mean why are the govn not getting involved? The law courts.

Or, as it seems, have we just broken the PL rules?

Its interesting nonetheless.

 

[pardoeofftomexico]

The allegation is that City breached rules relating to the provision of accurate financial information, "in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs"

The obligation we are said to be in breach of is the rule that requires the club to provide accurate financial information to give the league a "true and fair view" of the club's revenues.

'True and fair' information is a widely used and even more widely recognised term in accountancy and company law. Company directors are under a legal obligation not to approve accounts, for instance, unless they give a true and fair view of that company's finances.

So when the PL alleges that our accounts do not comply with PL rules because they do not provide a true and fair view of the club's finances, they are implicitly alleging that we have broken the law.

So you think a civil case decided on evidence not admitted in a criminal court and perhaps decided on the balance of probabilities would lead to a criminal case. I think not. As I said earlier on, how on earth anyone could establish the original source of funds going into City from companies whose records they have no access to is beyond me. In the early days City did show various matters in their accounts which within ten minutes struck me as likely to be questioned and they were and we had to pay a fine but they were not indicative of fraudulent conduct and no one suggested they were.

 

[Chris in London]

So you think a civil case decided on evidence not admitted in a criminal court and perhaps decided on the balance of probabilities would lead to a criminal case. I think not. As I said earlier on, how on earth anyone could establish the original source of funds going into City from companies whose records they have no access to is beyond me. In the early days City did show various matters in their accounts which within ten minutes struck me as likely to be questioned and they were and we had to pay a fine but they were not indicative of fraudulent conduct and no one suggested they were.

That isn't what I said.

Read it again and you might get it.

 

[Chris in London]

And if we have broken business law... Is that really for the PL to investigate? I mean why are the govn not getting involved? The law courts.

Or, as it seems, have we just broken the PL rules?

Its interesting nonetheless.

It's a PL charge, but the allegation against us is that we have broken PL rules in a way which, if true, would also amount to a criminal offence

 

[ScottSinclair]

That's the problem we don't. He regularly claims we have been found guilty of ffp breaches without mentioning we were cleared on appeal and the club does nothing

Why would the club waste any resources on Simon Jordan or anyone on talksport? Like genuinly? No one outside of England gives a damn about that radioshow or the mongrels they rent a quote from, and I'm surprised even the english give them the time of day

 

[pardoeofftomexico]

That isn't what I said.

Read it again and you might get it.

I am taking into account what you have been saying.

e.g. "Sorry, what is being suggested by the PL is EXACTLY that our accounts are fraudulent, and that our auditors have failed to spot that.

The charges appear to involve allegations of conduct that if proved would amount to criminal conduct under the Companies Acts.

These allegations are about as serious as it gets outside the criminal courts".

I don't agree but never mind. Back to actually watching football, albeit only on TV!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I'm led to believe, if I've picked up @projectriver, @Prestwich_Blue and others correctly, that saying our accounts are effectively fraudulent is exactly what they're saying by charging us. And by consequence, the auditors are either (a) complicit in the fraud or (b) they too have been completely deceived by the club.

"Fraudulent" to me is deliberate misstatement of our financial situation, which is intended to deceive anyone looking at our financial statements. My ex-bosses at the insurance company I worked at deliberately withheld large claims from the system, in order to make the company look more profitable than it actually was. They reported modest profits of around £20m which should have been a large loss of £180m. That's fraud and they were convicted (and jailed) for conspiracy to defraud.

But if we were paying player image rights via a third party (and UEFA apparently knew that back in 2015 so we hadn't deceived them) and we'd had advice from reputable professionals that this was perfectly legal, then that's not fraud.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

Final thoughts from me... Our sponsorship by Etihad is similar in many ways to the sponsorship of Arsenal by the Emirates, which of course is seen as pure as the driven snow. The PL have always known the UAE connection between MCFC and Ethihad Airways from day one. So after approving the sponsorship for a decade they have now decided it's not valid. They have not provided any justification for this in public. I'm convinced this is the THE core issue....
Anyway, good result tonight I've got a feeling we are on a FA Cup collision course with the Trafford Devils, could be very very spicy....