Because we've been not spending as much and commercial revenue has grown so much by/since 2018. We are now very much the model club in terms of ffp, or at least in terms of the pretend reasons for ffp.I am just wondering why the charges are up until 2018.
Did our accounting change since then? If there are any problems with our image rights payments, Etihad deal, other sponsor payments etc, did anything change after 2018? or if they have been potentially breaking PL rules all those years do they still break those same rules in last 5 years too each year?
I have become very suspicious of people who say or do certain things and believe they are either lying or stupid when it comes to football or politics but I am sure your right about the research on lying the other thing is that the tribunal are not asking me or your about these things but some of the most powerful and wealthy people and have to call into doubt the work of key people or assume they have been conned e.g accountants auditors etcMost people don't lie. That is a fact. Research supports me on that. We all speculate about peoples motives without having any idea about the people we are talking about. The individual's in the tribunal will have to operate with integrity because of the rules that govern what they are doing. The stakes are high for all parties. I am not of the view that the tribunal will be made up of red cartel stooges.
My previous point was that if the tribunal members disregard clear irrefutable evidence presented by City's reps because they want to have a guilty verdict irrespective of the evidence, I would not want to be one of those tribunal members. They have to do their jobs properly.
Just a question about the player's remuneration.
How is their individual sponsorship (e.g. boots) get paid? To them directly or through the club?
I think we have to be careful to distinguish breaking UEFA/PL rules and false accounting generally.If you're saying that the allegations specifically over inflating sponsorship which are specifically referenced in the PL charge sheet differ substantially from those put forward by UEFA as justification for banning MCFC and fining the club £30 million, then that would impact on a analysis of the position. If you're not saying this, on the other hand, then I invite you to read the CAS Award in City's case against UEFA because the Award is arguably the best source out there in terms of explaining the charges in question.
After all, we're accused by the PL of breaching the duty contained in its rules to provide financial information that gives a true and fair reflection of the club's financial position "with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs". This is exactly the issue that dominated the CAS proceedings, and unless we're presented with evidence to the contrary, it seems to me perfectly reasonable to assume that the nature of the accusations from the PL is materially the same as that of the charges UEFA found proven against us.
In particular, then, I invite you to consider the text between pages 8 and 12 of the CAS Award, the Panel summarises the nature of the UEFA decision we were appealing in the proceedings at hand. In doing so, the panel quotes directly from the Decision of UEFA's Adjudicatory Chamber, so we have the findings straight from the horse's mouth as follows:
So there you have it in black and white. UEFA said that City deliberately and intentionally concealed the source of sponsorship income to circumvent the FFP regulations. In doing so, the club produced accounts that "were not complete and correct".
The offence of false accounting under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968 is a fraud-based offence. By virtue of section 17(1)(b), a person "shall, on conviction on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years" if that person "dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another" when he "in furnishing information for any purpose produces or makes use of any account, or any such record or document as aforesaid, which to his knowledge is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular".
That, in effect, is exactly what UEFA accused us of doing. The CAS rejected it, but the allegation was that the employees and officers of MCFC with whom they were dealing in the context of our FFP issues had committed conduct that happens to fall squarely within the above definition for the following reason.
If the CAS had found MCFC guilty, the relevant officers of MCFC;
How else are UEFA's accusations to be interpreted if not as allegations of conduct that, if committed, constitutes a serious criminal offence. There are all sorts of reasons why a prosecution might not have ensued even with a guilty verdict from the CAS, but make no mistake, what UEFA claimed we'd done constituted conduct that was, in effect, fraudulent.
- would have had to have acted dishonestly (they're sophisticated businesspeople who fully understood UEFA's rules and, according to UEFA, knew what they were doing);
- would certainly have been acting with a view to gain ... for another (the other being the club, and such gain taking the form of allowing the club to spend £200 million that otherwise wouldn't have counted as income for FFP purposes, as referred to in para 206 of the CAS Award); and
- would have supplied various sets of accounts and other documents that were "misleading, false or deceptive" because they'd have provided documents including but not limited to our annual accounts that duped UEFA into thinking we had an extra £50 million available to us annually while still meeting the requirements of FFP.
Dont think you can be objective on this and implying it is us without saying itHmrc are already looking into players tax avoidance schemes from my understanding. Saw a legal bulletin and allegedly over 300 players are being investigated and one premier league club for paying agent fees through satellite clubs.
I think we have to be careful to distinguish breaking UEFA/PL rules and false accounting generally.
Accounting standards and rules can be grey areas, and open to interpretation (as can the law of course). So an interpretation that later proves to be incorrect is not, by definition, fraud.
Similarly, reporting income from Etihad as sponsorship, if Sheikh Mansour had directly contributed to as owner, might break FFP rules (although that could be debated) but as long as we reported all monies received accurately, it's not in itself fraudulent.
I've used the example of the former directors of the insurance company I worked for, who knowingly withheld claims from the systems, thereby artificially inflating our financial results. This involved deliberately deceiving the auditors, the company that certified our reserves as adequate, investors, the regulatory authorities and our reinsurers. That was criminal fraud. The prosecution of those three directors still had to prove there was deliberate intent to deceive though.
So there's innocent misinterpretation of rules or standards, playing fast and loose with rules imposed by a private organisation, and outright fraud.
That's when they opened the investigation iirc.I am just wondering why the charges are up until 2018.
Did our accounting change since then? If there are any problems with our image rights payments, Etihad deal, other sponsor payments etc, did anything change after 2018? or if they have been potentially breaking PL rules all those years do they still break those same rules in last 5 years too each year?
For clarity I am not implying it has anything to do with city.Dont think you can be objective on this and implying it is us without saying it
True but the actual deals and structures in question for the most part have not changed so the correctness of our accounts won’t have changed even if we don’t need to do what is alleged now when we might have beforeBecause we've been not spending as much and commercial revenue has grown so much by/since 2018. We are now very much the model club in terms of ffp, or at least in terms of the pretend reasons for ffp.