PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Can someone explain how the 115 charges can be rounded down to 5? and what they are?

Apologies for being in the dark.....Cheers
When the full list of financial charges are revealed it will be something as heinous as:
114 charges of not returning the penny on each portion of chips in the 3rd party canteen and the 115th charge will be running out of chips to one customer and offering a pie as an alternative so therefore disguised equity funding. Lol
 
Thanks,so the other charges are minor points within the main ones?
Yep.

As someone who works in an auditor role relating to large multi-national corporations I find the whole reason the PL chose to headline with the 115 'symptoms' rather than the 5 'root-causes' really odd.

Usually during an investigation or audit field work you would identify the issues at the coal face, so in this case the 115 items. You would then sit down to agree the 'so what?' for those items and assess the materiality (seriousness) of each, they would then be grouped where required to avoid double counting of both the number and seriousness of the items. This process would ultimately result in an agreed set of themed 'actual' Issues, in this case the 5 items, which would remove any noise and help everyone focus on what needs escalating, reporting, fixing etc.

As above, the reason for this is to avoid sensationalism and not to over estimate the seriousness of the collective findings. In all instances the items identified would not be reported as official gaps/breaches until such point they were validated and agreed by all stakeholders.

Only after this point would the report containing the findings be issued, the headlines would be the 5 items, with traceability back to the 115 items for those who need it.

Some will say that this isn't an audit and as such wouldn't align to this methodology. I would disagree, this should be very much treated as a financial audit rather than the US type criminal lawsuit it has turned into.

As such, the communication of the 115 items without any real desire from the PL to also communicate the relative seriousness of each item to the general public is extremely questionable, as Joe Bloggs will likely just assume that each item is as equally serious, which absolutely will not be the case.

This all leads to asking the question, why were the comms managed like this from the PL? Well we can all take our own guesses, however it does seem that from the very start of the proceedings they wanted to plant the seed that City are rotten to the core, and in the event the case falls apart they are hoping that some mud sticks.
 
Can someone explain how the 115 charges can be rounded down to 5? and what they are?

Apologies for being in the dark.....Cheers

I listened to @projectriver podcast again today and I think it's this:

1. Providing false accounts for 9 years.
2. Mancini contract partly paid by Abu Dhabi company, Yaya Toure agent fees
3. Breaching UEFA FFP
4. Breaching Premier League sustainability rules
5. Non Co-operation
That looks about right, the PL statement is below which lists 5 groups of charges but of course 115 sounds better as a sound bite. (I'm not sure if those are the corrected rule numbers BTW)


Details of the Premier League Rules that the Club is alleged to have breached are as follows:

1. In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs, namely:
(a) for Season 2009/10, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72 and C.75 (from 10 September 2009, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72, C.79 and C.80);
(b) for Season 2010/11, Premier League Rules B.13, C.78, C.79, C.86 and C.87;
(c) for Season 2011/12, Premier League Rules B.13, C.78, C.79, C.86 and C.87;
(d) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11 and E.12;
(e) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rules B.15, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.49;
(f) for Season 2014/15, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;
(g) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;
(h) for Season 2016/17, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51; and
(i) for Season 2017/18, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51.

2. In respect of:
(a) each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2012/13 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2009/10 to 2011/12 inclusive, Premier League Rules Q.7 and Q.8; and
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules P.7 and P.8; and
(b) each of Seasons 2010/11 to 2015/16 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of player remuneration in its relevant contracts with its players, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2010/11 and 2011/12, Premier League Rules K.12 and K.20;
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.20;
(3) for Seasons 2013/14 and 2014/15, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.19; and
(4) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules T.13 and T.20.

3. In respect of each of Seasons 2013/14 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to comply with UEFA’s regulations, including UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, namely:
(a) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rule B.14.6; and
(b) for Seasons 2014/15 to 2017/18 inclusive, Premier League Rule B.15.6.

4. In respect of each of the Seasons 2015/16 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons on Profitability and Sustainability, namely:
(a) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules E.52 to E.60; and
(b) for Seasons 2016/17 and 2017/18, Premier League Rules E.53 to E.60.

5. In respect of the period from December 2018 to date, the Premier League Rules applicable in the relevant Seasons requiring a member club to cooperate with, and assist, the Premier League in its investigations, including by providing documents and information to the Premier League in the utmost good faith, namely:
(a) for Season 2018/19, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(b) for Season 2019/20, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(c) for Season 2020/21, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(d) for Season 2021/22, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13; and
(e) for Season 2022/23, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.15 and W.16.
 
Yep.

As someone who works in an auditor role relating to large multi-national corporations I find the whole reason the PL chose to headline with the 115 'symptoms' rather than the 5 'root-causes' really odd.

Usually during an investigation or audit field work you would identify the issues at the coal face, so in this case the 115 items. You would then sit down to agree the 'so what?' for those items and assess the materiality (seriousness) of each, they would then be grouped where required to avoid double counting of both the number and seriousness of the items. This process would ultimately result in an agreed set of themed 'actual' Issues, in this case the 5 items, which would remove any noise and help everyone focus on what needs escalating, reporting, fixing etc.

As above, the reason for this is to avoid sensationalism and not to over estimate the seriousness of the collective findings. In all instances the items identified would not be reported as official gaps/breaches until such point they were validated and agreed by all stakeholders.

Only after this point would the report containing the findings be issued, the headlines would be the 5 items, with traceability back to the 115 items for those who need it.

Some will say that this isn't an audit and as such wouldn't align to this methodology. I would disagree, this should be very much treated as a financial audit rather than the US type criminal lawsuit it has turned into.

As such, the communication of the 115 items without any real desire from the PL to also communicate the relative seriousness of each item to the general public is extremely questionable, as Joe Bloggs will likely just assume that each item is as equally serious, which absolutely will not be the case.

This all leads to asking the question, why were the comms managed like this from the PL? Well we can all take our own guesses, however it does seem that from the very start of the proceedings they wanted to plant the seed that City are rotten to the core, and in the event the case falls apart they are hoping that some mud sticks.
I don't think the PL have ever used the 115 figure? That came about from the MSM I think although the number kept growing at the time.
 
I listened to @projectriver podcast again today and I think it's this:

1. Providing false accounts for 9 years.
2. Mancini contract partly paid by Abu Dhabi company, Yaya Toure agent fees
3. Breaching UEFA FFP
4. Breaching Premier League sustainability rules
5. Non Co-operation
Number 1 is a huge one, with HMRC implictions etc if found guilty
 
Really baffled by all of this, given the allegations against us have gone on for years and both Uefa and the Premier League have been investigating us are we really saying that the club though "fuck it, nobody will ever find out" Our accounting will have been gone through more times than Kerry Katona.

Understating player wages, and yet in all these years no ex player or potential signing has ever commented on this, in fact we have lost out to numerous players due to us not being prepared to match their wage demands. Surely there must be a process where a players income is audited and there is traceability against it. Some thing as simple as player xxxx you are contracted to receive £10 million per year, can you explain what this extra £5 million is for?

Inflating sponsorship, where is the evidence for this, if there is a paper trail showing the agreement and what was actually paid then how can this be the case.

What about our Auditors, given the shit published about us over the years if I was an auditor i'd leave no stone unturned. If we were putting in false accounts and the auditors failed to spot it they would never get another large contract ever again.
 
To my mind Liverpool supporters seem to have a hard on for us and all this shit because they have some fantastical vision that somehow they are going to be awarded titles.
That is indeed one of their delusions - and there are many more which are even more fanciful

They want to have a parade!!
 
What about our Auditors, given the shit published about us over the years if I was an auditor i'd leave no stone unturned. If we were putting in false accounts and the auditors failed to spot it they would never get another large contract ever again.

Given that the SNP Auditors quit over a few hundred grand and a mobile home I'd have thought if there was ever the slightest scintilla of any issues on the scale alleged I am sure there would have been a statement and they would have then stopped doing the work.................. something else that hasn't happened
 
Really baffled by all of this, given the allegations against us have gone on for years and both Uefa and the Premier League have been investigating us are we really saying that the club though "fuck it, nobody will ever find out" Our accounting will have been gone through more times than Kerry Katona.

Understating player wages, and yet in all these years no ex player or potential signing has ever commented on this, in fact we have lost out to numerous players due to us not being prepared to match their wage demands. Surely there must be a process where a players income is audited and there is traceability against it. Some thing as simple as player xxxx you are contracted to receive £10 million per year, can you explain what this extra £5 million is for?

Inflating sponsorship, where is the evidence for this, if there is a paper trail showing the agreement and what was actually paid then how can this be the case.

What about our Auditors, given the shit published about us over the years if I was an auditor i'd leave no stone unturned. If we were putting in false accounts and the auditors failed to spot it they would never get another large contract ever again.
Yes. I don’t know anything about this stuff. But it seems so out of character for our owners to cheat their way to succes for over ten years (or to cheat at all). And what would they gain by cheating? And it is really strange that, if the cheating was real, no one has come out as a whistleblower. And why no auditor has seen anything wrong. And the Silver Lake-investment, wouldn’t they have backed away from the investment of there was something wrong? It seems that there would be a big conspiracy between many people if the PL-charges are true.
 

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.