PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[thor]

Listen to talk shire for a laugh on drive to Filey, if I was given a £1 for every time the number 115 was mentioned I’d be able to pay for a season ticket

 

[halfcenturyup]

Spuds see themselves as a heritage club, although you need heritage to remember the last time they won the last of their two league titles…..

I remember Mourinho talking about what a hairy tidge is. Now that was classic.

 

[waspish]

Don’t know whether it’s been asked yet?

How have the PL been able to level the charge of false accounting? What have they seen in our accounts that is false? To make a charge they must have seen something, they can’t have just made it up surely?

I understand the other charges around Mancini, Image Rights and failing UEFA FFP but surely they have to have seen a problem in the accounts to level that particular charge?

Confused.

All they have is the hacked emails and what came up at cas! All the red shirt fcukers and most of the rest of the premier pressurised the fa premier to look into that for premier ffp purposes

 

[train man]

Spuds see themselves as a heritage club, although you need heritage to remember the last time they won the last of their two league titles…..

Heritage spuds...

Heritage Seed Potatoes | Potato House | Free UK delivery

Market Leaders in growing and supplying Heritage Seed Potatoes | Vast range of Heirloom Seed Potatoes | Bringing potatoes back from obscurity | Taste amazing | Varieties date from pre 1950

www.potatohouse.co.uk

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Well, this is the thing. As I understand it, they aren't disputing the value of the sponsorship. They are suggesting that the Etihad sponsorship was funded into Etihad by Mansour and so should be shown as equity investment rather than income. It's a ludicrous notion. It won't have any chance of success.

It failed at CAS so I can't see it succeeding here. But I'd say that they're looking beyond Etihad, maybe at the Etisalat & other sponsorships, where there is some evidence that (at one point) ADUG may have funded these. Although my understanding is that Etisalat repaid that money prior to FFP kicking in and blocking that sort of arrangement.

But how it was funded shouldn't be a problem as it wasn't against any known rules prior to 2011/12. More likely it'll be something to do with the amount not being 'fair market value' or a related party transaction that wasn't disclosed. That could potentially be a financial reporting issue but I do now wonder if that's why City have gone to court, claiming that the PL are charging us with transactions that weren't actually against the rules that existed when they took place.

 

[deano ou812]

Don’t know whether it’s been asked yet?

How have the PL been able to level the charge of false accounting? What have they seen in our accounts that is false? To make a charge they must have seen something, they can’t have just made it up surely?

I understand the other charges around Mancini, Image Rights and failing UEFA FFP but surely they have to have seen a problem in the accounts to level that particular charge?

Confused.

I’m slightly confused over the charges regarding Uefa FFP,I thought this was all dealt with when we went to CAS so how has this raised its head amongst the charges from the premier league..

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Don’t know whether it’s been asked yet?

How have the PL been able to level the charge of false accounting? What have they seen in our accounts that is false? To make a charge they must have seen something, they can’t have just made it up surely?

I understand the other charges around Mancini, Image Rights and failing UEFA FFP but surely they have to have seen a problem in the accounts to level that particular charge?

Confused.

If we didn't put image rights payments through the accounts, or excluded payments that we should have made to Mancini, then by definition we've under-reported expenses. But there's a separate issue as to whether that means our accounts don't show a 'true and fair' view. That would depend on materiality and an auditor wouldn't necessarily qualify accounts where the directors assured them that they'd followed the appropriate standards and legal requirements, and the amounts involved weren't material.

I very much doubt that even if they'd decided that Mancini's £1.75m a year from Al Jazira should have gone through our accounts, they'd regard that as material. They might write to the directors setting out their opinion but they wouldn't qualify the accounts as not presenting a true and fair view I'd say.

 

[citizen_maine]

I’m slightly confused over the charges regarding Uefa FFP,I thought this was all dealt with when we went to CAS so how has this raised its head amongst the charges from the premier league..

They're claiming the accounts are fraudulent, so the accounts we submitted to UEFA are based on them

 

[halfcenturyup]

It failed at CAS so I can't see it succeeding here. But I'd say that they're looking beyond Etihad, maybe at the Etisalat & other sponsorships, where there is some evidence that (at one point) ADUG may have funded these. Although my understanding is that Etisalat repaid that money prior to FFP kicking in and blocking that sort of arrangement.

But how it was funded shouldn't be a problem as it wasn't against any known rules prior to 2011/12. More likely it'll be something to do with the amount not being 'fair market value' or a related party transaction that wasn't disclosed. That could potentially be a financial reporting issue but I do now wonder if that's why City have gone to court, claiming that the PL are charging us with transactions that weren't actually against the rules that existed when they took place.

Yes. Etisalat is pretty complicated for a small contract and there are, I think, some accounting issues around it, but it's so immaterial. If they are hanging their hat on that to get a result, a lot of people are going to be disappointed I think.

 

[halfcenturyup]

If we didn't put image rights payments through the accounts, or excluded payments that we should have made to Mancini, then by definition we've under-reported expenses. But there's a separate issue as to whether that means our accounts don't show a 'true and fair' view. That would depend on materiality and an auditor wouldn't necessarily qualify accounts where the directors assured them that they'd followed the appropriate standards and legal requirements, and the amounts involved weren't material.

I very much doubt that even if they'd decided that Mancini's £1.75m a year from Al Jazira should have gone through our accounts, they'd regard that as material. They might write to the directors setting out their opinion but they wouldn't qualify the accounts as not presenting a true and fair view I'd say.

I was never very clear about this image right business, PB. Didn't we sell commercialisation to a third party for a number of years? We got an upfront payment to help us pass FFP, and the third party then should have accounted for income from image rights and the corresponding costs?

And for Mancini, we can't be putting the cost of other company's contracts through our accounts can we? We have no legal obligation to account for all a manager's, or player's, costs through our accounts surely? Only those relating to contracts the club/company has signed?