PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

I'm no accountant, but I know what equity investment is. Clearly Tariq Panja does not.....



I think the problem is more he doesn't understand what sponsorship is.

For example:

His first point about royal heads on shirts is a nonsense. Why royal as if it's some slur? United could put Joel Glazer's head on their shirts instead of TeamViewer. As long as it is at fair value, it is still sponsorship income because if they didn't do it, it would be replaced by other sponsorship at the same value.

His more generic point that sponsorship income from owners should be equity investment doesn't hold up on any accounting basis either. Refer Leicester City, Newcastle under Ashley, PSG. All show sponsorship income from owners as revenue not investment. Why? Because if it's at fair value, recording it as equity would make a complete nonsense of the accounts as they wouldn't show an important revenue stream. True and fair my arse.

I particularly liked his comment that sponsorship is shown as a revenue in the balance sheet. This is a typical mistake of people who think they understand about finance. The balance sheet includes assets, liabilities and shareholders equity, being share capital and retained profits/ accumulated losses. There is no revenue in any balance sheet.

One more then I will shut up. He talks about "disguised" equity funding, as if this is an appropriate accounting concept in the circumstances. It isn't. It's the PL's equivalent of sportswashing.
 
Last edited:
I think the problem is more he doesn't understand what sponsorship is.

For example:

His first point about royal heads on shirts is a nonsense. Why royal as if it's some slur? United could put Joel Glazer's head on their shirts instead of TeamViewer. As long as it is at fair value, it is still sponsorship income because if they didn't do it, it would be replaced by other sponsorship at the same value.

His more generic point that sponsorship income from owners should be equity investment doesn't hold up on any accounting basis either. Refer Leicester City, Newcastle under Ashley, PSG. All show sponsorship income from owners as revenue not investment. Why? Because if it's at fair value, recording it as equity would make a complete nonsense of the accounts as they wouldn't show an important revenue stream. True and fair my arse.

I particularly liked his comment that sponsorship is shown as a revenue in the balance sheet. This is a typical mistake of people who think they understand about finance. The balance sheet includes assets, liabilities and shareholders equity, being share capital and retained profits/ accumulated losses. There is no revenue in any balance sheet.

One more then I will shut up. He talks about "disguised" equity funding, as if this is an appropriate accounting concept in the circumstances. It isn't. It's the PL's equivalent of sportswashing.

People with his mindset are calling City cheats, it’s the equivalent of getting someone to referee a premier league game who doesn’t understand the offside rule.

Oops Attwell did that.
 
I’m absolutely amazed that blues are talking on here about the geezer from Nottingham. I bet he loves to see it when he, no doubt, sneaks on to see what we’re talking about.
As do plenty of so called "sports journalists" who hover over here and take great delight in seeing City fans squirming over our outrage at whats being written.
Personally I couldn`t give one,two or three fucks, as I prefer to laugh at them and their childish antics, which shows how much piss we are boiling on them.
 
I think the problem is more he doesn't understand what sponsorship is.

The problem is that he manifestly understands literally none of the business, finance, legal or accounting issues at play here. To paraphrase the old joke, there really is no beginning to his knowledge.

He ought to be embarrassed, though there's precious little chance of that given that he's a gaslighting redshirt shill. Still, he and his ilk should be aware that, the more they write, the more they expose what they really are - and bit by bit the wider public is beginning to cotton on.
 
Intended to come back and answer this at the weekend, but was busy with family stuff on Sunday, while Monday was a working day for me (and proved quite a tough one).

Yes, he meant EU law and specifically competition law. EU competition law states that a restriction on competition can be treated as allowable if it can be shown to give rise to benefits to consumers which outweigh any restrictions of competition.

IIRC, he managed to secure an agreement from the relevant directorate of the European Commission that the rules did give rise to such benefits and, as I recall, there was also a statement that sport in general should be treated as a special case as compared with other economic sectors. This is something sporting bodies often argue, but with wildly varying degrees of merit IMO.

But the thing is that the Commission is an enforcement body. While statements to the above effect were no doubt useful for Platini, the ultimate decision as to what does and doesn't breach EU law lies with the Court of Justice, so the Commission's consent was no guarantee UEFA would prevail if the matter were litigated. There were some challenges working their way through the system, but to be honest I didn't follow what happened to them.

In terms of someone litigating in an individual country whose FA is a member of UEFA to have UEFA regulations declared unlawful in that state, I think that would be of limited value. They'd simply exclude the litigant in question, or all clubs from that country if the FA were supporting the challenge.

It's hard to see UEFA seeing too much of a problem in a legal challenge in most non-EU states, whereas obviously the heft of the EU would give them serious problems of its courts made an adverse ruling. IMO, they'd think they could ride out an adverse ruling even in post-Brexit Britain, where currently the most lucrative domestic league is played,

I don't know if you have either the time or the inclination to reply to this, but is this the situation?:

We are now at the disciplinary Commission stage, with the Chairman of the Judicial Panel appointing the Commission from members of the Judicial Panel. So not independent.

We can appeal, then an Appeals Board is set up (he has no choice) by the Chairman of the Judicial Panel from members of the Judicial Panel. So not independent. The club can't produce new evidence to this appeal (at least not evidence deliberately withheld).

There are (limited) circumstances for us to appeal the Appeals Panel decision to an Arbitration Tribunal. The Chairman of the Judicial Panel has no choice, He must set up an Arbitration Tribunal if we ask for one. Three members, one appointed by each party and the two of them appoint a third. This is truly independent. And we can produce new evidence to this Tribunal, withheld from the Commission and Appeals Board, or not.

After this, there is almost no practical way to appeal the decision of the Tribunal to the English courts.

So, comparing the PL to UEFA: The disciplinary Committee is the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body, the Appeals Board is the Appeals Panel, the Arbitration Tribunal is CAS, and the overseeing English courts are the overseeing Swiss courts.

Is that about it?

Sorry for the question, it's just something I never bothered to get my head around before .....
 
A few thoughts/questions from a non expert concerning these charges and the uefa ones too, and the involvement of the media in all this. Please excuse the generalisation of charges etc and apologies if I get any details wrong.

A few years ago uefa announced a two year ban on City for european games for breaches of their ffp rules.

These charges were thrown out by the first independent official body( cas ) that looked at them, because uefas case was weak and the main evidence of stolen emails were already tainted with crime and tampering, we won, regardless of how the media like to portray it.

Given the above is correct, who in their right mind would sanction the ban and announce it to the world with just the evidence they held? they MUST have known it was shit and would fail.
The "olive branch" of a reduced ban which was offered prior to cas was almost an admittance of weakness when looked at in hindsight, but had we accepted that, we would have been forever guilty for ducking the hearing. A fantastic outcome for those who would see us destroyed and well worth a shot from their perspective.

Has anybody come out and said that they were ultimately responsible for what was a farcically transparent attempt to falsly ban us from a competition with no real proof of guilt, and who was pushing for it.
Has there ever been a trail to follow back to the "brainchild" of all that, or do they just close ranks to protect each other, because if I ran a sporting body like uefa, and somebody publicly embarrassed it like that I would like to know who was responsible.

I know that the likes of gill and parry have been talked about on here and their input really was a possibility too. European footballs governing body has undertaken proceedings against one of its members with very little chance of winning, yet all the fallout revolves around us "getting off" instead of the real story.
Surely there must be journalists intrepid enough to smell a story, a story of members clubbing their power against another member and using uefa as a tool for their own ends, it smacks of all sorts of probabilities all the way up to possible corruption.

Why would no one want to take a look at that, its a massive story, but sadly one that no one wants to write. It would seem that the media are only interested in one side, the side that has the established elite and history clubs on it.

Now to the current pl charges, I suspect that its basically the same thing repeated at domestic football level. Probably the same culprits now using their collective power against a fellow member with the pl as the weapon of choice this time.

Again, the media have set about us with the same vigour as the uefa farce, have they learned their lesson from that, have they hell, that is not their want.
They are the biggest weapon of the cartel in all of this, not uefa, not the pl either as their efforts were/are bound to fail, but the media reach people with their falsehoods, and in a way that makes us guilty whatever the official verdict is.

The media is the only thing that has given creedence to any of the uefa charges, and the pl charges too, it is they who have tried City and found us guilty and although we won at cas and am sure we will win v the pl too. It is our enemies that will win when the media again claim a "technicality or loophole" saved us from the fate we deserve.

I dont really blame uefa and the pl, I pity them, they are like battered housewives to the bullying cartel who they think they need to serve to survive. When really what they need is to stand on their own feet and treat all clubs at the same level.

The media though, they are the whores with absolutely no self worth, bought and paid for by the cartel.

Ultimately we are winning, City are growing still, attracting new fans, winning trophys and all done in spite of the above. A fantastic achievement really, and who knows, soon I might be able to talk about how well we play when someone mentions City, instead of having to fight our corner over perceived wrongdoings.

After we win against the current charges I truly hope we get properly vindicated in a way that nobody can deny and put these history wankers to bed once and for all.
The case by uefa and pl is corruption in action. However, as far as the cartel are concerned, corruption is ok as long as it benefits them, and them only.
 
Why would no one want to take a look at that, its a massive story, but sadly one that no one wants to write. It would seem that the media are only interested in one side, the side that has the established elite and history clubs on it.
and largely provides their income. Quelle suprise.
 

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.