Such as AON and Chevrolet on a US owned club, King Power on a Thai owned shirt, and as announced today, an American airline on a Welsh club kidnapped by wealthy US film stars....
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Such as AON and Chevrolet on a US owned club, King Power on a Thai owned shirt, and as announced today, an American airline on a Welsh club kidnapped by wealthy US film stars....
Oh and an American sponsor of the dippers. A criminal bank, no less.Such as AON and Chevrolet on a US owned club, King Power on a Thai owned shirt, and as announced today, an American airline on a Welsh club kidnapped by wealthy US film stars....
There's never been a PUBLIC statement on exactly what in our books they believe has been mis-stated, when, and, for clarity, how much money we're talking about. As an example, they could in theory decide we've understated cost by £1m in 2004. Therefore the brought forward numbers in 2005 onwards are also mis-stated and therefore we're guilty of multiple charges.UEFA had the same tale: “The evidence is in a document provided by City” They failed to produce this mythical document! The PL need to be specific.
Obviously the media and commentators of all sorts assume these are large amounts that affect the ability of the club to compete in the way we did, but we don't actually know what's involved as no-one has said publically. FWIW, I think thats the right way to do it, it's not an inquiry to be decided in public, but Delaney and Co have already reached their verdict without any facts, so not sure its had the desired effect.
UEFA had the same tale: “The evidence is in a document provided by City” They failed to produce this mythical document! The PL need to be specific.
Who for?
You would hope the club know the specifics and that is what the lawyers will be arguing to the panel.
StillBluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2020
- Messages
- 2,182
- Team supported
- City
I didn't actually say that our accounts must be OK because they were signed off. My point is that CAS found that UEFA had not produced any evidence to prove that our accounts misrepresented the club's financial position, and so it is hard to see how the PL can bring forward evidence compelling enough to convince an independent commission that City have falsified those accounts. It also seems likely that an independent commission would be rather alarmed that the accounts of any limited company were to be audited according to standards which are not accepted internationally and that any "misinterpretations" would be pointed out and the conclusion would most likely be that there had been no INTENTIONAL breaking of PL rules. I am making the same point that I made about the penalty award in the fA cup final; the rules exist to set out as clearly as possible what must and must not be done - they do not exist to trick clubs into breaking them. The question of non-cooperation is harder to decide since the PL seems to give itself the power to decide what must be handed over. The question to be decided is whether all the evidence they requested exists and whether the PL were simply going on a fishing expedition. As some have pointed out City's decision was based on legal advice and was not a simple, spiteful refusal to cooperate. City never refused to cooperate with CAS and so the PL's requests will have to be examined, as will our response(s).Whilst I agree no-one on here has a scooby, it's not really true to say that if our audited accounts are OK, then we haven't broken PL rules.
First, the PL were quite sneaky in NOT adopting the usual IAS24 accounting standards on Related Parties, instead defining "Associated Parties", with subtly different definitions and the ability for the PL to interpret (misinterpret) things differently.
Also, we could very possibly be guilty of not complying with all the requests for info, which would be a breach, albeit one they would have difficulty in sanctioning us with more than a slap on the wrist and minor fine, IMO.
That’s all I’m asking, have the PL made disclosure? I wouldn’t put it past them to try to bring rabbits out of hats.Who for?
You would hope the club know the specifics and that is what the lawyers will be arguing to the panel.
These allegations cover a period BEFORE the PL adopted “Associated“ as a definition. Up to then we worked under IAS24 and UEFA, with some reluctance, accepted that none of our sponsorships were from related parties.Whilst I agree no-one on here has a scooby, it's not really true to say that if our audited accounts are OK, then we haven't broken PL rules.
First, the PL were quite sneaky in NOT adopting the usual IAS24 accounting standards on Related Parties, instead defining "Associated Parties", with subtly different definitions and the ability for the PL to interpret (misinterpret) things differently.
Also, we could very possibly be guilty of not complying with all the requests for info, which would be a breach, albeit one they would have difficulty in sanctioning us with more than a slap on the wrist and minor fine, IMO.
I am hoping our brief asks this question:Reading this thread and the variety of opinions about our chances can make your brain go fuzzy.
Does anyone else (those not ITK about this shit) feel like this after reading everything everyone's said;
The PL charges are effectively the same as the UEFA charges, they're accusing us of deceiving the PL about where and who we get our sponsorship/funding from. They're calling our owners liars and that they've directly funded the club themselves, breaking PL's FFP.
We've said this is bullshit and can prove, but it's not going to criminal court, it's an independent adjudication in which we'll win because we've done nothing wrong, but it doesn't matter because we'll lose overall because the red clubs like Arse, Dippers and Scum will have influenced them to find us guilty and we can't appeal so even though we've done nothing wrong the result will be guilty and there's nothing we can do about it???
If anyone disagrees... this is how the thread reads, guys!
”Did any officer of the PL discuss beforehand with another club or clubs the decision to charge City?”
laserblue
Well-Known Member
And Stoke sponsored by owners Bet365.Such as AON and Chevrolet on a US owned club, King Power on a Thai owned shirt, and as announced today, an American airline on a Welsh club kidnapped by wealthy US film stars....
Yeah but Wrexhams story is a fairytale.............I'd laugh my tits off if they got to the prem and started making the top 4 and taking trophies off the establishment. Then we'd see some different reporting :-)Such as AON and Chevrolet on a US owned club, King Power on a Thai owned shirt, and as announced today, an American airline on a Welsh club kidnapped by wealthy US film stars....