PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

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.

This whole debacle can be summed up by the following formula:

Hw + ROIp = 0

(Handwavium + rigorous, objective investigatory process = Nothing)

 

[34yearsandstillgoingstrong]

And Stoke sponsored by owners Bet365.

I believe AGI , Chevrolet and AON ( all of whom sponsored a prominent English football club) took advantage of US federal bail- out funding via TARP ( troubled asset relief programme ) in the wake of the Sub-Prime Mortgages Crisis. Does that not signify that that "prominent English football club" were indirectly "state sponsored" ? I would not like to accuse that "prominent English football club" of gross hypocrisy !

 

[Bez]

Isnt hiding payments and paying people (i.e mamcini) through the back door going to be an issue? HMRC would want their pound of flesh then

(Ps im thick as shite when it comes to finances)

I am not an accountant. My understanding is that the PL will need to prove that Mancini did not fulfill his consultancy contract in Abu Dhabi. Even if they do this the amount involved is peanuts in the overall scheme of things. City were running big losses at the time so the Mancini contract had no material impact. However, if City did do what has been alleged then it is pretty amateurish. Considering how well run the club is this is unlikely.

 

[hello]

I am not an accountant. My understanding is that the PL will need to prove that Mancini did not fulfill his consultancy contract in Abu Dhabi. Even if they do this the amount involved is peanuts in the overall scheme of things. City were running big losses at the time so the Mancini contract had no material impact. However, if City did do what has been alleged then it is pretty amateurish. Considering how well run the club is this is unlikely.

If any customer of bdo left citing the premier leagues allegation they are unfit to audit accounts it would be lovely to see them ripping masters to pieces.

 

[WRicko]

If you don’t submit accurate accounts - then that in itself is illegal but it adds to the farce that we are potentially being accused of inflating our income - IF there is any basis to the PL accusations we will almost certainly have committed fraud and a range of other financial transgressions.

Proof it’s a farce is that HMRC etc haven’t got involved. If there was a case they would have

 

[WRicko]

HMRC aren't touching this with a bargepole.

Because it’s rubbish no other reason HMRC would want all they can get if there was any basis for the allegations

 

[WRicko]

It's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. None of it makes any sense.

What doesn’t the charges or the post ?

 

[halfcenturyup]

What doesn’t the charges or the post ?

The charge that Mansour had to top-up Etihad funds to pay the sponsorship. :)

I wasn't very clear.

 

[lancs blue]

HMRC aren't touching this with a bargepole.

They have however been investigating a certain Cayman Islands/Trafford-based organisation.

 

[Metalartin]

Your quote above is emphatically not correct...
Mr Pearce explains that he understood that £8 million was available from the airline's marketing budget, with the remainder coming from Etihad’s central funds.

This evidence is further supported by a confirmation from the Chairman of the Board Finance and Investment Committee of Etihad that the accounts of Etihad for the relevant financial years recorded (i) the full amounts payable under the sponsorship agreements as liabilities of Etihad and(ii) the payments made by Etihad to MCFC as settling those liabilities in full.

Ah, so that was cleared up. Fair enough, I will stop saying that then. Etihad did pay it after all. I was going off one of the prominent theories, before the CAS case got dealt with. Which was, the Executive Council(if I remember right) used one of their funds to deal with it. Which someone speculated, after the information about the 'Open Skies' investigation came out. That wouldn't be equity funding either. I seem to remember Der Spiegel did a City article about a similar theory too.

Also in fairness to the media, "artificially inflated" revenue is terminology used by CAS (p65)

Good spot(at least I know where it's come from now). I will point out, I never said 'artificially inflated revenue' was incorrect because I know what they are inferring by it. Overstating the amount you received from a company... can be said to be inflating it deceptively. It's still the one term that leads people to make incorrect conclusions about overvalued sponsorships. At the timestamp I gave, where he says:

"The allegation goes that City received sponsorship money from a company --Lets use Etihad as the example-- that didn't represent fair value. The sponsor knowingly overpaid, so that City could note that down on their company accounts, as a big revenue booster..."

Unless I'm missing something here(and I don't think I am), there can only be one way to take those words and he's simply incorrect.

and is clearly inferred by the PL charges.

Consequently, absent an allegation that the accounts of Etihad were falsely prepared, which even the CFCB has not to date been willing to make, the “disguised equity” funding allegation fails."

The PL's allegation infers it yes, but the problem is most people clearly don't know what the term 'artificially inflated revenue' is inferring itself. It needs to be retired IMO or people will continue to make the same incorrect conclusions, which is why the press like using it. It's frustrating to see those conversations going in circles and people spreading misinformation because of it.