PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
Interested in your views PB. I took it to mean that revenues have been overstated by the amount of the revenue due to the financing company, so revenues overstated, with their share shown as an expense in non-operating expenses. So, revenue and operating profit both overstated.

It isn't clearly written, but that's a way it makes sense.

Edit: I think the loan aspect is a red herring. Nothing wrong with showing cash up front as revenue as long as cash due to the financing company under the arrangement is shown as a reduction in revenue. Would need to be disclosed for FFP, though, I imagine.

All Imho.
Click to expand...
Think I read on twitter, which isn't the best source obviously, that the expenses aren't liable under ffp where as a loan would be. Happy for prestwichblue to clarify it as he's much more clued up than me on this subject.
 
Braggster said:
I don't think that City will have a strategy of purposefully drawing out the process just for the sake of drawing it out. Delay isn't good for the club now we have actually been charged, because - to state the obvious - it's bad to have the charges hanging over us, with the media and twitterverse making hay with asterisks, "115!!!!!", and all the no smoke without fire nonsense. This is not a good thing commercially, for attracting players, for attracting fans, and all that.

However, to again state the obvious, the charges are incredibly serious both for the club and the individuals concerned. They are existential for the club in its modern form, really. It does get a bit lost in the media at times that the PL have accused the club of wholesale fraud over a decade or more. So the club will be exploring every avenue and taking every possible point to defend themselves. That will obviously involve denying the charges but it will also involve criticising the process, arguing about limitation, disclosure, evidence, etc, etc. And the effect of that will be to tend to lengthen the process for resolution.


There seems to be a view in football in the media - it's either incredibly naive, or dishonest and in bad faith - that if City are innocent they should "just" open their books up and have nothing to fear. This is about as stupid as comments get really. No one accused of what City have been accused of (incredibly serious fraud and conspiracy) would do this. The charges are simply too serious. And here's the thing - if you genuinely believe you are innocent, which I'm sure City do - then the level of outrage and disgust will be high and you will feel no compunction about arguing every point and taking issue with everything the PL say, because in your mind they are making baseless allegations of dishonesty. As a claimant in a fraud case, you have to accept and expect that when you make that allegation, the gloves are off, to use an analogy. And by the way, the idiots saying this kind of thing would take a very different approach if they were themselves accused of say a serious crime. They'd want their lawyer taking any procedural point they could do in order to get off.

On top of this the complexity of the case means it will take a long time to resolve just in and of itself.

So no strategy of lengthening the process in and of itself IMO, but a strategy that will tend to have the effect of lengthening the process as a by product. Hope that helps.
Click to expand...
Yes you make a good point. Certainly the barely concealed outrage at the accusations is consummate with an organisation that is certain they have done nothing incorrect. I think this is what gives me the most reassurance that we will prevail and prove our innocence.

Personally I don’t like the phrase “get off with it” that many Blues use as it implies there was something wrong in the first place and I really don’t think there ever was.
 
WEMBLEY76 said:
Wonder if reporting restrictions will be declared while the case is being heard,in relation to the filthy Uk media channels,guess City may insist on this..
Click to expand...
If you're talking about the PL panel it's behind closed doors regardless, both sides never wanted it out there in public in the first place. Wasn't it the daily mail who forced the issue in the courts quoting 'public interest'?

If it's Madrid you're talking about I'm surprised they've bothered reporting it in the first place.
 
So RM have refused to discuss the matter...oh right.
Maybe we should do the same and just give the PL the middle finger it works for the Spanish rags
 
Cobwebcat said:
Yes you make a good point. Certainly the barely concealed outrage at the accusations is consummate with an organisation that is certain they have done nothing incorrect. I think this is what gives me the most reassurance that we will prevail and prove our innocence.

Personally I don’t like the phrase “get off with it” that many Blues use as it implies there was something wrong in the first place and I really don’t think there ever was.
Click to expand...
Can't say I've seen any Blue using the phrase “get off with it” myself, Braggster certainly didn't use it in that manner.
 
foggy1974 said:
Think I read on twitter, which isn't the best source obviously, that the expenses aren't liable under ffp where as a loan would be. Happy for prestwichblue to clarify it as he's much more clued up than me on this subject.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Forget the loan for a minute.

I think it's to do with having the income from the original cash financing and the subsequent amounts due to the financing company in the same place.

So if you record the cash received from the finance company as operating revenues, then you should show the financing company's share of future revenue as a reduction of operating revenues in the appropriate years.

If you don't do that, you are effectively counting the revenue as operating revenue twice, once when you receive it from the financing company, and again when you get it from your customer.

I suppose it's possible the original cash receipt from the financing company was also included on a non-operating line, but I doubt it.

Of course, this could all be bollocks.
 
halfcenturyup said:
So it's pretty confusingly written by a non-accountant, but what I think he is saying is that Madrid sold some of their future revenues in return for cash upfront. This upfront cash was recorded as income, quite correctly, and reduced their losses. But now it's time to lose that share of the revenue. I think they are implying that Madrid should have lost 122 million if their revenue (the share due to the financing company), but instead of showing a reduction in income, they have shown a non-operating expense of 122 million. So their income remains high which is important, of course for UEFA and LaLiga FFP.

Is that about it?

If so, it's a bit naughty.
Click to expand...
“A bit naughty“ is what the rest of the world laughingly refers to as “classic English understatement” :)
 
halfcenturyup said:
Hmm. Forget the loan for a minute.

I think it's to do with having the income from the original cash financing and the subsequent amounts due to the financing company in the same place.

So if you record the cash received from the finance company as operating revenues, then you should show the financing company's share of future revenue as a reduction of operating revenues in the appropriate years.

If you don't do that, you are effectively counting the revenue as operating revenue twice, once when you receive it from the financing company, and again when you get it from your customer.

I suppose it's possible the original cash receipt from the financing company was also included on a non-operating line, but I doubt it.

Of course, this could all be bollocks.
Click to expand...
I would imagine it would depend on how it's financed. Obviously hypothetical but It could be for 1 years worth of TV revenue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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.