PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
Legally, I suppose there could be a case for fraudulent accounting or criminal conspiracy in some circumstances (even if it happened and they could prove it, which I doubt) but for either of these, as far as I understand it, you would have to prove some benefit from the fraud/conspiracy. What is the benefit here, when the contract is at fair value? If Etihad/ Etisalat hadn't signed, someone else would have at the same value. It's hardly the Salad Oil Scandal
Click to expand...

This is why any talk of potential criminal proceedings is hyperbolic nonsense.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I think my issue is, and always has been that, from an accounting viewpoint the related party argument is largely irrelevant. A note dislosure omission at the worst. And then, if the disclosure note was included, it wouldn't make any actual difference for FFP because, as has been pointed out, fair value owner sponsorship is allowed.

Legally, I suppose there could be a case for fraudulent accounting or criminal conspiracy in some circumstances (even if it happened and they could prove it, which I doubt) but for either of these, as far as I understand it, you would have to prove some benefit from the fraud/conspiracy. What is the benefit here, when the contract is at fair value? If Etihad/ Etisalat hadn't signed, someone else would have at the same value. It's hardly the Salad Oil Scandal.

And, while I have you here, is disguised equity investment actually referred to in FFP? Can't remember seeing it other than in charges as a way to reduce our income.

Long post, sorry. Ignore it by all means :)
Click to expand...
From CAS2:

On 14th February 2020, the Adjudicatory Chamber issued its decision (the "Appealed
Decision"), determining that equity contributions in an amount of at least
GBP 204,000,000 provided to MCFC by its ultimate owner were disguised as
sponsorship income so that they would be falsely reflected in the financial statements
and counted with the break-even calculation as relevant income for monitoring
pmposes. It held that MCFC had thereby contravened Articles 13 ("general
responsibilities of the license applicant"), 43 ("declaration in respect of
participation in UEFA club competitions"), 4 7 ("annual financial statements"), 51
("written representations prior to the licensing decision"), 56 ("responsibilities of
the licensee"), 58 ("notion or relevant income and expenses") and 62 ("break-even
information") CLFFPR. The Adjudicatory Chamber decided to exclude MCFC from
participation in UEFA club competitions for the next two seasons (i.e. 2020/21 and
2021/22) and imposed a fine on it of EUR 30,000,000. MCFC is challenging the
Appealed Decision.
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
From CAS2:

On 14th February 2020, the Adjudicatory Chamber issued its decision (the "Appealed
Decision"), determining that equity contributions in an amount of at least
GBP 204,000,000 provided to MCFC by its ultimate owner were disguised as
sponsorship income so that they would be falsely reflected in the financial statements
and counted with the break-even calculation as relevant income for monitoring
pmposes. It held that MCFC had thereby contravened Articles 13 ("general
responsibilities of the license applicant"), 43 ("declaration in respect of
participation in UEFA club competitions"), 4 7 ("annual financial statements"), 51
("written representations prior to the licensing decision"), 56 ("responsibilities of
the licensee"), 58 ("notion or relevant income and expenses") and 62 ("break-even
information") CLFFPR. The Adjudicatory Chamber decided to exclude MCFC from
participation in UEFA club competitions for the next two seasons (i.e. 2020/21 and
2021/22) and imposed a fine on it of EUR 30,000,000. MCFC is challenging the
Appealed Decision.
Click to expand...

Yes. That was a decision / a charge. I was questioning whether disguised equity funding was referred to in the rules themselves.
 
Newman Noggs said:
This is why any talk of potential criminal proceedings is hyperbolic nonsense.
Click to expand...

Talk of potential criminal proceedings is not hyperbolic nonsense.

What is alleged is that City have been signing off knowingly false accounts for years. If that were true, and could be proved, I would say criminal charges against those responsible was a realistic possibility, because that goes well beyond football governance and deep into the territory of why we make it a criminal offence for companies to sign off on false accounts.

It seems to me unlikely that this could be proved against City, but then again none of us know the full extent of the evidence that could be brought to bear. However if the evidence exists to justify the PL charges, the same evidence would justify criminal charges.

Potential Criminal charges is a reasonable feature of the discussion because that is how serious these charges are.
 
Chris in London said:
Talk of potential criminal proceedings is not hyperbolic nonsense.

What is alleged is that City have been signing off knowingly false accounts for years. If that were true, and could be proved, I would say criminal charges against those responsible was a realistic possibility, because that goes well beyond football governance and deep into the territory of why we make it a criminal offence for companies to sign off on false accounts.

It seems to me unlikely that this could be proved against City, but then again none of us know the full extent of the evidence that could be brought to bear. However if the evidence exists to justify the PL charges, the same evidence would justify criminal charges.

Potential Criminal charges is a reasonable feature of the discussion because that is how serious these charges are.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. We'll agree to disagree on that.
 
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.