PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[The perfect fumble]

So how’s that comparable to us?

If the State Airline is your sponsor and Sheikh Mansour is the State, or if a company run by your second cousin, twice removed, from the dad of your third wife, is your official bog roll sponsor, then it all looks pretty related to me.

 

[mancboy]

If the State Airline is your sponsor and Sheikh Mansour is the State, or if a company run by your second cousin, twice removed, from the dad of your third wife, is your official bog roll sponsor, then it all looks pretty related to me.

so answer me this, why shouldnt related companies be allowed to invest, whats the basis for not letting it happen?

 

[halfcenturyup]

The story states “if City have breached FFP” but the PL case is not about FFP regulations. The accusation is false accounting and the Mancini allegation pre-dates FFP. The writer has no idea what he is writing about.

The bulk, and the most serious, of the alleged breaches relate to false accounting in the words of their statement, but the consequence of the false accounting, presumably, is that, if corrected, we will fail FFP. So the guy is half right.

Which, btw, is why I think we will be OK. They don't have any chance of proving false accounting to anything like the required standard, imo, without iron-clad proof, even if we did it, which I doubt. They just won't have found that sort of evidence lying around or the investigative powers to get it. So there will be no major problem with FFP either.

All imho, of course. And may all be bollocks. :)

 

[Norbiton]

If the State Airline is your sponsor and Sheikh Mansour is the State, or if a company run by your second cousin, twice removed, from the dad of your third wife, is your official bog roll sponsor, then it all looks pretty related to me.

Not in accounting terms, which is what matters

 

[mancboy]

The bulk, and the most serious, of the alleged breaches relate to false accounting in the words of their statement, but the consequence of the false accounting, presumably, is that, if corrected, we will fail FFP. So the guy is half right.

Which, btw, is why I think we will be OK. They don't have any chance of proving false accounting to anything like the required standard, imo, without iron-clad proof, even if we did it, which I doubt. They just won't have found that sort of evidence lying around or the investigative powers to get it. So there will be no major problem with FFP either.

All imho, of course. And may all be bollocks. :)

if there was concrete evidence of false accounting that amounts to a criminal trial not a kangaroo premier league panel so on that basis alone they dont have the requisite evidence

 

[jimmygrimblesboots]

Accusing a company and associated companies of false accounting is as serious as it gets , and unless you have complete access to all the accounts of our global partners i would think nigh on impossible to prove , the Premier league would need a a team of dozens of forensic accountants and it would take years to complete a full investigation.
Could you really envisage the likes of Etihad , Etislat , Nissan , Siverlake and others just giving permission for the Premier league to dig dirt on them , this is a complete non starter , the Premier league by making these charges has done the job the red 'istree clubs wanted , even if not one of the charges is proven they have sullied our reputation with the inevetable "no smoke without out fire" the media will eventually portray.
No matter what happens it will not diminish our support for the club , we all know why these charges have been brought , we also know the agenda regarding our club we witness it everyday , but our supporters have been through too much to let this bother us , we have done the hard yards to get to the summit of football , the media have vastly underrated our stomach for a fight.

 

[halfcenturyup]

If the State Airline is your sponsor and Sheikh Mansour is the State, or if a company run by your second cousin, twice removed, from the dad of your third wife, is your official bog roll sponsor, then it all looks pretty related to me.

Not in accounting terms, which is what matters

Is the correct answer.

Where it gets trickier is with the new "associated party" terminology from the PL but that can't apply to us retroactively and no-one is going to claim the sponsorships aren't fair value now, I think.

 

[The perfect fumble]

so answer me this, why shouldnt related companies be allowed to invest, whats the basis for not letting it happen?

because it disguises owner investment as income.

Say Sheikh Mansour wants to spend £500 million on a bunch of players, but can't because he can only spend a certain amount based on City's income, what does he do? He gets all his mates to flush City's coffers with lots of juicy sponsorship deals and Bob's you Uncle, he's got his £500 million.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Not in accounting terms, which is what matters

Agreed.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Is the correct answer.

Where it gets trickier is with the new "associated party" terminology from the PL but that can't apply to us retroactively and no-one is going to claim the sponsorships aren't fair value now, I think.

No they're not.

What's on trial here is the business model of the oil rich Gulf States, what the Premier League is basically saying is anything and everything coming out of that part of the world is related.

That's a big case to prove, the cartel clubs that run the game have bitten off more than they can chew.