So you think City will be found guilty of fraud? That's what the charges relate to? I don't personally as if they had evidence surely they would have substantiated their claims by now. Yet four years later and we've heard nothing more, why would that be. City has denied all allegations and basically said put up or shut up. The silence is deafening. My guess is that the PL are looking for a way out to save face, with City accepting some minor punishment, but City have said no, we're not accepting anything.
All imho, of course, but the club isn't going to be found guilty of fraud.
Firstly, because I doubt very much the club has produced fraudulently misleading accounts. But mostly, because the PL doesn't have the competence, the resources or the power to prosecute to such a verdict. Can you imagine the PL finding the club guilty and then the SFO or whoever don't pursue the case for lack of evidence or do pursue it and find the club not guilty? The resulting compensation claims for lost income, impaired value and reputational damage would take down the PL, its management and half the clubs in it. No KC is taking that reputational risk, either. Imo. What the IP should do if they think there has been criminality, is send the evidence to a relevant prosecuting authority, and then assess the situation once criminality has been confirmed or, most likely, dismissed. I don't know what they are doing with those allegations.
As for the accounts not giving a true and fair view, I am not buying that either. The Mancini payments are nowhere near material even if they weren't accounted for properly (remember we were making losses of 100-200 million a year in those days). The Etisalat sponsorship doesn't prevent a true and fair view even if Mansour paid it all himself. It was a valid contract at fair value (which no-one has contested), serviced completely and paid in full, eventually, by Etisalat. The only thing may be a classification error in the balance sheet between when ADUG paid the monies, and Etisalat reimbursed them, and possibly a related note disclosure. Not material enough, at all, to prevent a true and fair view. Etihad would be material enough, but again, it is accepted to be fair value under a valid contract, which was serviced and paid in full and so is properly reflected in the accounts, imo. And the sale of image rights was a perfectly normal exercise in financial planning to accelerate income. Yes, it helped us meet UEFA FFP (we thought!), but it has been, as far as I am aware, accounted for perfectly normally. The PL may not like it and may wish to adjust for it, but that is nothing to do with true and fair accounts. The auditors know best what gives a true and fair view of the club's financial position based on the completed contractual positions.
So that leaves interpretation around some accounting treatments they may not like, and may wish to adjust for, and some disclosures to the PL that they may feel were missing. And co-operation, of course. I am reasonably sure the club can justify its accounting treatments, though, so I wouldn't worry too much.
Then again, I thought we were going to get screwed by UEFA but got that wrong, so my confidence is probably misplaced and we are fucked. :)
