PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Roachy]

It's a fantastic and informative thread though.

That's very true, especially when you know a post is from someone with knowledge and experience.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

To be fair the amount of money is irrelevant, allegedly paying off the books is not a good look and arouses suspicion.

Yes but it's about intent as well. The oft-quoted £1.45m was Mancini's basic initial salary with us. He also got bonuses that increased that significantly, at least by a factor of 3 even in his first full season, when we won the FA Cup and qualified for the CL. By the time we won the league, he was on about 8 times that.

So why would we need to pay him £1.75m under the table?

 

[Dribble]

Would we have made a statement that we can refute the charges if they hadn't?

We received 131 charges, 16 of which didn't belong, with several others having to be amended for being incorrect, which suggests the charges were rushed to meet the governments independent football regulator announcement head on.

Based on the charges, I'd imagine City would've perused them, & arrived at the conclusion that we have an irrefutable body of evidence.

The language isn't crystal clear, but we could assume City have provided evidence to the PL who believe we've a case to answer. They've charged us & left it in the hands of their independent panel to go over the charges, evidence, defence & the PL's regulatory procedure.

It's all a bit cloak & dagger, but this might make the mud a bit clearer.

In the Premier League rules, it says proceedings before an independent commission will be confidential and heard in private. We will not know anything about it.

Then, according to the Premier League rules, the commission's final award will be published on the Premier League's website. So we have no indication how long this will take, we will not be able to report on what is happening and we will only find out the final decision when it's published on the Premier League's website.

This is probably why few know what's happening. As opposed to the leaky PL, it seems the independent panel & City are conducting precedings in private, but no one knows exactly how long this will take or where we're currently up to.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

See it is no calmer in here , complete waste of energy getting wound up, we will find out and react to when its time

Not like you to get wound up about something Kaz! We're City fans. We always take the most pessimistic view. It's hardwired into our psyche.

 

[Keeper!]

Yes but it's about intent as well. The oft-quoted £1.45m was Mancini's basic initial salary with us. He also got bonuses that increased that significantly, at least by a factor of 3 even in his first full season, when we won the FA Cup and qualified for the CL. By the time we won the league, he was on about 8 times that.

So why would we need to pay him £1.75m under the table?

Totally agree, 1.75m is peanuts for a major club and amount that simply does not make sense to keep off the books.

 

[kaz7]

Not like you to get wound up about something Kaz! We're City fans. We always take the most pessimistic view. It's hardwired into our psyche.

Ha, indeed it is

 

[JewelZee]

The issue there is auditors can only act on the information supplied, which we attest is a true & fair reflection.

Having said that, City would be blummin stupid to commit overt financial fraud in the UK, unlike ManUre who reregistered their company in a tax haven.

Again, this comes down to sovereign law & the rules of a private members club.

Flushing the loo after a dump might be a club rule, but it's not UK Law. That's as far as I can see this going.

By "act on the information supplied" I hope you mean assert the validity of the reported information AND detect any suspicious data as well as uncover and report on any irregularities. An independent audit is not some exercise in rubber stamping reported data. If City were perpetrating fraud of this magnitude any high-end accounting firm would have been expected to uncover these irregularities in the course of their audit, let alone over a period of 10 years. So, yes, the PL would be ascertaining that the Auditors were incompetent or "in on it" which adds massively to the ridiculousness of the charges...

JMO (I've been a CPA since 1990 and a Director of Finance since 1998)

 

[Silva61]

I don't know how 4 clubs can sue
Surely it can be only one. Considering you can make a loss of 105mil over 3 years Surely you only break that rule in the third year. For all we know Everton could have won the league in the third year and wiped out an losses in the last 2. Hence the team that finished 18th after the 3 years have a case but no one else

there should be no allowance of losses, all it does is allow clubs to gamble over a three year period.

 

[chris85mcfc]

Me? Or those expressing their views on the radio :) :)

I thought it might read like that as I typed, but certainly meant the latter!

 

[Judge Roughneck]

Things like this should definitely be tackled by the club. Trouble with media is that it “employs” people related to football - such as ex players - who frankly, are uneducated & it shows. I’m not saying they are thick but they don’t have the knowledge, background, education or experience to offer comments. Yet they are put into these situations that give them an uninformed voice

One consequence of this when it's all over is that I would like our owners to select one individual and ruin them. I'm talking Pickfords moving what little shit they have left out of their salubrious home to some fucking sink estate whilst they watch with their crying wife and kids, who want to know why he didn't keep his flapping gums shut. Just one.