PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

There's obviously only one way City can be fairly judged on this issue, in my opinion, and it reminds me of those old stories of how medieval people used to test whether or not someone was a witch. Throw the accused in a river. If they float, that means they are a witch, so you haul them out and burn them to death. If they sink into the water and drown, that means they weren’t a witch after all and justice is seen to be done.
 
Ducado said:
Yes but look how much information you have imparted, can you imagine all the groping in the dark that would be going on without your input

Most of us don’t understand the arcane world of accounting you have made it accessible and understandable, and you’ve put plenty of so called sport journalists in their place
Click to expand...
Without this thread our source would be the media.
There would be Blues stood on the edge of bridges everywhere.
 
JewelZee said:
What you are citing are "audit exceptions". They must be disclosed in the Auditor's report. Apparently the PL believes themselves to be better suited for the task. It's truly a fucking joke...
Click to expand...
I think the PL attack line is not about accounting anomalies per se. Its about the PL trying to invalidate sponsorship deals by asking questions like...

"Please provide contemperanous documentary evidence/emails of the tender process that led to the Etisalat/Etihad/Aabar sponsorship. Please provide details of the commercial negotiations that took place at the time the deal was agreed, not post dated/retrospective evidence"

If our response is weak the PL will say..

"The PL believes the IC can reasonably infer the sponsorship was in fact disguised equity funding and therefore should have been reported as such in the accounts"

We MUST have the evidence/witnesses to blow this line of attack out of the water. Just like we did at CAS, but this time going all the way back to 2009/2010.

This is what the false accountanting BS is all about and not about fiddling with the numbers. The PL wil have to be prepared to accuse sponsors of being complicit in a conspiracy to break PL rules not UK Law.
 
Luca1894 said:
I think the PL attack line is not about accounting anomalies per se. Its about the PL trying to invalidate sponsorship deals by asking questions like...

"Please provide contemperanous documentary evidence/emails of the tender process that led to the Etisalat/Etihad/Aabar sponsorship. Please provide details of the commercial negotiations that took place at the time the deal was agreed, not post dated/retrospective evidence"

If our response is weak the PL will say..

"The PL believes the IC can reasonably infer the sponsorship was in fact disguised equity funding and therefore should have been reported as such in the accounts"

We MUST have the evidence/witnesses to blow this line of attack out of the water. Just like we did at CAS, but this time going all the way back to 2009/2010.

This is what the false accountanting BS is all about and not about fiddling with the numbers. The PL wil have to be prepared to accuse sponsors of being complicit in a conspiracy to break PL rules not UK Law.
Click to expand...
The curious thing is all our UAE sponsors fall under suspicion, whilst the Red Top's US sponsors are all fine & dandy. I wonder why? ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯
 
Goatmeal said:
If and it a big if we get done for this. How much money would the club have dodged ffp by compared with Everton
From what I have read. Seems a few million not couple hundred mill
Click to expand...
£0 if it's the premier league profit and loss rules. about £1.5 million if it's Uefa ffp that we've already been punished for
 
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.