Ours are just charges, they actually failed FFP
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
manimanc
Well-Known Member
I know and I very nearly said that to him but I didn't want to confuse him even more. Gobby twats aren't they, just randomly coming out with that to someone they don't even know. He's lucky I didn't wrap my loaf of bread around his napper :)Ours are just charges, they actually failed FFP
PaulTheOctopus
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2021
- Messages
- 164
- Team supported
- City
Now I know what to say if I get people asking me that lolWas in the supermarket today and had a city tracksuit top on, stood in the queue and some oversized utd fan, I'll use the term fan loosely as the spray on top he wore was anything but loose, pointed and said how are the 115 charges getting on. As I was a bit fuzzy from a few beers the night before It took me a few seconds to realise what fatty was on about. So I thought I'd ask him to name every single one. Go on mate I egged him on, what are the charges for? Erm...erm....ermmm being bitter was his reply and walked off.
I just laughed to myself thinking look at what we've turned these pricks into, we've ruined them.
Made my day.
BerkshireBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 4,039
1. So why haven't the UK authorities been called in to investigate us for fraud?
2. This is the point everyone's making! When you cut to the chase, this is the logical conclusion you arrive at.
3. Years ago I made a Directors loan which is perfectly legal within business.
A: If my son started a business & needed to use my companies services, & I personally paid his invoice, is that illegal?
4. I refer you to answer 3 above.
All of the above are the reasons City sound confident of beating the PL's accounting fraud charges.
I've already answered these in the above post but I'll do it again for you.
#1 because its an unwinnable case with no evidence. There's zero chance of a conviction
#2 not sure what you mean here
#3 yes directors loans are fine, I've got one. They go down as a Directors loan in the P&L as a debt for the director not revenue, capital investment or equity.
#A yes that is illegal. Why would a company A charge another company B and expect company A to pay the bill. What's actually happening here is you wanted to invest in your son's business and that is fine but it has to go down in the accounts as capital investment or equity sale. What it can be classed as is revenue that is overstating revenue and is classed as accounting fraud.
Hope this clears it up for you
It’s a website that appears to run in a time warp from the late 90’sYou should see RAWK.....
A bit like its clientele
Tommy_Catons_Perm
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2011
- Messages
- 2,528
The charges are not for being bitter. They are for being better.Was in the supermarket today and had a city tracksuit top on, stood in the queue and some oversized utd fan, I'll use the term fan loosely as the spray on top he wore was anything but loose, pointed and said how are the 115 charges getting on. As I was a bit fuzzy from a few beers the night before It took me a few seconds to realise what fatty was on about. So I thought I'd ask him to name every single one. Go on mate I egged him on, what are the charges for? Erm...erm....ermmm being bitter was his reply and walked off.
I just laughed to myself thinking look at what we've turned these pricks into, we've ruined them.
Made my day.
Just looked at the link & it’s quite shocking that they have such entrenched beliefs about what we’re supposed to have done. They don’t actually know & don’t give any details - but they have a list of the punishments we can expect.I've met the odd fan with those sentiments, but the majority I happen across haven't got a clue what the charges are, what the case is about or know how FPP works. As far as they're concerned we're cheats & we're guilty.
I just clicked the link & viewed the Sad Café thread on our charges & it's woefully & chronically pathetic! They want our titles stripped, & City not only banned from the PL, but from the Football League too!
They want our local derby to be against FC Utd, & anything less will prove City's corruption, because it's proof we've paid someone off after being caught bang to rights. ¯\_(⊙_ʖ⊙)_/¯
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/cit...pl-with-numerous-ffp-breaches.464361/page-152
The media are to blame - & they’re just as bad.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
Not quite. Read A again. I never invested in my son's business, I paid his bill personally to help him out, not from my company's account.I've already answered these in the above post but I'll do it again for you.
#1 because its an unwinnable case with no evidence. There's zero chance of a conviction
#2 not sure what you mean here
#3 yes directors loans are fine, I've got one. They go down as a Directors loan in the P&L as a debt for the director not revenue, capital investment or equity.
#A yes that is illegal. Why would a company A charge another company B and expect company A to pay the bill. What's actually happening here is you wanted to invest in your son's business and that is fine but it has to go down in the accounts as capital investment or equity sale. What it can be classed as is revenue that is overstating revenue and is classed as accounting fraud.
Hope this clears it up for you
As for the rest, you're arguing with yourself because I've repeated most of it already, but added scenarios which you haven't addressed.
The short & tall of it is we're essentially being accused of financial fraud. BUT it's financial fraud based on UEFA/PL "rules", NOT UK Law.
If what we'd done was against UK Law, do you really think the PL wouldn't have already called the Plod, FCA, HMRC & the SFO?
This is the point everyone's making, & you keep going round in circles with. The PL can believe what they like.
When they produce irrefutable empirical evidence, then it's time to start cacking our pants. In the meantime, just trust the process & the serious ultra professionals involved on City's behalf.
Just read in the Times that in addition to Scruffy Jim buying 25% of existing shares he is also making a new equity investment of $300m which will allow them to spend big (again) and avoid issues with FFP that they would otherwise have had.
I understood that owner equity wasn’t allowed against FFP and it was purely revenue based. Am I wrong or is it The Times that don’t understand FFP or are there just different rules for red shirt clubs?
I understood that owner equity wasn’t allowed against FFP and it was purely revenue based. Am I wrong or is it The Times that don’t understand FFP or are there just different rules for red shirt clubs?
Dribble
Well-Known Member
It's ManUre. Different rules apply. ¯\_(⊙_ʖ⊙)_/¯Just read in the Times that in addition to Scruffy Jim buying 25% of existing shares he is also making a new equity investment of $300m which will allow them to spend big (again) and avoid issues with FFP that they would otherwise have had.
I understood that owner equity wasn’t allowed against FFP and it was purely revenue based. Am I wrong or is it The Times that don’t understand FFP or are there just different rules for red shirt clubs?