PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Eebo]

Yes. Social media are not typical in any sphere, they just represent people with a strong view, often nonsensical. Let’s not fall into the trap.



The owner can lend to the club without ffp probs. See Abramovich, Mansour. Interest is included in the expenditure for ffp, as is any application of the loan to a purchase.

I know they can lend to club, but it is the profit and loss that is used for FFP so shareholder investment is capital rather than P&L so how does that help?

Abramovich lent the cash to Chelsea, and the Sheikh largely invested as equity, but FFP is designed to stop rich owners investing through either route. Hence why we were charged by UEFA - we were accused of putting owner money in as sponsorship.

If loans or equity investment are allowed vs FFP then there would have been no reason for us to be accused of doing this as the Sheikh could simply have made direct loans or equity investment.

 

[slbsn]

I'll ask you this question which I posed yesterday regarding the six year time bar
@petrusha posted that if the charges were filed under English law, there would be a six year limitation

The PL charges go back to 2008
They charged us a year ago, Jan 23
Der Speigel's revelations were in November 2018

The PL is charging us from 15 years earlier and City's legal team will argue the six year limitation is from Jan last year when the chargeswere brought, but the financial information was made public by DS in November 18

Would it be fairly safe to assume that the six year cut off will be applied and be November 2013 as this is six years from the DS articles?

Nothing is safe to assume. The relevant date for limitations could be subject to extensive submission. If the panel believes it is all concealed dishonesty the limitations may not apply at all. But otherwise a lot of matters could be limitation barred again.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I know they can lend to club, but it is the profit and loss that is used for FFP so shareholder investment is capital rather than P&L so how does that help?

Abramovich lent the cash to Chelsea, and the Sheikh largely invested as equity, but FFP is designed to stop rich owners investing through either route. Hence why we were charged by UEFA - we were accused of putting owner money in as sponsorship.

If loans or equity investment are allowed vs FFP then there would have been no reason for us to be accused of doing this as the Sheikh could simply have made direct loans or equity investment.

But he wouldn't have been able to spend it because there would have been a shortfall in income , and so "profit". If he did what the PL claim, which, I am pretty sure he didn't.

That is the "benefit" part of their allegation.

 

[Eebo]

But he wouldn't have been able to spend it because there would have been a shortfall in income , and so "profit". If he did what the PL claim, which, I am pretty sure he didn't.

That is the "benefit" part of their allegation.

That is exactly my point as my earlier post was asking why the Times are reporting that the Rags can spend big again because of Scruffy Jim’s investment

 

[halfcenturyup]

That is exactly my point as my earlier post was asking why the Times are reporting that the Rags can spend big again because of Scruffy Jim’s investment

They can spend on infrastructure, not wages and salaries (except to the extent their P/L allows it).

If I understand it, the 300 million is for fixing OT and Carrington.

 

[cheekybids]

They can spend on infrastructure, not wages and salaries (except to the extent their P/L allows it).

If I understand it, the 300 million is for fixing OT and Carrington.

I heard it was to fix up a few malls in Tampa FL…..

 

[cheekybids]

I still don’t get it. I knows there’s a few ifs buts & maybe’s but if it was fraud, what is the discovery date?

Surely it’s the Der Spiegel article, no?

 

[slbsn]

I still don’t get it. I knows there’s a few ifs buts & maybe’s but if it was fraud, what is the discovery date?

Surely it’s the Der Spiegel article, no?

Yes but that would mean they are in time for the charges/claim vs City (they had until Nov 2024 on that basis).

 

[malg]

help.....................

 

[Chi-town blues]

help.....................

Ok John Lennon .