PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Brightwell Bros. said:
Putting to one side the rights and wrongs of it, it's increasingly hard to argue that the Etihad deal hasn't been amazing value for money for them as a brand. In, say, the same way that it's hard to argue that Kyle Walker, who were roundly mocked for spending that much money on a defender, hasn't been amazing value for money as well. I know City shape the market as much as reflect it, but still.
Click to expand...
Had this discussion the other day, showing my age here but when I think of the great football sides (on the pitch) of my youth its Liverpool with Crown Paint on the front of the shirt, them with Sharp over the kits, Everton and NEC (still I do not know what that was / is) Arsenal and JVC and of course Brother over our own (with a nod to Phillips and Saab) - its the same with City and Etihad today. 400 million including the stadium rights at the start for the exposure the Etihad brand got was a steal! The sponsor sticks with you if you see it enough times. School run today in North Lanarkshire and I'm allowing myself a little smile as I spot 1,2 then 3 branded City bags on the ground amongst the Old Firm stuff - same all over the world I'm sure.
 
It’ll never stop,only when we become less successful and not being a winning machine will it fall away,the whole constant media attack on the club and fans is starting to wear fans down,as someone posted earlier the club would be best advising certain journalists from attending as they wouldn’t be able to guarantee their safety as I can see one of them being seriously injured..
 
halfcenturyup said:
Nope. The true amount from the point of view of the audited accounts is the amount in the contract between the two parties, as long as it is at fair value, the one party has provided services to the value of the contract and the other party has paid in full. How the paying party is funded, is irrelevant to the accounts in my view.

The only reason this is an issue is because of the PL rules. The annual accounts don't have to take the PL rules into account.

Don't get me wrong, the allegations can meet the legal definition of fraud, but imho the accounts give a true and fair view just as they are. And the alleged misstatement of the accounts is the most serious allegation by a long way.

All in my opinion as an accountant, not a lawyer, so I am quite happy to be blasted again.
Click to expand...
I actually enjoy all your posts. Lots of common sense in what you type.
 
Ok we all talk about the damage it could do to the club if found guilty, But what will it mean to Pep and the player's Reputations, The damage to the image of the best Manager in the world PEP, We knew he could not win titles and cups without cheating its all fake, Peps a fake

How can EPL and FA look Pep in the eyes and say sorry it all counts for nothing, Pep changed English football and put England back on the world stage with players so technically gifted that they can play anywhere on the pitch,

I even think it could damage English football, Sponsorship deals, media, and TV rights, and The whole of the Premier League will be darkened and this has never been mentioned, Yes if we are found guilty then I also question why has it taken so look to deal with it and why NOW after the best season any English club has archived in football,
 
Stoned Rose said:
“We know we were right”

Mad as fuck he still thinks that after being proved wrong at CAS.

There’s a shilling missing a bit somewhere.
Click to expand...
Says that whilst also saying they must respect the CAS decision, to me there is a marked lack of respect in making that comment and we should be after him for libel or defamation
 
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.