PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Moss Side's Finest]

It's not a court matter - this is the PL investigating whether the rules have been broken or not.

I think it essentially goes:

1. City provide accounting details
2. PL assess them and decide that there are some breaches/anomalies.
3. There's a lot of toing and froing (this is in court) over how far PL rules can demand information.
4. PL charge City with breaking rules for multiple things.
5. Independent panel is convened to review the charges and City's explanation.

An important thing (to my understanding of what has been said - others may correct this) is that this may not be binary yes/no. The club may say "we did X because of Y" and then there is a discussion within the panel over whether the reasoning stands up, and how important each incident identified is.

The problem is, point 1 has already been provided to HMRC and it's global counterparts every year covering the alleged wrongdoing period.

So all the PL would need to do is look at those accounts again. Although, considering that HMRCs primary business is to check such accounts, I cant see what a few PL bods would find over and above.

The books as they stand today, do indeed balance, and generally speaking, comply with PL rules.

No, what the PL are hoping to find is some piece of peripheral evidence, gained from hacked emails or interviews with ITK parties that the accounts were basically fabricated. They are literally clutching at straws out of sheer desperation.

The two driving factors are, one, they can't lose face now after making the accusations, two, there are people within the PL who feel they need to be rid of City in order for their teams to succeed again....

 

[MillionMilesAway]

The problem is, point 1 has already been provided to HMRC and it's global counterparts every year covering the alleged wrongdoing period.

So all the PL would need to do is look at those accounts again. Although, considering that HMRCs primary business is to check such accounts, I cant see what a few PL bods would find over and above.

The books as they stand today, do indeed balance, and generally speaking, comply with PL rules.

No, what the PL are hoping to find is some piece of peripheral evidence, gained from hacked emails or interviews with ITK parties that the accounts were basically fabricated. They are literally clutching at straws out of sheer desperation.

The two driving factors are, one, they can't lose face now after making the accusations, two, there are people within the PL who feel they need to be rid of City in order for their teams to succeed again....

My impression is that HMRC and PL requirements are different even though they overlap to some degree.

Hypothetical example (and not necessarily relevant):
Sheikh Mansour invests 50M in City directly.
Sheikh Mansour gives 50M to Anonymous Sheikh Ltd, and Anonymous Sheikh Ltd invest 50M in City.

HMRC really don't care whether that money came from Sheikh Mansour.
PL FFP very much might do, as this may fall under disguised equity.

**
I think the PL have now lost control of the proceedings.
The charges were released in a rush, needed correcting, and just before the govt white paper was due. The PL now need the investigation to last long enough to claim that they are effective in running themselves, i.e. the bill to pass.
The investigation panel will go through their process and the PL have to wait it out. I think getting as much exemption from the regulator is more important to some of the more powerful clubs than finding against City; muddying City's name is useful but not the big thing.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

A lawyer calling accountants boring? Here is an example of the exciting life our most eminent KC:

LORD PANNICK: Can I come on to the fifth topic which is De Keyser and the other case law.
LADY HALE: Have I been mispronouncing that case all my adult life?
LORD PANNICK: Would your Ladyship like to tell me the correct --
LADY HALE: De Keyser.
LORD PANNICK: I will call it De Keyser.
LADY HALE: I may be wrong, I am often wrong.
LORD PANNICK: You say De Keyser, I say De Keyser.
LORD CLARKE: Down here we think it is De Keyser.
THE PRESIDENT: We can each stick to our own because the transcript will not give away what we have called it.
LORD PANNICK: It is my fifth topic, whatever it is called

She was certainly often wrong. But that didn't stop her. And they say accountants are creative - some of her judgmental leaps. Always a good read though.

 

[Moss Side's Finest]

Hypothetical example (and not necessarily relevant):
Sheikh Mansour invests 50M in City directly.
Sheikh Mansour gives 50M to Anonymous Sheikh Ltd, and Anonymous Sheikh Ltd invest 50M in City.

HMRC really don't care whether that money came from Sheikh Mansour.
PL FFP very much might do, as this may fall under disguised equity

Agreed. Back to my original point, they would need to try and find some way of evidencing this, as the books from CFG and the other companies wouldn't give any meaningful insight. There will not be an entry in the transfer from Anonymous Sheikh Ltd that says "Dodgy money from the boss". Therefore the PL would have to try and either evidence the reason for the transfer via other means, such as hacked emails or testiment from those involved, many of which would be external to CFG.

 

[mancboy]

My impression is that HMRC and PL requirements are different even though they overlap to some degree.

Hypothetical example (and not necessarily relevant):
Sheikh Mansour invests 50M in City directly.
Sheikh Mansour gives 50M to Anonymous Sheikh Ltd, and Anonymous Sheikh Ltd invest 50M in City.

HMRC really don't care whether that money came from Sheikh Mansour.
PL FFP very much might do, as this may fall under disguised equity.

**
I think the PL have now lost control of the proceedings.
The charges were released in a rush, needed correcting, and just before the govt white paper was due. The PL now need the investigation to last long enough to claim that they are effective in running themselves, i.e. the bill to pass.
The investigation panel will go through their process and the PL have to wait it out. I think getting as much exemption from the regulator is more important to some of the more powerful clubs than finding against City; muddying City's name is useful but not the big thing.

I have said it from day one , this was a fishing expedition by masters to show they could look after their own house while tarnishing citys reputation (in that case they succeeded), the problem was they expected city to take a pinch and when we refused they were stuck and ever since theyve been trying to back up quicker than a french tank and they are struggling to wangle their way out of it.

 

[mancboy]

Agreed. Back to my original point, they would need to try and find some way of evidencing this, as the books from CFG and the other companies wouldn't give any meaningful insight. There will not be an entry in the transfer from Anonymous Sheikh Ltd that says "Dodgy money from the boss". Therefore the PL would have to try and either evidence the reason for the transfer via other means, such as hacked emails or testiment from those involved, many of which would be external to CFG.

but the problem with this analogy is that these multi billionaires have investment vehicles with such a broad range of investments and involvements either directly or indirectly in so many businesses that you could broadly say that most equity is disguised in some way, for example it would be fair to say that etihad and emirates cross over in alot of ways involving flight routes, buying of planes, parts for planes etc, so broadly speaking are we saying that our sponsors being involved also with emirates indirectly gives us some level of power over arsenal?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I have said it from day one , this was a fishing expedition by masters to show they could look after their own house while tarnishing citys reputation (in that case they succeeded), the problem was they expected city to take a pinch and when we refused they were stuck and ever since theyve been trying to back up quicker than a french tank and they are struggling to wangle their way out of it.

Quite possibly in its origins. Now the regulator has overtaken them as an important issue.

 

[mancboy]

Quite possibly in its origins. Now the regulator has overtaken them as an important issue.

its origins were incorrect tho which is another issue in of itself, the charges were rushed and incorrect and had to be amended which makes you think what really do they have if they cant get the original charges correct.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

Have you ever noticed what amazing imaginations the dippers have ?

Last night I was talking to one who unfortunately lives in my apartment block. Now as far as your average dip goes just about everything wrong in the world is down to us and this includes the REAL reason why Klipperty has just thrown his toys out of the cot.

He said there are two (completely contradictory) rumours going round murkyside atm...

[1] Klipperty was told by Klanfield itk types that the chances are the PL charges will fail miserably to stop our march to world dominance. Consequently he decided he couldn't face the prospect of carrying on ie we've finally managed to break him.

[2] Klipperty was told by the Klanfield itk types that if we are shafted big time by the PL then FSG are going all out legal to get our titles revoked so the dips get retrospective trophies. And as a fine upstanding chap he had a complete melt down and told FSG he wants absolutely nothing to do with retro titles being awarded after they have been taken of fellow professionals. Yourgone thinks Pep and the players earnt the titles on the pitch fair and square and any sanctions should be against the owners only.

re [2] Everyone thinks you can punish owners without mentioning "fans", but hey ho who cares about them.

They do live very close to the sea, maybe its down to the salt levels in the atmosphere...

 

[Chris in London]

LORD PANNICK: I will call it a barm.

Mods, ban this fucker

Pannick knows his onions AND his muffins