That I don't know bud, I'm aware they've changed the rules and the wording around everything which seems to give them carte blanche to ask for anything & everything and expect the clubs to hand over stuff that hasn't been asked for even. Who needs a kangaroo court when the rules state that you have to convict yourself?Great post, am i right in thinking that in section 1 Fair and accurate does not appear within those dates, and City have pointed this out?
Ah ! The scouse versionAn analogy I've used is someone who's burgled a few houses being charged separately, and therefore facing a separate court case, for each item they nicked.
Great post, am i right in thinking that in section 1 Fair and accurate does not appear within those dates, and City have pointed this out?
Knew someone had posted this, just thought me marbles had gone. but it does put more significance to the CAS ruling, including the non compliance.I have a problem with that whole section, tbh. There is no requirement at all in the PL rules to provide accurate information that gives a true and fair view of anything.
The statement of directors' responsibility in the accounts summarises it better: "responsibility for providing information accurate enough to produce accounts that give a true and fair view". To summarise, the accounts don't have to be accurate, only accurate enough.
IIrc, the only financial information required by the rules the club is alleged to have broken in section 1 are annual accounts (which don't have to be accurate), forecasts and interim numbers (which only have to be prepared in the same manner as the annual accounts) and additional disclosures (which aren't required in the annual accounts anyway).
So to my point, the only issue that would lead to a problem under section 1 is something so large that it affects the true and fair view given by the accounts or leads to an FFP breach (only the Etihad allegation can do that imho, and good luck with that).
So honestly, I don't see anything coming out of any of this, other than, at worst, a couple of wrist slaps for not disclosing to the PL some things they think the club should have disclosed.
And I think the PL knows this too.
The problem is that if there is the slightest hint that anything at all was not disclosed by the club, then the insinuations will start and before long it becomes ‘what have they got to hide‘? and no amount of explaining how irrelevant those non-disclosures were will make a difference.I have a problem with that whole section, tbh. There is no requirement at all in the PL rules to provide accurate information that gives a true and fair view of anything.
The statement of directors' responsibility in the accounts summarises it better: "responsibility for providing information accurate enough to produce accounts that give a true and fair view". To summarise, the accounts don't have to be accurate, only accurate enough.
IIrc, the only financial information required by the rules the club is alleged to have broken in section 1 are annual accounts (which don't have to be accurate), forecasts and interim numbers (which only have to be prepared in the same manner as the annual accounts) and additional disclosures (which aren't required in the annual accounts anyway).
So to my point, the only issue that would lead to a problem under section 1 is something so large that it affects the true and fair view given by the accounts or leads to an FFP breach (only the Etihad allegation can do that imho, and good luck with that).
So honestly, I don't see anything coming out of any of this, other than, at worst, a couple of wrist slaps for not disclosing to the PL some things they think the club should have disclosed.
And I think the PL knows this too.
they can but realistically the question could be asked why would we make commercially sensitive information available to a body that has proven to be untrustworthy and has no legal right to request it, it would be similar to us handing over contract and sponsorship deals to the red tops to get their approval and that is commercial suicide, they know that and so do we, its tantamount to charging someone for perjury for each time they went no comment in an interview.The problem is that if there is the slightest hint that anything at all was not disclosed by the club, then the insinuations will start and before long it becomes ‘what have they got to hide‘? and no amount of explaining how irrelevant those non-disclosures were will make a difference.
It will be the last remaining stick of assumed guilt they will use, and they will use it.
On that basis, if we were to be found guilty of some charges, they could then open a new investigation covering 2018-20242018 was when the investigation started, they can't be investigating each season after that and adding them on as we'd never get a resolution. That's why we need a total clearance of all charges (barring perhaps the non-coop one) as 2019 on will be obviously clear of any wrong doing.
I have a problem with that whole section, tbh. There is no requirement at all in the PL rules to provide accurate information that gives a true and fair view of anything.
The statement of directors' responsibility in the accounts summarises it better: "responsibility for providing information accurate enough to produce accounts that give a true and fair view". To summarise, the accounts don't have to be accurate, only accurate enough.
IIrc, the only financial information required by the rules the club is alleged to have broken in section 1 are annual accounts (which don't have to be accurate), forecasts and interim numbers (which only have to be prepared in the same manner as the annual accounts) and additional disclosures (which aren't required in the annual accounts anyway).
So to my point, the only issue that would lead to a problem under section 1 is something so large that it affects the true and fair view given by the accounts or leads to an FFP breach (only the Etihad allegation can do that imho, and good luck with that).
So honestly, I don't see anything coming out of any of this, other than, at worst, a couple of wrist slaps for not disclosing to the PL some things they think the club should have disclosed.
And I think the PL knows this too.
True but we are approaching this using rationality, logic, and common sense.they can but realistically the question could be asked why would we make commercially sensitive information available to a body that has proven to be untrustworthy and has no legal right to request it, it would be similar to us handing over contract and sponsorship deals to the red tops to get their approval and that is commercial suicide, they know that and so do we, its tantamount to charging someone for perjury for each time they went no comment in an interview.
do not concern yourself with opinions as thats all they are, the problem with opinions is that idiots are allowed to have them.True but we are approaching this using rationality, logic, and common sense.
Any failure to cooperate or withhold documents or information by the club will simply be seen as obfuscation and hiding guilt, no matter how much contrary evidence is put before them
I fear this is something we’re going to have to live with long term.