PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

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?

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.

 

[salfordbluetrue]

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.

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.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

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.
It will be the last remaining stick of assumed guilt they will use, and they will use it.

 

[mancboy]

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.

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.

 

[117 M34]

2018 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.

On that basis, if we were to be found guilty of some charges, they could then open a new investigation covering 2018-2024

 

[wolviedinho]

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.

Meanwhile the media continue:

 

[Bodicoteblue]

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.

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.

 

[mancboy]

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.

do not concern yourself with opinions as thats all they are, the problem with opinions is that idiots are allowed to have them.

 

[KS55]

"..the PL are just making it up as they go along.."

Nailed it in one sentence.

Can you imagine the Premier League in court, some overweight prick in a cheap suit representing them, just pointing over to our representatives shouting they're guilty, it's them, they've fiddled books, they've ran out of chips, their grass is too long, arrest them arrest them.

The Premier League, as I've said before, have got absolutely nothing on us, not one iota of evidence. And like I've said a million times, I'll hold my hands up and say yeah it's a fair cop when I turn my TV on and see HMRC and the fraud squad leaving our premises with files, hard drives, pc's, paperwork and anything else that shows us committing fraud, until then I shall sit back, relax and continue to be entertained by rival fans suddenly turning into lawyers and sports finance analysts.

Crack on.

The PL’s lawyer is THE leading sports KC. He doesnt wear cheap suits.

 

[Oldham Exile]

I thought the bus was found in the North Pole and a WW2 Bomber found on the moon?

I remember my sister telling me about the killer bees that had been developed by the Nazi's and which had hatched and were heading for the UK