PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[manimanc]

1 is sponsorship, so presumably Etihad & Etisalat
2 is Mancini & Fordham
3 & 4 aren't about failing FFP necessarily but not submitting accurate accounts for both the PL & UEFA. Those obviously depend on 1 & 2 but the latter is unlikely to involve material amounts.

So basically we're being accused of fraud with 3 & 4, which UEFA have already found we haven't committed anything of the sort yet the circus that is the Premier League think we've done it on an industrial scale?

Fuck me do we really have to face these absolute morons in court?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I thought Fordham was relatively material at roughly £40m revenue in the season of the image rights sale?

We sold them for just under £25m. I think Fordham paid out something like £12-13m a season. Our revenue was around £350m at that time, going up to £400m when UEFA spoke to us about it. Our expenses were slightly higher than our revenue, so around £375m

A 'material' amount is, if I recall, reckoned to be around 5%, so compared to our revenue or expenses, Fordham would not be material in the overall scheme of things.

 

[Chak19]

The evidence the PL claim to have come from those same leaked E mails right ?

 

[manimanc]

The evidence the PL claim to have come from those same leaked E mails right ?

It does sound like it plus being pushed and urged by the two red mardarse clubs.
Don't forget that those two clubs and only those two alone got to pick the next chairman of the Premier League lest we forget.

 

[Bluewonder]

We sold them for just under £25m. I think Fordham paid out something like £12-13m a season. Our revenue was around £350m at that time, going up to £400m when UEFA spoke to us about it. Our expenses were slightly higher than our revenue, so around £375m

A 'material' amount is, if I recall, reckoned to be around 5%, so compared to our revenue or expenses, Fordham would not be material in the overall scheme of things.

Do you recall which season it happened?

I would say a net difference £12-13m would be considered material from a statutory audit perspective as materiality would likely be set at 1-2% revenue (IE - less than £10m in those years to which you refer)

This means the auditors would have known about it and been fine with it.

To be frank, if the PL had a problem with the arrangement, it should have said so at the time.

 

[bitterblue78]

Grappa isn't a journalist. He's an Everton fan making up an account

He said punishment will be on may 15th yet our hearing doesnt start til late summer. Am i right

 

[JewelZee]

Why is anyone talking about this fuck faced ****?

 

[BlueAnorak]

We sold them for just under £25m. I think Fordham paid out something like £12-13m a season. Our revenue was around £350m at that time, going up to £400m when UEFA spoke to us about it. Our expenses were slightly higher than our revenue, so around £375m

A 'material' amount is, if I recall, reckoned to be around 5%, so compared to our revenue or expenses, Fordham would not be material in the overall scheme of things.

It would be a complete laugh if we were found guilty of this - SIX clubs were fined by HMRC for incorrect tax payments (tax avoidance that were deemed near tax evasion by HMRC) as a result of their image rights deals. This includes Utd, Newcastle another Red Top and Southampton.
We weren't fined as we had continual discussions with HMRC - we closed the Fordam thing down and paid back tax without a fine - ie we came clean without an investigation.
It would be interesting to see how tax evasion by attempted legal means is less of a 'crime' with the PL than than near tax avoidance...

Man Utd and Newcastle amongst football clubs tackling HMRC tax investigations | HMRC Tax Disputes Solicitors & Barristers

After a six-year investigation into the sport, HMRC has recovered about £464 million from football players, clubs, and agents. In the last year alone, the revenue has recovered £55.6…

taxdisputes.co.uk

 

[halfcenturyup]

1 is sponsorship, so presumably Etihad & Etisalat
2 is Mancini & Fordham
3 & 4 aren't about failing FFP necessarily but not submitting accurate accounts for both the PL & UEFA. Those obviously depend on 1 & 2 but the latter is unlikely to involve material amounts.

Small refinement:

1 is the accounting implications of alleged sponsorship funding, Mancini and Fordham (possibly the shared services as well?). I see they threw related parties in as well. They can't seriously been opening that up again, can they?

2 is the disclosure implications of Mancini and Fordham.

3/4 I think are very much to do with FFP once they have adjusted for the items in 1 above.

5 I guess is obvious and the crux of the issues between the PL and the club, imho.

So, as long as 1 is cleared, 3 and 4 clear as well. I have posited why 5 may not be an issue, so that just leaves 2: disclosures to the PL about Mancini and Fordham. Will the club appeal against those if the allegations are proven? Possibly.

 

[Scaring Europe to Death]

Small refinement:

1 is the accounting implications of alleged sponsorship funding, Mancini and Fordham (possibly the shared services as well?). I see they threw related parties in as well. They can't seriously been opening that up again, can they?

2 is the disclosure implications of Mancini and Fordham.

3/4 I think are very much to do with FFP once they have adjusted for the items in 1 above.

5 I guess is obvious and the crux of the issues between the PL and the club, imho.

So, as long as 1 is cleared, 3 and 4 clear as well. I have posited why 5 may not be an issue, so that just leaves 2: disclosures to the PL about Mancini and Fordham. Will the club appeal against those if the allegations are proven? Possibly.

The Mancini/Fordham allegation is the one that concerns me: not so much for the alleged advantage (as PB mentioned previously, we made a huge loss that year), but more for the way that the media smears will continue if we're found guilty, but only fined, and not relegated, expelled, liquidated and executed.