PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[bluenova]

I find it really weird that people have "Rag Pals"...Not having a dig, Each to their own.

Maybe I'm just a proper grumpy ****, I couldn't have a "Rag Pal", If I seen someone walking down the street with a Rag on I'd think he's a **** straight away.

It amazes me that anyone can live in Manchester and not be friends with a few United fans.

Do you have friends outside football? Or is that pretty much your social circle?

 

[Centurions]

Can someone please remind me as it's been a while.

1. How many emails did that hacker get access to at City?
2. How many are being presented (albeit spliced together and taken out of context) as 'evidence' against us?

5,500,000 documents and emails in total.

The initial 'reveal' by der spielgel used (I think) 5 with 2 of them spliced together to generate more faux outrage. There was another (maybe) half a dozen revealed later regarding Mancini and Fordham(?)

We're still waiting for the other 5,499,990 emails and documents to be drip fed over the next 999 years.

 

[Winchester]

It amazes me that anyone can live in Manchester and not be friends with a few United fans.

Do you have friends outside football? Or is that pretty much your social circle?

My wife supports utd and i ccl

 

[South Stand Balti]

It would have to be the statutory accounts. There‘s unlikely to be an adjustment for “additional sponsorship income”. Which is why the PL are implicitly accusing City of fraud and false accounting. But the accounts have always been signed off by the auditors as true and fair and they didn’t resign shortly after these accusations first surfaced. Which they almost certainly would have done if City had been pulling the wool over their eyes

Thanks. It's just that the "charges" listed by the PL, relating to the accounts, have PL rule numbers against them. This indicates the PL are accusing us of breaking their rules but this doesn't necessarily mean our statutory accounts are not in good faith.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Quick question (sorry if it's been covered) - the PL have accused us of providing inaccurate accounts. Does this mean the accounts posted at Companies House or just the accounts provided to the PL after making adjustments to the statutory accounts, as required by the PL?

My assumption is that it's the accounts supplied to the PL.

I would be surprised if the PL have jurisdiction over anything to Companies House, or any right to question them. It seems unlikely to me that CH have much interest in things like where money came from, just that it was there or not; that's all PL-only stuff.

 

[M18CTID]

I got the impression that the PL were constantly asking for info in a haphazard way, causing major problems for the club. I think they were doing that to try and catch us out and City just got tired of it but it also adds significant workload and legal costs every time there’s a request. We know how unprofessional the PL are as we saw the inaccuracies in the original press releases which would never have happened in a proper organisation, it really was amateur and no doubt so were their info requests.

Let’s not forget that in the latest Everton case, the PL accused them of not cooperating and the IC disagreed, saying they had. With that in mind, it’s not a given that the PL will even be able to land the non-cooperation charges against us.

 

[GH64]

It would have to be the statutory accounts. There‘s unlikely to be an adjustment for “additional sponsorship income”. Which is why the PL are implicitly accusing City of fraud and false accounting. But the accounts have always been signed off by the auditors as true and fair and they didn’t resign shortly after these accusations first surfaced. Which they almost certainly would have done if City had been pulling the wool over their eyes

From the Auditors' Report (BDO):

"The Company is also subject to laws and regulations where the consequence of noncompliance could have a material effect on the amount or disclosures in the financial statements, for example through the imposition of fines or litigations. We identified such laws and regulations to be employment law, data protection and health and safety legislation, as well as compliance with UEFA Financial Fair Play and Football Association Rules."


If we don't comply with the UEFA / PL rules then it brings all sorts of risks to the business, so it is expressly mentioned that they look at it.

 

[M18CTID]

I think there is no doubt the club hasn't co-operated as much as it could. The question is if the club has co-operated as much as they had to.

I doubt very much the club held back information the PL was entitled to, after the court rulings.

But, even at CAS, the club was criticised for not providing UEFA with the evidence it presented at CAS, iirc saying that witholding information from the investigation that proves innocence for a later appeal makes a mockery of the investigative powers of UEFA. That was the basis of the CAS fine, I think. It will be interesting to see if the club appeals a fine for non-cooperation in this case and what the merits of each side would be, as this is still the PL process, unlike UEFA/CAS.

The impression I get is that the club have cooperated more with the PL than we did with UEFA. For me, CAS possibly felt that they had to give UEFA a small win of sorts and technically we were in the wrong on that one but there were also mitigating factors as to why we stopped cooperating, as acknowledged by CAS themselves when saying the leaks from UEFA to the NYT were “worrisome”.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Thanks. It's just that the "charges" listed by the PL, relating to the accounts, have PL rule numbers against them. This indicates the PL are accusing us of breaking their rules but this doesn't necessarily mean our statutory accounts are not in good faith.

One of the rules in question relates to the provision of audited accounts that give a true and fair view. That can only really mean the statutory accounts filed at Companies House. I am 100% sure we have filed accounts and provided them to the PL, so they must be saying those accounts are incorrect.

Incredible, really.

 

[South Stand Balti]

One of the rules in question relates to the provision of audited accounts that give a true and fair view. That can only really mean the statutory accounts filed at Companies House. I am 100% sure we have filed accounts and provided them to the PL, so they must be saying those accounts are incorrect.

Incredible, really.

Ah, that clarifies that then. Thanks