cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 9,679
A judge did tell him he wasn’t an expert!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
A judge did tell him he wasn’t an expert!
It is not only difficult it is completely impossible for an outside entity to determine fair market value, the market sets the value that is the nature of economics and it is baffling to me how this continues to be a talking point.IIRC during the podcast when harris was talking about the etihad deal, he eluded to as you point out about the irregular amounts being that the deal was increasing with several new deals being signed off and he questioned the fair market value aspect of it, however, @slbsn seemed to agree that this was the case and argue with him it is very difficult to determine fair market value. Stefan didn't appear to correct him with what you are stating here.
I may be wrong and would gladly stand corrected.
Can't underestimate how much I'm sure we all appreciate the efforts of those with knowledge of the situation and/or the workings of the process but I do feel as if we need a dumbed down version of events alongside such things, for the simpletons like me.
nmc
Well-Known Member
There are no words to describe how shite this article and headline is. Total incompetence. The MEN is just a laughing stock. A whole story built on a throwaway comment from a total moron with zero understanding of finance and legal issues.
Written by a 14 year old Chelsea fan from Peterborough. Absolute prick who needs to be taught a lesson in respect. The MUEN are one of those organisations that just when you think they cant descend any lower…. They do.
City are not guilty, this is a sham brought about by red top morons, will that do?Can't underestimate how much I'm sure we all appreciate the efforts of those with knowledge of the situation and/or the workings of the process but I do feel as if we need a dumbed down version of events alongside such things, for the simpletons like me.
the MUEN hit rock bottom and started diggingWritten by a 14 year old Chelsea fan from Peterborough. Absolute prick who needs to be taught a lesson in respect. The MUEN are one of those organisations that just when you think they cant descend any lower…. They do.
Here it is.Can't underestimate how much I'm sure we all appreciate the efforts of those with knowledge of the situation and/or the workings of the process but I do feel as if we need a dumbed down version of events alongside such things, for the simpletons like me.
1. City have been very creative as regards FFP, business practices, ground development, transfers and more besides, massively increasing our income.
The redshirts, pissed off at losing revenue as we pushed them out of the CL, have persuaded Masters to mount a campaign to nobble us. Their PR effort involves a lot of lies which their supporters in the media happily repeat. We are about to win the case they have brought against us and end the career of Masters, who is bricking it.
2. The PL changed their rules to ensure our sponsorships were downgraded. We finally got pissed off with them and are suing them for unfair practices.
3. City are the best team in the land and all the world. It infuriates the redshirts who are a bit crap and have one PL title between them since the year dot.
Last edited:
Matt Diablo
Well-Known Member
Starts 6th September finishes exactly 12 weeks later (6th Dec). INDEPENDANT judges show all January 2025.When are the key dates again for the rest of the year in terms of the case(s). I'm confused. thanks.
Happy New Year!
Norman kneejerk
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2011
- Messages
- 1,089
Very interesting thanks.That wasn't specifically set out in black and white iirc but even if not, it's a pretty safe assumption. In their submission to CAS, City talked about the 'accruals basis' of accounting, which is separate to the cash payments. That means if Etihad contract to pay us £60m a year over 10 years, we'll record £60m a year in the accounts, regardless of whether the cashflow is £60m a year or not.
If Etihad paid us £200m in year one, we'd still show that as £60m revenue in the P&L account, with £140m as deferred revenue in the balance sheet. If they paid us nothing the following year, we'd again show £60m revenue, but with deferred revenue of £80m.
So when Harris was going on about us under-stating the Etihad revenue, when he added up three years cash receipts and divided by three, he clearly had no idea about accruals accounting. The timing of the cashflow is irrelevant.
I do recall Gary Cook talking about us accelerating player investment planned for future years so maybe this is what it was.
Last edited: