Jim Tolmie's Underpants
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Jun 2007
- Messages
- 4,407
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
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,408
Let's just remind ourselves of one of the key charges, which (to pick one year, 2012/13) involves Rule E3. This rule says:
"Each club shall by 1st March in each season submit to the Secretary a copy of its annual accounts.......(such accounts to be prepared and audited in accordance with applicable legal & regulatory requirements) together with a copy of the Directors' Report for that year and a copy of the auditors' report on those accounts."
I've missed a bit in the middle out but that's the rule - to submit audited accounts for the prior year by March 1st of the following year. So unless we didn't do that (which is highly, highly unlikely) then the IC simply can't find us to have breached that rule. There's nothing in E3 about accuracy, or anything else, and as we saw from the Leicester appeal, the PL can't rely on a defence of "Well what we really meant was...."
If we submitted properly prepared accounts, then we aren't in breach of Rule E3.
There's also the rule about acting in utmost good faith. If we took good legal and financial advice to ensure we acted properly, then how could we not have acted in utmost good faith? I reckon at least half the charges will have gone out of the window by the end of the month.
Tbf to the PL (yes, I know), I think it is the combination of the good faith and the filing accounts rules, taken together which they will be pushing. They are alleging the filed accounts, together with their true and fair view audit opinion, were filed in bad faith by the directors because they knew the accounts didn't give a true and fair view. That is clearly a very serious allegation.
I have more of a problem with the overall description of that tranche of allegations: "complete and accurate to give a true and fair view". There is no requirement for the accounts or future financial information to be complete and accurate. That is impossible. The requirement for accounts is that they must show a true and fair view (to get a clean audit opinion) and the requirement for future financial information is that it should be prepared on a consistent basis with the accounts with which it is being compared. There is also no requirement that future financial information should give a true and fair view because, quite simply, the future hasn't happened yet. Poorly written, imho.
That said, your hypothesis can equally be applied to the manager and player remuneration allegations. The club will most likely have complied with the manager remuneration rules of the time which were simply that there should be a contract with a few pre-defined clauses. Similarly, the club will most likely have complied with the player remuneration rules of the time which were simply that a player's contract must include all his remuneration. That would presumably have been done for any players included in the Fordham arrangement. The one area I am unclear on is the Touré situation, where it appears there was a separate ADUG contract with Seluk. And for this tranche of allegations there is no mention of the acting in good faith rule.
Anyway, just a few thoughts. We will see in due course.
salfordbluetrue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Jul 2013
- Messages
- 4,084
As far as i know, it is the same people that said it was starting in November, who then changed their minds, and said September, now September is nearly half way through, decided Monday? I will run with SB who said the legal teams would have to be booked in for the actual time. And my view is that to move it forward, would mean one side or the other has lost a large chunk of the case, so speeding the process up. So we will see if it happens?I’m surprised Sky sports aren’t making a big deal of the hearing starting Monday!
YesterdayJermaine Pennant doesn’t know his own date of birth.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,408
No.
Edit: Sorry, been answered before. Proud to have my answer word for word the same as our esteemed lawyer, though. I must be learning :)
Last edited:
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
After a few hours kip I have woken up and still believe the red tops and a healthy pack of water carriers will form their own league after we are exonerated.
Sk@mcfc
Well-Known Member
Who cares what the public think we will be cleared that’s all that mattersThere's nothing in what I wrote that isn't true, it's a fuck up of huge proportions. We will be guilty in the eyes of the public come what may.
If you don't believe that? wipe the porridge from your eyes.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,408
After a few hours kip I have woken up and still believe the red tops and a healthy pack of water carriers will form their own league after we are exonerated.
I don't see how they could do that, although I can agree they will be using it to try to drum up fan support for a super league. And they will fail.
Because they will be confusing rabid fan rivalry with the passionate hate there is for a super league. Why? Because they don't understand football and football fans, imho.
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
Who cares what the public think we will be cleared that’s all that matters
What matters is the aftermath of the decision, it doesn't matter if we are guilty or not because the red tops wont tolerate either us or the Geordies in the competition.
What matters is that there might not be a competition to compete in.