PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[manimanc]

Why would it be done and dusted tonight? All I'm talking about is pre 2014, for some reason you seem to think the charges are all the same for every season. The main charges are from 2015 to 2017 and these charges are where the fraud element kicks in. The wording of rules the 2014/2015 are below for removal of doubt for you


E.53. Each Club shall by 1 March in each Season submit to the Secretary: E.53.1. copies of its Annual Accounts for T-1 (and T-2 if these have not previously been submitted to the Secretary) together with copies of the directors’ report(s) and auditors’ report(s) on those accounts; E.53.2. its estimated profit and loss account and balance sheet for T which shall: E.53.2.1. be prepared in all material respects in a format similar to the Club’s Annual Accounts; and E.53.2.2. be based on the latest information available to the Club and be, to the best of the Club’s knowledge and belief, an accurate estimate as at the time of preparation of future financial performance; and E.53.3. if Rule E.56 applies to the Club, the calculation of its aggregated Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 in a form approved by the Board

E.54. The Board shall determine whether consideration included in the Club’s Earnings Before Tax arising from a Related Party Transaction is recorded in the Club’s Annual Accounts at a Fair Market Value. If it is not, the Board shall restate it to Fair Market Value.

E.55. The Board shall not exercise its power set out in Rule E.54 without first having given the Club reasonable opportunity to make submissions as to: E.55.1. whether the said consideration should be restated; and/or E.55.2. what constitutes its Fair Market Value.

E.56. If the aggregation of a Club’s Earnings Before Tax for T-1 and T-2 results in a loss, any consideration from Related Party Transactions having been adjusted (if appropriate) pursuant to Rule E.54, then the Club must submit to the Secretary the calculation of its Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for each of T, T-1 and T-2.

E.57. If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in a loss of up to £15m, then the Board shall determine whether the Club will, until the end of T+1, be able to pay its liabilities described in Rule E.14.7.1 and fulfill the obligations set out in Rules E.14.7.2 and E.14.7.3.

E.58. If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in a loss of in excess of £15m then the following shall apply: E.58.1. the Club shall provide, by 31 March in the relevant Season, Future Financial Information to cover the period commencing from its last accounting reference date (as defined in section 391 of the Act) until the end of T+2 and a calculation of estimated aggregated Adjusted Earnings Before Tax until the end of T+2 based on that Future Financial Information; E.58.2. the Club shall provide such evidence of Secure Funding as the Board considers sufficient; and E.58.3. if the Club is unable to provide evidence of Secure Funding as set out in Rule E.58.2, the Board may exercise its powers set out in Rule E.15.

E.59. If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in losses of in excess of £105m: E.59.1. the Board may exercise its powers set out in Rule E.15; and E.59.2. the Club shall be treated as being in breach of these Rules and accordingly the Board shall refer the breach to a Commission constituted pursuant to Section W of these Rules.

If we've committed fraud in 2015 then HMRC need to get a move on.
Remember Barca getting raided for alleged corrupt payments to refs and officials, police did a search and seize of their offices.
Have our offices been raided yet? After all we're being accused of fraud and fiddling figures.

Or what about this?

Italian police RAID Juventus' club offices amid transfer probe

Six officials from the Italian club are under investigation, as well as Juventus itself. Those officials include club president Andrea Agnelli and vice-president Pavel Nedved.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Why haven't the police got involved yet? Aren't we committing a crime lying to everyone about facts and figures?

Absolute bullshit from the Premier League, they haven't got a leg to stand on and they know it. This is the bullies in the playground pushing the shy kid with the glasses to go and start a fight with the biggest and smartest kid in the classroom.

As for the Premier League and their witnesses I can only imagine someone standing up, pointing at our lawyers and shouting them they're guilty, arrest them.

 

[Brendan110_0]

The best evidence of our innocence is the silence, no whistle-blowers, former players, managers, ex-executive staff. If we'd have conspired to do what we're accused of over 15 years, well, just think rationally.

 

[Stoned Rose]

@slbsn To what extemt will our strategy be defensive/offensive. In the past Khaldoon has stated City will have plenty to say about the cartel influence on the PL. I don't think for one moment he meant an interview on Sky Sports. The IC could be the perfect forum were we finally go on an all out attack against the red cartel and their puppet "Masters'. To hell with any negative PR, it would be impossible to be worse as far as direct rivals are concerned, but could win over some neutrals. I'm just curious if you think it will be entirely passive defensive ie just rebutting the charges and not the politics that truly motivated them.

This case is about us and our alleged actions. That’s it.

We will not be using whataboutery in our defence.

 

[slbsn]

Would each side have sight of each other's evidence before it all started?

Yes - detailed written arguments with references to their key documents will have been swapped a couple of weeks back

 

[Stoned Rose]

Would each side have sight of each other's evidence before it all started?

Yes via disclosure bundles.

 

[pauls]

After his performance in Bennel Victims v MCFC, where the judge eviscerated his ridiculous impersonation of a 'financial expert' he's probably decided to give this one a miss. Thats where he revealed his mind bending knowledge of the cut/paste feature in MS Excel.
In fact, calling him would be the legal equivalent of putting David James on as striker, when you are desperate for a goal and with only five minutes left on the clock...

Perhaps we could call Beany the Horse as a witness, more clued up than Harris!

 

[halfcenturyup]

Why would it be done and dusted tonight? All I'm talking about is pre 2014, for some reason you seem to think the charges are all the same for every season. The main charges are from 2015 to 2017 and these charges are where the fraud element kicks in. The wording of rules the 2014/2015 are below for removal of doubt for you


E.53. Each Club shall by 1 March in each Season submit to the Secretary: E.53.1. copies of its Annual Accounts for T-1 (and T-2 if these have not previously been submitted to the Secretary) together with copies of the directors’ report(s) and auditors’ report(s) on those accounts; E.53.2. its estimated profit and loss account and balance sheet for T which shall: E.53.2.1. be prepared in all material respects in a format similar to the Club’s Annual Accounts; and E.53.2.2. be based on the latest information available to the Club and be, to the best of the Club’s knowledge and belief, an accurate estimate as at the time of preparation of future financial performance; and E.53.3. if Rule E.56 applies to the Club, the calculation of its aggregated Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 in a form approved by the Board

E.54. The Board shall determine whether consideration included in the Club’s Earnings Before Tax arising from a Related Party Transaction is recorded in the Club’s Annual Accounts at a Fair Market Value. If it is not, the Board shall restate it to Fair Market Value.

E.55. The Board shall not exercise its power set out in Rule E.54 without first having given the Club reasonable opportunity to make submissions as to: E.55.1. whether the said consideration should be restated; and/or E.55.2. what constitutes its Fair Market Value.

E.56. If the aggregation of a Club’s Earnings Before Tax for T-1 and T-2 results in a loss, any consideration from Related Party Transactions having been adjusted (if appropriate) pursuant to Rule E.54, then the Club must submit to the Secretary the calculation of its Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for each of T, T-1 and T-2.

E.57. If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in a loss of up to £15m, then the Board shall determine whether the Club will, until the end of T+1, be able to pay its liabilities described in Rule E.14.7.1 and fulfill the obligations set out in Rules E.14.7.2 and E.14.7.3.

E.58. If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in a loss of in excess of £15m then the following shall apply: E.58.1. the Club shall provide, by 31 March in the relevant Season, Future Financial Information to cover the period commencing from its last accounting reference date (as defined in section 391 of the Act) until the end of T+2 and a calculation of estimated aggregated Adjusted Earnings Before Tax until the end of T+2 based on that Future Financial Information; E.58.2. the Club shall provide such evidence of Secure Funding as the Board considers sufficient; and E.58.3. if the Club is unable to provide evidence of Secure Funding as set out in Rule E.58.2, the Board may exercise its powers set out in Rule E.15.

E.59. If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in losses of in excess of £105m: E.59.1. the Board may exercise its powers set out in Rule E.15; and E.59.2. the Club shall be treated as being in breach of these Rules and accordingly the Board shall refer the breach to a Commission constituted pursuant to Section W of these Rules.

I know the rules. Those are the rules to do with reporting for FFP from the 2015/16 season, which in the list of referred alleged breaches are consequential, and even in a separate tranche, to the most serious allegations of preparing and approving accounts the directors knew to be materially wrong, deceiving the auditors into giving a true and fair opinion, and deliberately filing these incorrect accounts, in bad faith, with the PL as if they were true and fair. All of those allegations of filing incorrect accounts in bad faith are as valid pre-FFP as they are post-FFP. Again you are looking at the wording of various rules without taking into account the overall context.

Anyway, I said I would leave you to it, so please continue.

 

[slbsn]

This case is about us and our alleged actions. That’s it.

We will not be using whataboutery in our defence.

I agree although there may be some elements of the defence based on prior/contemporaneous knowledge eg showing the PL knew about Mancinis consultancy maybe or Fordham etc. So could be extracting that confirmation from the PL. And perhaps something relevant on cooperation. Maybe

 

[Manchester_lalala]

Will be interesting to see who the Premier League bring in as witnesses.

Jamie Carragher and Nick Harris.

 

[M18CTID]

I think that any sort of long and planned, detailed defensive statement from Khaldoon would make him look a bit weak and out of character. He’s always come across as a classy guy, I hope he stays that way if we come out of this hearing clean. Never stoop to their level, no matter how much shit we have to take.

I would expect some feisty words from him, particularly about the coordinated attack on City, which has been finally proved to be true seeing as we’ve been cleared by another set of judges despite the mass amounts of scrutiny. But anyone wishing that he will be name dropping every person involved is being fanciful. Tebas will probably be brought up though, the fat ugly, toad look alike ****.

Yep. Any name-dropping/attacks on other clubs should be saved for after the hearing and only if we’re cleared of course.