I’m quite certain that’s illegal in the UK mate, so someone may have been pulling your plonker
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
Oldham Exile
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 May 2021
- Messages
- 1,052
- Team supported
- Man City
Yeah - I saw that article posted on rawkThe telegraph are now saying we will be excluded from the domestic cups as well if found guilty. They're losing the plot
They are starting to think they will be in the Club World cup
I'm pretty sure Villa tried that one not so long ago as they were close to the line, but were knocked back. Hence the creative deals they and others were doing towards the end of June.Just a general PSR question.
Can clubs not argue that the 105 losses threshold adjust due to inflation?
Not necessarily CPI inflation but the fact the clubs recieve ever increasing tv money plus increasing in competition prize money etc. That type of stuff is also inbedd into player contracts so more outlay for the club.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,072
Yeah - I saw that article posted on rawk
They are starting to think they will be in the Club World cup
Not worth thinking about. And I am talking about going on RAWK, not the article. What are you thinking?
Surely the sponsorship stuff would warrant relegation ? We are basically accused of fraud / false accountingLOL. I hope that's an ironic reply. The prospect of relegation was never a serious option, more a piece of media sensationalism.
To be expelled from the PL, or suffer something like a 70 point deduction, we'd have to have committed a very serious, wide ranging and deliberate deception against the PL, UEFA, our auditor and our commercial partners. Quite simply, we haven't done that.
If we had I'd be very shocked and would have little sympathy for those who orchestrated that.
As I said, the very worst case scenario is that we'd be in a similar position to Everton, with the the IC finding that the bulk of the Etihad sponsorship was falsely included in our revenues. In that case we could be found to have exceeded the PL PSR maximum allowable loss by a similar sum when the figures for the impacted years were re-evaluated. I seriously doubt that's going to be the case though.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,072
LOL. I hope that's an ironic reply. The prospect of relegation was never a serious option, more a piece of media sensationalism.
To be expelled from the PL, or suffer something like a 70 point deduction, we'd have to have committed a very serious, wide ranging and deliberate deception against the PL, UEFA, our auditor and our commercial partners. Quite simply, we haven't done that.
If we had I'd be very shocked and would have little sympathy for those who orchestrated that.
As I said, the very worst case scenario is that we'd be in a similar position to Everton, with the the IC finding that the bulk of the Etihad sponsorship was falsely included in our revenues. In that case we could be found to have exceeded the PL PSR maximum allowable loss by a similar sum when the figures for the impacted years were re-evaluated. I seriously doubt that's going to be the case though.
Surprised at that view, PB.
In the very worst case scenario that the bulk of the Etihad revenue was falsely included in the accounts in the way alleged, how could that have happened without the very serious, wide-ranging and deliberate deception against the PL, UEFA, the auditors and the club's commercial partners that you suggest would lead to expulsion, relegation or a large points deduction?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think they have any way of proving that for many, many reasons. I was just surprised at your thinking.
IrishBlueSince92
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 3,012
The articles flash up on my facebook and twitter, i don't click on themStop reading them then.
Facebook and twitter are the work of the devil.The articles flash up on my facebook and twitter, i don't click on them
Same as about 20 years ago I was on jury service on an assault & affray chargeI did jury service about 15 years ago now, It was actually a murder case I was on, and despite more than half of my fellow jury members believing there was a good chance the suspect was guilty we just did not have enough clear evidence to find them guilty,
Also in between breaks of being called back into the courtroom ( of which there was a lot as the judge loved to call for a break every 2 hours lol) I got speaking to people on jury service on another case and some of them had lost there jobs as they had been on this particular fraud case for over over 6 months,
Apparently fraud cases are the worse ones for coming to a conclusion as there is usually so many people involved, money trails, different accounts, different countries, various forms of communication, that in the end quite a few of the cases end up collapsing or the people involved being given a not guilty verdict
I always remember the judge and his closing speech to us jury members before we left for the deliberation room, he said ( you must be 100% in your decision, if there is any shed of doubt then you must return a not guilty verdict)
I wonder if this independent panel will work to the same remit, if not 100% in us being guilty then they have to drop all the charges against us,
I actually think that if we get cleared on the main 3 charges then the rest will collapse,
The person said they acted in self defence
The prosecution couldn't convince us it wasn't self defence so we came to not guilty
We were pretty sure the person should have been found guilty of something but the prosecution couldn't prove there case
Again judge said if you have any doubt it must be not guilty
What I don't getIn terms of PSR and inflated or incorrectly recorded sponsorships -
There's an argument that the sponsorship was £60m pa and sheikh mansour or a closely related party paid all but 8m of it.
Let's presume that's found to be true.
Would that mean the accounts would be down marked by £52m so we would fail PSR for those years?
Surely if we sponsored by Amazon or Tesco instead, they would have paid us a lot mroe than £8m so how is it judged how much we failed by?
Say a third party gave Etihad the money for sponsorship
How is that City's problem ? Or is that to simple
Gaz (FMwkdsoul)
Well-Known Member
think they need to prove that 3rd party is the sheik for this to stick (as i understand it). without the sponsor opening the books ive no idea how they make the case without a whistleblower etcWhat I don't get
Say a third party gave Etihad the money for sponsorship
How is that City's problem ? Or is that to simple