PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
Which rule is that? I don't think the accounts are required to show related party transactions at fmv, but the PL has the right to adjust to fmv for FFP reporting purposes. Anyway, it doesn't matter.

Firstly, none of Etihad, Etisalat, Aabar, ADTA, Fordham, Mancini or Toure (which are apparently the target of the most serious allegations) are related parties, unless the PL is questioning the definition in the accounts, which would be a stretch as even UEFA didn't try that.

Secondly, on sponsorship, as far as I am aware, the fair value isn't being questioned. It certainly wasn't by UEFA at CAS and it hasn't been questioned in any of the years since 2009 by the PL, as far as I am aware.

Thirdly, the allegation with the AD sponsorships is that Mansour secretly funded the sponsorship commitments, deceived the auditors about the source of the sponsorship, filed accounts knowing them to be wrong, and then knowingly concealed these facts from the PL. Nothing to do with fair values.

The point of my post is that there is no rule saying owners can't fund sponsorships in the same way there was no rule (at the time) saying the club had to report all remuneration a manager received while under contract to the club.

But that doesn't matter. The allegations in the first tranche of allegations are that the club knowingly overstated income (sponsorship income) and understated costs (presumably Fordham, Mancini and Toure) in its filed accounts.

That is the actual situation, afaik, but I really don't have the energy to go through it again.
Click to expand...
you're in a bit of a mess with everything here. Take your time and read up on things. get your head in a clear space and start thinking like a lawyer. You're getting years and charges all mixed up
 
terraloon said:
If you look at my last post you will see that I talk about if there was a rule in place re disclosure of a managers remuneration.
If you then go to the allegations lodged by the PL is that there was indeed such rules in place for the first 2 years it was ruleQ7&Q8 and in 2012/13 it was re numbered P7&P8

I link rule P7 from the 24/25 rule book.

I repeat I haven’t looked at the rule books in place for the relevant 3 years but there most certainly is such a rule in place now
Click to expand...
ah so you're applying 2024/25 rules to 2009 to 2013 charges. I see where you've gone completely wrong.

here's the actual rule from the handbooks in question for the period.

1727440724930.png

As you can clearly see this is a slam dunk for city as it doesn't mention anything about renumeration or not having seperate contracts whatsoever. Case closed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.