PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

Straight relegation with no fine then ;)

That would affect Going Concern (the ability to continue in business as before) possibly although less certain than the financial sanction.

Again, nothing.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

I suspect that this only means that the auditors are satisfied that relegation, or its equivalent in points reduction, is not on the table. A points deduction of say 10 points or whatever is no different to the shit run of form we've just had and the possibility of poor form doesn't merit special mention.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Has anyone got the details or a link to the changes made to the ATP rules that allow City and other PL clubs to scrutinize and challenge the PL's decisions on future sponsorship deals. The wording has been amended. Thanks.

I think it's on the PL to proof their case to the club not the other way around now but don't know the exact wording

 

[halfcenturyup]

I suspect that this only means that the auditors are satisfied that relegation, or its equivalent in points reduction, is not on the table. A points deduction of say 10 points or whatever is no different to the shit run of form we've just had and the possibility of poor form doesn't merit special mention.

I would say that if the management, directors and auditors agree that relegation, a significant points deduction and a significant fine are all ruled out, then they are all very, very confident that the most serious issues won't be proven, as we all thought.

If the club comes out of it with a small points deduction and/or a small fine, who cares?

 

[Didsbury Dave]

I would say that if the management, directors and auditors agree that relegation, a significant points deduction and a significant fine are all ruled out, then they are all very, very confident that the most serious issues won't be proven, as we all thought.

If the club comes out of it with a small points deduction and/or a small fine, who cares?

I was just thinking about this. We've dropped about 15 points over Autumn already and if we don't qualify for the CL latter stages that could be $50m. I think, certainly for us fans, it's more about vindication and even a small punishment can be used to tarnish the club's greatest ever acheivements.

 

[handsofstone]

Expecting a points deduction that's manageable, between 10-20 points, a fine thays manageable and maybe a transfer ban or limit

Doubt we get relegated and doubt we get our titles stripped

Hopefully this sets a rocket up the board so they decide to make us the best team in the world again, no more pandering to neutrals about our net spend and sustainability... let's get aggressive

 

[supercity88]

I would say that if the management, directors and auditors agree that relegation, a significant points deduction and a significant fine are all ruled out, then they are all very, very confident that the most serious issues won't be proven, as we all thought.

If the club comes out of it with a small points deduction and/or a small fine, who cares?

Do they have to reference it by law? The difficulty is there's no precedent. This is an ongoing case and largely relates to previous accounts which have been audited. If the club's position is that our legal advice confirms there's no risk and we will be cleared then would auditors go out of their way to say otherwise? There's nothing to benchmark against in terms of the risk. Everton/Forest were completely different and Leicester won their case.

 

[jrb]

I think it's on the PL to proof their case to the club not the other way around now but don't know the exact wording

Wasn't it amended so the clubs had greater access and scrutiny over the PL deciding on the future club ATP sponsorship deals?

 

[rice10]

The charges are mentioned on page 8 of the report, they have not been left out of the report.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Do they have to reference it by law? The difficulty is there's no precedent. This is an ongoing case and largely relates to previous accounts which have been audited. If the club's position is that our legal advice confirms there's no risk and we will be cleared then would auditors go out of their way to say otherwise? There's nothing to benchmark against in terms of the risk. Everton/Forest were completely different and Leicester won their case.

It's standard accounting practice to evaluate contingent liabilities. Years and years of precedent. There is nothing unusual about this case in accounting terms.