PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Gorton_Tubster]

some embarrasing replies on here

 

[Chappie]

Some embarrassing theories on here.

 

[oakiecokie]

Sum embarising speling and shit all so.

 

[Barcon]

Wibble

 

[slbsn]

As you know only too well yourself Stefan, an auditor's signature below a positive audit opinion on a set of accounts is no guarantee that those accounts are actually legitimate. Even when that opinion is supplied by supposedly reputable firms like, say, KPMG, to pick a name at random. ;-)

That’s not what the post says. It’s premise is the accounts are “perfectly legitimate”.

And btw I don’t agree it’s easy to get a positive audit opinion where the red flags have been raised in a very high profile company. In fact, in those scenarios companies often can’t satisfy auditors’ heightened professional scepticism so, even if a firm has historically signed off, they are forced to resign. This idea that audits happen in a vacuum is a nonsense. For years BDO have had their technical people asking for more and more comfort from the directors of City. I don’t know this from sources, I know this from absolute basic compliance requirements at professional firms.

The idea BDO haven’t asked all the tricky questions when the club has been in focus of regulators and leaks for a decade where the allegation is that the accounts are a fiction is a nonsense theory. If City are liable, BDO are either part of the cover up (they aren’t) or are another party that’s been outright lied to. But they simply must have asked many questions and been shown many key documents.

 

[Lord Blue]

If I might add. Beer is pretty cool

 

[Stoned Rose]

I don't disagree, but at the same time there's another legal team who believe there's merit in the PL's case, unless they are ignoring counsel's advice.
Could there be a case that the PL don't see much merit, but want to at least be seen to have taken us to task. If they lose, then so be it, they can claim to have done their utmost and let public opinion still deem we 'wangled it' somehow.

With the APT ruling we won a very significant argument regarding loans, but we didn't win every point. Some of the subjective beliefs about Middle Eastern ownership were not deemed to be valid.

It would be a wonderful outcome if not a single allegation can be substantiated. It would be a perfect outcome if we could disprove each allegation. However, I think it's fairly reasonable to wonder what the other side is coming at us with and if the panel may interpret some things negatively.
The hurried and erroneous manner in which the charges were initially published leads me to believe they were brought forward in haste. The PL must have been under pressure from within and/or without. Hopefully, that's reflected in their case, but I'm still anticipating they'll get something to stick. The old 'throw enough mud' approach. It's worked with the general public and no panel is entirely infallible.

This “throw enough mud” theory is nonsense.

Any breach will have to be shown to be proven on the balance of probabilities with full and frank legally sound reasons given.

There is no world where the panel think “they’ve done fuck all wrong but to keep Dave from Leeds happy we’ll have to find something to stick”.

That’s just not a thing.

 

[wolviedinho]

Anyone who calls our owners liars and cheats…

Show me concrete, unmistakable evidence of an act of falsification.

Anything at all? Not emails, not innuendos, not made up bullshit.

Black and white facts? Anyone?

Didn’t think so.

Carry on blues.

 

[FanchesterCity]

This “throw enough mud” theory is nonsense.

Any breach will have to be shown to be proven on the balance of probabilities with full and frank legally sound reasons given.

There is no world where the panel think “they’ve done fuck all wrong but to keep Dave from Leeds happy we’ll have to find something to stick”.

That’s just not a thing.

That wasn't the intended implication.
The 'throw enough mud' was the sheer number of allegations made, admittedly many of them multiple instances across different periods.
Of course they'll have to be substantiated, but it does have a feel of 'hit them from multiple angles and if we don't win on allegation x, we have allegation y and z to go at'.
There is also the PR effect of 115 almost setting the scene for 'repeated offenses' and 'blatant disregard'. That number of allegations has a tangible effect on the public perception. It adds impact to headlines and regardless of the judgment, some of the negative PR will stick.

 

[mexico1970]

When we get the all clear from the Kangaroo tribunal we may be not guilty by the people who matter but even if that's written in the next Kings speech it'll still be the stick other fans and the media beat us with.

Unless the club show some balls and start throwing a few twats in front of the courts and suing them for all they are worth.