PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
That's actually quite interesting, although I doubt Herbert will understand why.

Clearly some of it is just simple journalistic and uninformed nonsense but, assuming he actually did hear that the panel looked at the mind-boggling complexity of the AD sponsorships (which isn't news, btw, as it was already exposed in the APT case, for Etihad at least) and if his source is using that as an indication that City may have been using complex contracts to get around FFP (rather than, say, oh I don't know, the much more serious allegation that Mansour paid the sponsorship himself) then that may be an indication that the PL's allegations over funding sponsorships failed, and their attention was instead drawn to the related party nature of the deals and their fair value as we discussed a while ago.

That is an important shift in tone imho from very serious legal fraud issues to less serious and more esoteric accounting issues and is a good one for people looking for "signs".

Of course, it may be that I, Herbert or both are all talking just plain bollocks, but I reckon this may be the first indication that the PL actually struggled with its more serious allegations as we always thought they would.
Click to expand...
Herbert is an absolute bellend of the highest order and he can't write an honest article if his life depended on it.
 
manimanc said:
Herbert is an absolute bellend of the highest order and he can't write an honest article if his life depended on it.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said he won't understand the possible importance of what he said. He was trying to dress it up as a negative, but imho it could be an important positive.

Or it's all made-up bollocks, I suppose. We will see soon enough.

:)
 
halfcenturyup said:
That's actually quite interesting, although I doubt Herbert will understand why.

Clearly some of it is just simple journalistic and uninformed nonsense but, assuming he actually did hear that the panel looked at the mind-boggling complexity of the AD sponsorships (which isn't news, btw, as it was already exposed in the APT case, for Etihad at least) and if his source is using that as an indication that City may have been using complex contracts to get around FFP (rather than, say, oh I don't know, the much more serious allegation that Mansour paid the sponsorship himself) then that may be an indication that the PL's allegations over funding sponsorships failed, and their attention was instead drawn to the related party nature of the deals and their fair value as we discussed a while ago.

That is an important shift in tone imho from very serious legal fraud issues to less serious and more esoteric accounting issues and is a good one for people looking for "signs".

Of course, it may be that I, Herbert or both are all talking just plain bollocks, but I reckon this may be the first indication that the PL actually struggled with its more serious allegations as we always thought they would.
Click to expand...
Esoteric is a great word, mate. One of my favourites.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Esoteric is a great word, mate. One of my favourites.
Click to expand...

:) I had to look it up to make sure I was using it correctly. But not bad for a lad from Droylsden, I suppose.

Happy New Year to you and yours, btw. You are, of course, one of those I always listen to for your views on the legal stuff. So thanks for educating a poor accountant over the last couple of years.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Nobody can fly without using wings every now and then.
Click to expand...
And it’s also completely correct to say that I don’t have anything like as much direct experience into the subject as someone like @slbsn who is far better placed to provide legal insight into the case.

I’m just giving my own perspective on this, based on experience, which is unquestionably worthwhile and significant, although that perspective may be somewhat…esoteric…

So I’ll chip in from time to time.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
And it’s also completely correct to say that I don’t have anything like as much direct experience into the subject as someone like @slbsn who is far better placed to provide legal insight into the case.

I’m just giving my own perspective on this, based on experience, which is unquestionably worthwhile and significant, although that perspective may be somewhat…esoteric…

So I’ll chip in from time to time.
Click to expand...

Don't worry. I sometimes pay attention to what he says as well :)
 
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.