PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[CC1]

Honestly, I don’t know why you do this to yourselves. United haven’t had shareholder money for more than a decade aside from Ratcliffe which would have been checked by English lawyers. All of the money has been loans from well established institutions. There is no story here.

Yeah. Guess you’re right but it’s hard to trust a club that raves about an upcoming summer tour that’s going to take in a whole £8m when they successfully had millions more written off their accounts for a summer tour that’s had to be cancelled because of Covid restrictions - thus scraping through FFP

 

[Chappie]

He can’t Handel the truth.

Probably because he's Brahms and Listz

 

[slbsn]

Yeah. Guess you’re right but it’s hard to trust a club that raves about an upcoming summer tour that’s going to take in a whole £8m when they successfully had millions more written off their accounts for a summer tour that’s had to be cancelled because of Covid restrictions - thus scraping through FFP

I think it’s a different point. United convinced the PL as to £40m of Covid costs via an audited statement. Whilst i struggle to see how they got £40m, I don’t think it’s case of hiding things - it’s a case of convincing the PL and making specific representations. It will have reconciled to their audited numbers as it was extracted from them.

 

[give it to gordon]

I think it’s a different point. United convinced the PL as to £40m of Covid costs via an audited statement. Whilst i struggle to see how they got £40m, I don’t think it’s case of hiding things - it’s a case of convincing the PL and making specific representations. It will have reconciled to their audited numbers as it was extracted from them.

I guess utd didnt need to hide anything as they put Masters in his job and he is just doing what those people want.

 

[Norbiton]

Probably because he's Brahms and Listz

I give up, on a Haydn to nothing.

 

[johnnytapia]

Just to add to this issue of offshore funding, when we bought Sergio from Atletico, the agreement involved payment in instalments. I think it was something like one-third down upfront and the balance over two years.

Atletico did what many other clubs do, and 'sold' the future instalments in exchange for a one-off payment. That payment came from an offshore trust and the PL would not register the transfer until they had clarity over the actual source of the funds. This is standard in Anti-Money Laundering processes (unless you're Standard Chartered of course).

There was a bit of a stand-off though, as one of the points of an offshore trust can be to hide beneficial ownership. Eventually it was revealed that it was the owner of what was described as "an eponymous chain of bookmakers". I hazarded a guess it was Fred Done but I think the proceeds of the trust came from a sale of the chain, and I think him and Peter still own their shops.

It doesn't matter who the individual is though. The point is that the PL were not prepared to register the transfer due to unattributed offshore funds being involved. And they were able to get the information they wanted, despite the presumed secrecy of an offshore trust.

Fred Done was always paying out on Serge.

 

[halfcenturyup]

This issue of whether Etihad, Etisalat or any other Abu Dhabi company is a related party is a complete red herring.

The accounts aren't rendered fraudulent or misleading if they are deemed to be, and we didn't declare them as such. The definition of an RP is partly subjective but there's no obvious way that Etihad and Sheikh Mansour are related parties. Etihad and City definitely aren't.

The red cartel have got their knickers in a twist over this, and I suspect that at least partly due to them wanting to see the value of the Etihad sponsorship (assuming we'd have to declare that if it was an RPT).

FFP allows investment, including via commercial sponsorships, from owners and other related parties, as long as these are deemed to be at FMV. PSR doesn't say anything about this. CAS said that (at the time of that hearing) that Etihad was FMV and not disguised equity funding. As long as that's the case, the issue of whether it's an RPT is irrelevant.

Of course, I agree with all that, and I am not at all worried by it.

But my question isn't whether they will succeed in questioning the ownership structure / RPT classification, but whether they are questioning these things in the 115 case.

I think it's more than likely they are.

I read through paragraphs 180 to 189 of the APT judgment again just now and I find it hard to conclude that the redacted part of paragraph 186 is anything other than a description of allegations in the 115 case concerning the abuse of RPTs as justification for the need for APTs. Imho, it wouldn't be there if it wasn't.

And RPTs are specifically referred to in the PL statement on the allegations, after all.

But I recognise I am the only one here who thinks that. And I could easily be wrong. No problem. We will see soon enough, I suppose.

 

[CC1]

I think it’s a different point. United convinced the PL as to £40m of Covid costs via an audited statement. Whilst i struggle to see how they got £40m, I don’t think it’s case of hiding things - it’s a case of convincing the PL and making specific representations. It will have reconciled to their audited numbers as it was extracted from them.

Absolutely but they find it so much easier to convince the Pl than we do :-)

 

[JewelZee]

Exactly press/media don't seem to understand what a guilty City means to some of the world's biggest companies. Even an innocent City means these companies have been investigated and accused of fraud.
If these companies come after the pl for damages it would bankrupt the pl.

It's strange that the press/media don't report on this.

Much worse than strange...

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Of course, I agree with all that, and I am not at all worried by it.

But my question isn't whether they will succeed in questioning the ownership structure / RPT classification, but whether they are questioning these things in the 115 case.

I think it's more than likely they are.

I read through paragraphs 180 to 189 of the APT judgment again just now and I find it hard to conclude that the redacted part of paragraph 186 is anything other than a description of allegations in the 115 case concerning the abuse of RPTs as justification for the need for APTs. Imho, it wouldn't be there if it wasn't.

And RPTs are specifically referred to in the PL statement on the allegations, after all.

But I recognise I am the only one here who thinks that. And I could easily be wrong. No problem. We will see soon enough, I suppose.

You're not the only one. I certainly agree with you that there's a common thread between the APT case we brought, and some of the charges brought by the PL, and that is related parties. In fact the PL charges specifically mention related parties as part of the first group of charges don't they?

I initially dismissed any link between the two but the published verdict from the APT case changed my mind. It was clear that certain clubs had an issue over this. But, as I said, even in the unlikely event Etihad was deemed by the IC to be a related party, that still doesn't make their sponsorship equity investment.