PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[M18CTID]

The narrative of our enemies has changed from “City and their Arab owners are cheats who must be relegated” to “ Their finances are too complex to understand. They must have something to hide.” Smells like good news to me.

Assuming Herbert hasn’t just made it up of course

 

[Newman Noggs]

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

I'm sure Mai Fyfield found the time during her round-the-clock work on our sponsorship deals to scrutinise united's claims of Covid losses.

 

[M18CTID]

It's like when someone says "Well we all sign up for the rules" it just isn't true because as you point out they bend the rules.

Like the money the vermin were putting away for a new ground to avoid FFP and a ground wasn't even built EVEN NOW.

£35 million to stick a spade in the ground in Stanley Park. Sounds like fair value to me. I wonder what the losing bid was ;)

 

[JewelZee]

Just a coincidence. After all, they said they'd been thinking about them for years (even though there was nothing documented to show that). And it was coincidence that someone happened to mention Middle Eastern owners in an email, when they were really referring to any foreign owners with good connections.

OK, but many "coincidences" are planned...

 

[halfcenturyup]

Just a coincidence. After all, they said they'd been thinking about them for years (even though there was nothing documented to show that). And it was coincidence that someone happened to mention Middle Eastern owners in an email, when they were really referring to any foreign owners with good connections.

Actually, they said they had been thinking about it since 2018 (I wonder why then) although there was no evidence to back it up. They also said the UEFA / CAS story "had brought to light the potential" for abusing RPTs even though UEFA accepted the sponsors weren't RPTs and were at FMV. Their other argument for APTs was the 115 case and the hearing hadn't even started then.

Seriously, their arguments for APTs were ridiculously weak and why the club didn't push back isn't clear so far.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Just a question, why then did the Prem wait for the Saudi takeover of Newcastle to implement the new APT rules? They may well be raising questions in the 115 as you say but for me that would be more of what I call retroactive bullshit.

Because, as you say, their arguments were bullshit ....

 

[BerkshireBlue]

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.

Wasn't it a sponsor refusing to pay up. Not sure how that was put down as an exemption though

 

[M18CTID]

I was just answering a question about the effect if the PL succeeded in changing the nature of the Etihad transaction, for example, to an RPT.

But yes, it's all speculation. No-one knows anything. You do agree, though, that the fact he has this "understanding" suddenly and chooses to share it is interesting?

Edit: And just to be clear, I never said RPTs and FMVs are the key allegations, the key (most serious) allegations are presumably the funding of the sponsorships and its effect on the accounts. I do think it's likely they have been included in the PL's Statement of Facts, though. It's fine if you don't share that view.

Surely the Premier League can’t just retrospectively declare that Etihad are a Related Party. That would be some serious straw-clutching. Even UEFA didn’t pursue that one too much but at least when they were in discussions with City about it, it was being done in real time.

 

[dadnlad]

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

HI RICK is David here about this short fall
Hi Dave no worries x

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Actually, they said they had been thinking about it since 2018 (I wonder why then) although there was no evidence to back it up. They also said the UEFA / CAS story "had brought to light the potential" for abusing RPTs even though UEFA accepted the sponsors weren't RPTs and were at FMV. Their other argument for APTs was the 115 case and the hearing hadn't even started then.

Seriously, their arguments for APTs were ridiculously weak and why the club didn't push back isn't clear so far.

The related party issue was mentioned but not tested at CAS. It was disputed as part of the original settlement in 2014 but no consensus or decision was reached.

So it's never been tested but, as I said, as long as it's FMV then it's irrelevant in any material way.

I do agree that the PL seemed to get an easy ride over some of its evidence though.