Mate, you may occasionally dampen down some of the positive hyperbole on here (and well done to you for doing so by the way, it’s never a bad thing to have a more realistic voice in the thread) but every now and then you come out with a true zinger like this post.This isn’t the point you think it is. This proves that this information was known publicly by 2013. It also means BDO will have asked themselves at that point (even if they hadn’t before) if the classification in the audit was correct. Likewise even having seen the PLs position in this case, they clearly agreed with City’s position as demonstrated by the 15th(?) year of audited accounts concluding those entities are not RPs.
The idea the PL can revisit an arguable (ie subjective) accounting standards point for years outside the limitation period but chose not to
pursue either at the time or for the years from 2018 to 2024 is obviously wrong.
Furthermore, the very extension of the RP rules to APTs demonstrates that the PL did not have the necessary power to demonstrate the audits have all been wrong.
And even if these parties are RPs, the idea that the PL could now a decade on (or more) demonstrate these deals were not FMV is fanciful especially when some of them aren’t even material.
You are looking very troll like.
Take some up keep them waterfallsI’ll guess they’ll be about £150m in ‘stadium maintenance’
Nerdiest mic drop everThis isn’t the point you think it is. This proves that this information was known publicly by 2013. It also means BDO will have asked themselves at that point (even if they hadn’t before) if the classification in the audit was correct. Likewise even having seen the PLs position in this case, they clearly agreed with City’s position as demonstrated by the 15th(?) year of audited accounts concluding those entities are not RPs.
The idea the PL can revisit an arguable (ie subjective) accounting standards point for years outside the limitation period but chose not to
pursue either at the time or for the years from 2018 to 2024 is obviously wrong.
Furthermore, the very extension of the RP rules to APTs demonstrates that the PL did not have the necessary power to demonstrate the audits have all been wrong.
And even if these parties are RPs, the idea that the PL could now a decade on (or more) demonstrate these deals were not FMV is fanciful especially when some of them aren’t even material.
You are looking very troll like.
Mouse food doesn’t come cheap either.Take some up keep them waterfalls
PSR is an automatic process. You submit your accounts and add back any allowable expenses. But yes, if they exceed the £105m maximum allowable loss then the PL should investigate. That's when they bring in Stevie Wonder to scrutinise the rags' accounts.
You explained it to him far better than I did!This isn’t the point you think it is. This proves that this information was known publicly by 2013. It also means BDO will have asked themselves at that point (even if they hadn’t before) if the classification in the audit was correct. Likewise even having seen the PLs position in this case, they clearly agreed with City’s position as demonstrated by the 15th(?) year of audited accounts concluding those entities are not RPs.
The idea the PL can revisit an arguable (ie subjective) accounting standards point for years outside the limitation period but chose not to
pursue either at the time or for the years from 2018 to 2024 is obviously wrong.
Furthermore, the very extension of the RP rules to APTs demonstrates that the PL did not have the necessary power to demonstrate the audits have all been wrong.
And even if these parties are RPs, the idea that the PL could now a decade on (or more) demonstrate these deals were not FMV is fanciful especially when some of them aren’t even material.
You are looking very troll like.
Agreed, it is the allowable expenses and exceptional payments where the issue is.
I would love to see a published list from the PL.
Just wait until United's next bout of imagination is filed under accounts.
I think you've answered your own question there.Part of the 2014 Settlement Agreement with UEFA was that City don't increase the value of - IIRC - two second-tier sponsorship deals over a specified period of time. Now I don't know who those deals were with but I think we can safely guess that Etisalat and Aabar were the two companies involved so in terms of related parties and FMV it was dealt with over a decade ago and shouldn't become an issue now unless the PL want to be utter cunts about it.
Prestwich_Blue said:
PSR is an automatic process. You submit your accounts and add back any allowable expenses. But yes, if they exceed the £105m maximum allowable loss then the PL should investigate. That's when they bring in Stevie Wonder to scrutinise the rags' accounts.
Why did nobody else flag up the £75million in alliances United got away with, It was washed and brushed under the carpet quickly, Clearly Fudged and based on losses on COVID 19 match day revenue, also the sales of shares to Jim will fix it was for legal fees again nothing to do with the club but the Glazers