PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[give it to gordon]

So United failed Uefa FFP and was fined, So will the Premier League Open up a case against United

Also, if I create a fake hacked email and state I have found United had broken the rules with the Carlos Tevez loan and 3rd party ownership and payments were made to the 3rd party, City had to buy out Carlos Tevez ownership from KIa because you are not allowed 3rd party ownership in the Premier League, West Ham was punished for that reason
so how did United get around that for 2 seasons,

​

I really hope once this case is finished City bring up these points and demand rags and overs are investigated.
If other clubs support City than the pl can't just brush it under the carpet.

It stinks that the press/media, the pl all ignore the dodge deals between the rags and the pl

 

[WRicko]

They sent them an audit schedule showing multiple categories where they claim they lost £40m

So when you went on talkSPORT and implied the figures they used seemed a bit high dodgy and and then subsequently went on and ignored there situation you where wrong to bring attention to it the first time round as it’s all above board and squeaky clean ? And what’s more it’s always followed the same procedure so you didn’t know what the procedure was ? Or raised it anyway because ? And rowed back from it because ?

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

You also believe this case will review the audited accounting treatment of Aabar, Etisalat and Etihad as related parties and attempt to FMV the value of those contracts 2009-2018 rerunning the publicly known work of UEFA before 2014 and contrary to the position established in CAS? Be specific.

If you are right BDO were bonkers allowing City to put out the 23/24 numbers early because there is no doubt BDO had access to the PLs opening and expert reports on these points before signing off the accounts.

It depends on the level of integrity one attributes to this whole process, I suppose. Personally, I'm inclined to be wary of an organisation, whose CEO had to be 'wined and dined' at the Swamp and Anfield and given their 'seal of approval' prior to being elected to his post, then needlessly announced our charges tally as being 115, rather than the 6 it should have been, and then selected an Arsenal supporting judge to in turn select the hearing panel.
I know you will put the last of the above (if not all) down to paranoia, but I'm with @halfcenturyup. The PL has thrown all its resources at this and seems hell bent on securing whatever kind of conviction they can get their hands on. Attempting to retrospectively re-examine the related party angle of our sponsorship deals, falls well within the levels of chicanery to which I think they would stoop. They're cnuts.....

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

They're cunts.....

 

[halfcenturyup]

You also believe this case will review the audited accounting treatment of Aabar, Etisalat and Etihad as related parties and attempt to FMV the value of those contracts 2009-2018 rerunning the publicly known work of UEFA before 2014 and contrary to the position established in CAS? Be specific.

If you are right BDO were bonkers allowing City to put out the 23/24 numbers early because there is no doubt BDO had access to the PLs opening and expert reports on these points before signing off the accounts.

Good morning. I knew that would do it :) Happy New Year btw, I don't think I've said it yet.

What I actually think is the following:

The related party nature of the AD sponsorships is part of the allegations referred to the disciplinary process by the PL. The issue is well-known, has been unresolved since 2014 and before, has been referred to in the APT case (imho explicitly) and was stated in the PL's press release as part of the allegations.

I suppose you can disagree with this. That's fine, but I think it's a reasonable position.

Just to be clear, I don't think they will succeed, as it happens, because it's pretty much a judgement call and the PL would need some pretty good evidence to obtain a conclusion from the panel that goes against 15 years of the treatment in signed, audited accounts. But nothing is certain. If we are to believe that the PL wouldn't have proceeded with the Etihad allegations, for example, without an indication that they could be successful then we should apply the same thinking to this matter?

That's my position in a nutshell.

As always, no problem if everyone thinks it's bollocks :)

 

[halfcenturyup]

So when you went on talkSPORT and implied the figures they used seemed a bit high dodgy and and then subsequently went on and ignored there situation you where wrong to bring attention to it the first time round as it’s all above board and squeaky clean ? And what’s more it’s always followed the same procedure so you didn’t know what the procedure was ? Or raised it anyway because ? And rowed back from it because ?

Not sure you can criticise anyone for reporting a potential issue based on the information available at the time who then clarified the situation a week later after new facts became available.

It was an unfortunate look, though. It pretty much looked like United had been on the blower that week. Have to accept that stuff like that will happen when you are visible in the media, I suppose.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Unless the media make a song & dance about it nothing will happen.

Now imagine if Silverlake sent questions like this to the board & it got in the papers….

The 99 questions that turned Old Trafford red

Attached to the letter from John Magnier's company to Manchester United were the following 99 questions which go to the heart of the way the club is run

m.independent.ie

Many of those questions, particularly the ones in the first section concerning the presentation and accuracy of financial information, were completely idiotic to be honest.

 

[Centurions]

It depends on the level of integrity one attributes to this whole process, I suppose. Personally, I'm inclined to be wary of an organisation, whose CEO had to be 'wined and dined' at the Swamp and Anfield and given their 'seal of approval' prior to being elected to his post, then needlessly announced our charges tally as being 115, rather than the 6 it should have been, and then selected an Arsenal supporting judge to in turn select the hearing panel.
I know you will put the last of the above (if not all) down to paranoia, but I'm with @halfcenturyup. The PL has thrown all its resources at this and seems hell bent on securing whatever kind of conviction they can get their hands on. Attempting to retrospectively re-examine the related party angle of our sponsorship deals, falls well within the levels of chicanery to which I think they would stoop. They're cnuts.....

Don't forget that they forced us to use an Arsenal fan as our lead counsel as well.

 

[Centurions]

So how did the Premier League let United have £40million in allowances for Covid 19
Did they really lose £40million in match revenue ?? that's over £2million a game, the maths just doesn't add up

Also, we all know about the fake attendance figures they put out compared to the official police figures

Wasn't it something to do with a pre season tour rather than just match day allowances?

 

[SSBlue]

Yeah
@slbsn and @Prestwich_Blue are debating which hill the Premier League is standing on

Killamancity?