PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[bluemoon32]

I've said it before & i'll say it again, this thread is bonkers, a good read but nonetheless, still bonkers.
The highs and the lows, the "we're fucked " to "we're innocent" posts from a multitude of posters.
The seemingly sound advice from a few posters with experience in this field to the insane ramblings of other posters.
None of us really knows how this will all end, we obviously all have our opinions but we're all completely in the dark in reality & haven't got a fucking scoobies what the final outcome will be.......8081 pages & counting shows that ha

 

[ayrshire_blue]

I think you've got a blind spot on this, which stems from your seeming belief that the PL is acting rationally and independently in this matter, and there's no malicious intent on the part of certain clubs in these charges.

I'd agree that if the PL were acting in the way you seem to believe, there would be no particular reason to go down this route as there seems to be little or no mileage in it. But, as I've said before, one of the key elements revealed in the APT case verdict was that other clubs felt we were misreporting related parties. And the senior club official who said to me (referring to the UEFA charges) "We know who's behind this. It's the US-owned clubs and there's a geopolitical element". And that's verbatim.

I suspect they took their cue on this from CAS, who mentioned this in their verdict. There's a clear theme or linkage here but you've naysayed this when it's been brought up previously. But perhaps I've got a blind spot on this and its confirmation bias. We'll only know for sure when the IC publishes its findings.

But if there's a dead body found, having died from stab wounds, and there's a knife next to the body covered in the victim's blood and the wounds are consistent with being inflicted by the knife that's next to the body, the first assumption will be that this knife was used to kill that person.

If we go back to the PL's press release of the charges (ignoring the fuck-up over some of the rules we'd been charged with breaching) it specifically says "...sponsorship revenue and related parties". I'd say that's a fairly clear indicator that the issue of RPs is a large part of this.

Where we clearly do agree on this, is that if that's the best they've got, they're pretty desperate and aren't likely to be successful. But again, that presupposes that their main intention is to uphold their rules, which they believe we've driven a coach and horses through, rather than drag our name through the mud and win any little point that will give our enemies some ammunition to level the cheating accusations.

And you're of course right that some of the charges precede the PL's introduction of rules around presenting accounts that meet regulatory and other accepted reporting standards. But IAS 24 (and its predecessors) has been in existence since before I started my accountancy training. So the more subjective rule of acting with utmost good faith (i.e. not meeting longstanding accounting standards) could be used in this respect prior to 2013/14, as it clearly seems to be.

You're right that there seems to be little mileage in these avenues of attack on FMV and Related Parties. And that leads to you saying that you don't think this is the substance of the charges. But some of us, rightly or wrongly, believe these charges aren't about substantive and material issues of accounting. Including the Mancini contract, that we both agree is a complete red herring, surely reinforces that.

Call me cynical, paranoid, glass half empty, even a tin-foil hat wearing blinkered crackpot, whatever. But, in my opinion, this is about landing any little blow on us they can, even some minor and insignificant thing that our detractors can hang their hat on and say "We told you so. They're cheats" regardless of whether it brought us any material or sporting benefit at all. And even if they fail in that, they've succeeded in throwing enough mud that people will say that regardless of the evidence or outcome.

Good post. Especially from a cynical, paranoid, glass half empty, even a tin-foil hat wearing blinkered crackpot,

 

[CC1]

So - looking at latest posts from @slbsn @ @Prestwich_Blue - it’s looking less and less positive. The technical detail goes over the head of most people so in simple terms - are we done?

 

[ayrshire_blue]

So - looking at latest posts from @slbsn @ @Prestwich_Blue - it’s looking less and less positive. The technical detail goes over the head of most people so in simple terms - are we done?

I'm not sure it's any less positive at all mate.

I'm one of the people who for most of this is over my head but if I'm following correctly, PB and HCU are of the opinion that this is a cynical hatchet job from the PL and their American masters (pardon the pun) with effort to get some mud to stick regardless of its importance in the grand scheme of things.

Stefan is more of the opinion that the investigation is above board in that respect without the ulterior motive. Neither are of the opinion that they are likely to succeed in proving the most serious allegations (but not impossible depending on the cogency of evidence presented), which has been their stance throughout.

I think that's right anyway. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong again. Apologies in advance to PB, HCU or Stefan if I've misinterpreted this particular discussion.

 

[The perfect fumble]

I think you've got a blind spot on this, which stems from your seeming belief that the PL is acting rationally and independently in this matter, and there's no malicious intent on the part of certain clubs in these charges.

I'd agree that if the PL were acting in the way you seem to believe, there would be no particular reason to go down this route as there seems to be little or no mileage in it. But, as I've said before, one of the key elements revealed in the APT case verdict was that other clubs felt we were misreporting related parties. And the senior club official who said to me (referring to the UEFA charges) "We know who's behind this. It's the US-owned clubs and there's a geopolitical element". And that's verbatim.

I suspect they took their cue on this from CAS, who mentioned this in their verdict. There's a clear theme or linkage here but you've naysayed this when it's been brought up previously. But perhaps I've got a blind spot on this and its confirmation bias. We'll only know for sure when the IC publishes its findings.

But if there's a dead body found, having died from stab wounds, and there's a knife next to the body covered in the victim's blood and the wounds are consistent with being inflicted by the knife that's next to the body, the first assumption will be that this knife was used to kill that person.

If we go back to the PL's press release of the charges (ignoring the fuck-up over some of the rules we'd been charged with breaching) it specifically says "...sponsorship revenue and related parties". I'd say that's a fairly clear indicator that the issue of RPs is a large part of this.

Where we clearly do agree on this, is that if that's the best they've got, they're pretty desperate and aren't likely to be successful. But again, that presupposes that their main intention is to uphold their rules, which they believe we've driven a coach and horses through, rather than drag our name through the mud and win any little point that will give our enemies some ammunition to level the cheating accusations.

And you're of course right that some of the charges precede the PL's introduction of rules around presenting accounts that meet regulatory and other accepted reporting standards. But IAS 24 (and its predecessors) has been in existence since before I started my accountancy training. So the more subjective rule of acting with utmost good faith (i.e. not meeting longstanding accounting standards) could be used in this respect prior to 2013/14, as it clearly seems to be.

You're right that there seems to be little mileage in these avenues of attack on FMV and Related Parties. And that leads to you saying that you don't think this is the substance of the charges. But some of us, rightly or wrongly, believe these charges aren't about substantive and material issues of accounting. Including the Mancini contract, that we both agree is a complete red herring, surely reinforces that.

Call me cynical, paranoid, glass half empty, even a tin-foil hat wearing blinkered crackpot, whatever. But, in my opinion, this is about landing any little blow on us they can, even some minor and insignificant thing that our detractors can hang their hat on and say "We told you so. They're cheats" regardless of whether it brought us any material or sporting benefit at all. And even if they fail in that, they've succeeded in throwing enough mud that people will say that regardless of the evidence or outcome.

Great post!

I particularly like...

"Call me cynical, paranoid, glass half empty, even a tin-foil hat wearing blinkered crackpot" ;-)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

So - looking at latest posts from @slbsn @ @Prestwich_Blue - it’s looking less and less positive. The technical detail goes over the head of most people so in simple terms - are we done?

Far from it. These charges appear to be based on trivial and immaterial matters, some of which have been dealt with previously with no impact.

 

[slbsn]

I think you've got a blind spot on this, which stems from your seeming belief that the PL is acting rationally and independently in this matter, and there's no malicious intent on the part of certain clubs in these charges.

I'd agree that if the PL were acting in the way you seem to believe, there would be no particular reason to go down this route as there seems to be little or no mileage in it. But, as I've said before, one of the key elements revealed in the APT case verdict was that other clubs felt we were misreporting related parties. And the senior club official who said to me (referring to the UEFA charges) "We know who's behind this. It's the US-owned clubs and there's a geopolitical element". And that's verbatim.

I suspect they took their cue on this from CAS, who mentioned this in their verdict. There's a clear theme or linkage here but you've naysayed this when it's been brought up previously. But perhaps I've got a blind spot on this and its confirmation bias. We'll only know for sure when the IC publishes its findings.

But if there's a dead body found, having died from stab wounds, and there's a knife next to the body covered in the victim's blood and the wounds are consistent with being inflicted by the knife that's next to the body, the first assumption will be that this knife was used to kill that person.

If we go back to the PL's press release of the charges (ignoring the fuck-up over some of the rules we'd been charged with breaching) it specifically says "...sponsorship revenue and related parties". I'd say that's a fairly clear indicator that the issue of RPs is a large part of this.

Where we clearly do agree on this, is that if that's the best they've got, they're pretty desperate and aren't likely to be successful. But again, that presupposes that their main intention is to uphold their rules, which they believe we've driven a coach and horses through, rather than drag our name through the mud and win any little point that will give our enemies some ammunition to level the cheating accusations.

And you're of course right that some of the charges precede the PL's introduction of rules around presenting accounts that meet regulatory and other accepted reporting standards. But IAS 24 (and its predecessors) has been in existence since before I started my accountancy training. So the more subjective rule of acting with utmost good faith (i.e. not meeting longstanding accounting standards) could be used in this respect prior to 2013/14, as it clearly seems to be.

You're right that there seems to be little mileage in these avenues of attack on FMV and Related Parties. And that leads to you saying that you don't think this is the substance of the charges. But some of us, rightly or wrongly, believe these charges aren't about substantive and material issues of accounting. Including the Mancini contract, that we both agree is a complete red herring, surely reinforces that.

Call me cynical, paranoid, glass half empty, even a tin-foil hat wearing blinkered crackpot, whatever. But, in my opinion, this is about landing any little blow on us they can, even some minor and insignificant thing that our detractors can hang their hat on and say "We told you so. They're cheats" regardless of whether it brought us any material or sporting benefit at all. And even if they fail in that, they've succeeded in throwing enough mud that people will say that regardless of the evidence or outcome.

Last answer on this.

I’m afraid that the idea this whole thing has been some kind of half arsed prosecution or process is just wishful thinking.

If only these charges were about whether a party was related. I suspect the use of related there is a natural consequence of the main charge. If actually only £8m was Etihad and the whole thing was orchestrated by SM then inevitably Etihad was a RP because it would have been found that SM had controlled the whole thing. Your argument (and few others) seems to have the RP as a distinct main charge. That’s the disagreement - sadly I’m pretty certain the charges are simply far more serious than that. Hopefully you are right and they just ran a 12 week hearing to try and prove a highly subjective accounting point where evidence exists that even if RP, the main sponsor was FMV. Clearly, pretty unlikely even if the PL are as incompetent as you insist.

 

[JewelZee]

We never seem to discuss how passive/defensive our arguments were during the hearing. A highly aggressive rebuttal of the charges would need to be backed up with more evidence than the Arsenal letter, hateful nine letters, the New York photo and the David Gill speech, wiped from the web but no doubt City have. Add to that the anonymous YT attack video with millions of hits, Master's infamous remarks about regimes coming and going and Parry's public statement that certain historical clubs have earned the right to be more 'influential' than 'smaller' clubs. Clubs like us and PSG were allowed to be taken over by their current owners but subsequently competing clubs regret this ever happened. No doubt the same applies to NUFC now. If we have made direct verifiable assertions the PL are governing the game on behalf of competitor clubs, which I personally believe, the next media shit storm is on the way. You know the trope, "if you don't like the rules why don't you just sell up and leave". If the panel choose not to document our assertions we will never know unless we come out fighting in public. It wasn't me or any other poster on here who said there is a clear and organised campaign of attack against us at every level, regulatory, legacy media, social media and fan groups etc it was our Chairman, Khaldoon Mubarak.

How would you know how passive or defensive we were during the hearing? Just asking...

 

[halfcenturyup]

The difference is one is highly subjective, well trodden publicly and clearly time barred. The other is sufficiently serious (very) and concealed to be capable of breaching the SoL. Furthermore, it is something worth pursuing - a disagreement on RP is not and, if it was, you have failed to address why they waited 10 years to pursue and haven't pursued the ongoing "breach" all founded on the same factual background. Of course you can believe what you like but you haven't addressed any of the questions including how you prove the subject RP point, how you now demostrate the FMV of 10 year old deals with good clarity.

PS related party and FMV only commenced in the PL rules in 2013-14 so "related party" couldn't relate to any charge for any year prior to that.

Fair point about the Etihad funding, but I think you are coming at this from a different PL angle to me.

Unless I am mistaken, you think, quite reasonably, the PL came to the referred allegations based on the seriousness of the charges, the potential financial impact and there being a good likelihood of success.

I think they simply came to the referred allegations based on a list of unresolved issues arising from the leaked documents and from all the previous UEFA investigations. Otherwise, I find it hard to explain the Mancini allegation, for example, which must have a low likelihood of success, is immaterial, most probably time limited and is hardly serious at all in comparison to, say, the Etihad funding.

Tbh, I didn't address your other points because I didn't think they were relevant to my point. But if you are really interested, here we go.

You know the RP definitions. Imo, the PL will have been looking for evidence that Mansour, or a close member of his family, has significant influence, directly or indirectly, over the operations of Etihad. That evidence could come in many forms, it could have come from the investigation. Any suggestion would just be complete speculation. But it could exist and it could have just come to light recently. Less conspiratorially, it's just as likely I suppose, that the club's counter-evidence wasn't sufficient to satisfy their experts.

As for FMV, that has no effect on the accounts of course, the only change in the accounts from a change in RP designation would be an additional note disclosure. And, of course, you are right that FMV only comes into play in the PL rules with FFP. I know that. Practically, though, I imagine UEFA still have their valuations from 2014 and, presumably, 2019. But again, I am not that bothered about the financial impact. I would be more worried by the reputational fall-out. The state-owned narrative would be relentless. Actually, if I was a conspiracist, I would say that's the point. Luckily, I'm not.

And anyway, as I said, I doubt it will get that far.

 

[johnny crossan]

Last answer on this.

I’m afraid that the idea this whole thing has been some kind of half arsed prosecution or process is just wishful thinking.

If only these charges were about whether a party was related. I suspect the use of related there is a natural consequence of the main charge. If actually only £8m was Etihad and the whole thing was orchestrated by SM then inevitably Etihad was a RP because it would have been found that SM had controlled the whole thing. Your argument (and few others) seems to have the RP as a distinct main charge. That’s the disagreement - sadly I’m pretty certain the charges are simply far more serious than that. Hopefully you are right and they just ran a 12 week hearing to try and prove a highly subjective accounting point where evidence exists that even if RP, the main sponsor was FMV. Clearly, pretty unlikely even if the PL are as incompetent as you insist.

I prefer your more optimistic mode ;-)

City have remained confident even throughout the hearing. Not sure if the PL has.