All cubs tend to quote tickets sold including seasons rather than actual attendance.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
All cubs tend to quote tickets sold including seasons rather than actual attendance.
Arsenal 60.000 capacity and they were only allowed £2million for the whole season
United 72.000 capacity and United allowances was £40million for the season = £2million a home game
the maths doesn't add up, every club had major losses in covid 19 for home games and agreed to limit the allowances allowed for losses
“Clear and obvious.”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.
Bellamy's Caddy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 4,554
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.
In the eyes of most football fans we're totally guilty, regardless of whatever the outcome is. They don't give a shit about that. We could be cleared of every charge and that would be down to our 'expensive lawyers'.
As you say, the damage has been done by the very fact there were charges against us. If any at all land (whether significant or not) that will be the focus of the headlines.
Personally I can't wait for the whole thing to be done with and I just hope whatever the outcome, its nothing as significant as a points deduction.
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Some post this.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.
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Not sure how you’ve reached that conclusion mate.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?
There is one overwhelming serious allegation of false accounting. Much of the rest is deliberate theatre to appease the redshirts….”We did our best, lads.”My positions aren’t contradictory. It’s serious but City are confident. Honestly I’ve got no idea how anyone can think a 10-12 week hearing with 16 barristers is anything but a very serious process. I think some people have deluded themselves into thinking it’s all just theatre.
It can be both, Stefan.
Last edited:
Probably read too much of the technical stuff & misunderstood it :-)Not sure how you’ve reached that conclusion mate.
That organisation are vipers. Ask their opponents in USA.Dont forget Henry asking throgh the media "what was the second highest bit"
When we agreed the Etihad deal.
It was not his to talke about others team contracts.
I knew from that moment that Liverpool was against City but I never thought they would go this far.
Correct..In the eyes of most football fans we're totally guilty, regardless of whatever the outcome is. They don't give a shit about that. We could be cleared of every charge and that would be down to our 'expensive lawyers'.
As you say, the damage has been done by the very fact there were charges against us. If any at all land (whether significant or not) that will be the focus of the headlines.
Personally I can't wait for the whole thing to be done with and I just hope whatever the outcome, its nothing as significant as a points deduction.
The aim was to damage our image in the media and if some of the shit sticks then it was a bonus.
It all started with the Sky Sunday Supplement attack on Mancini and Yaya, Manchester City should have taken action and taken them to court and stopped it dead in the tracks.
Our weak media team did nothing and from that moment on it was a free-for-all, So many witch hunts and claims of cheating, We were even cleared by CAS of any wrongdoings and they still called us cheats,