The question wasn’t revenue but in unrelated parties. The number of people who work in football and it’s many arms and legs, vastly dwarfs the energy drink industry.
Arsenal who are sponsored by Emirates?If arsenal football club are so disgusted with our dirty money why take it!
maybe you canI hate Simon Jordan but these are not conflicting opinions.
You can believe that rules should be changed, while also believing current rules must be followed, and breaking them punished.
Willingly signed up for, funny you should say that as in both examples that didn’t happen
You don’t willingly sign up for the laws that are imposed on you from birth.
Likewise, City didn’t willingly sign up for a cartel league, corrupt governance, FFP, et al. It was a long and rotten coup d’etat that carried away the entire pyramid through linkage.
Not all would have an option unless we let em. They might want to but they have contracts. In current times we don’t hold onto players that want to go, but in circumstances like that a different policy may be necessaryI think alot would leave tbh
Given this was well received. Some more context on this to help anyone not aware.
An audit is effectively an opinion from a qualified and experienced auditor that the financial statements that a company prepares are materially true and fair, and are in line with accounting standards and uk law. Material being a key word and that is a £ value that differs from audit to audit.
In our case we arent a profitable business so that isnt the key metric but we are a trading business so I’d assume that the auditors materiality level is a revenue based metric and will likely be calculated as 1-2% of revenue.
Revenue in 09/10 was £125m
Revenue in 17/18 was £500m
Hence in english this means that in 09/10, the auditors have effectively signed off that every single number within those accounts and presented to PL is accurate and free from misstatement (by mistake or deliberately) to within max £2.5m. By 17/18 revenue has grown so the auditors will have signed off that every number is accurate to within max £10m.
To be able to do that on our revenue line (since that seems to be where attention is) they will have at the very least targeted any individual contract of that value or more because if they didn’t and it was wrong there could be a material misstatement. So that pretty much covers every single commercial contract (as well as broadcasting and prize money). And they will have at the very least sample tested everything else (because they are too small to individually result in a material misstatement but could aggregate).
When they tested they will have traced either to a signed contract and/or cash receipt. There are no other options.
Ie in english again. Almost every single £ of commercial revenue we reported will have been agreed to signed contracts and/or cash receipt and the auditors found no issues.
Hence for the charge to be true that our revenue does not present a true and fair view, the auditors will have had to either have not fulfilled their professional duties as auditors and/or our directors will have had to have committed financial fraud to deceive them or in collusion with them. Both are significant claims and should not be dealt with by a premier league internal investigation but are legal cases.
The more likely scenario in my mind is that the financial accounts submitted lawfully as a company are not in question but the PL is effectively taking a moral stance that whilst the accounting is correct, they just dont believe that the revenue has come from a willing third party. Ie yes you have a contract, yes you received the money but we think that money has ultimately come from your owner.
That was the claim made by UEFA and CAS said there was no evidence that had happened. In another process with the same evidence I see no reason why that conclusion would be different.
Thank you Woody for making it so clear and for your effort in laying out the issues so well.Given this was well received. Some more context on this to help anyone not aware.
An audit is effectively an opinion from a qualified and experienced auditor that the financial statements that a company prepares are materially true and fair, and are in line with accounting standards and uk law. Material being a key word and that is a £ value that differs from audit to audit.
In our case we arent a profitable business so that isnt the key metric but we are a trading business so I’d assume that the auditors materiality level is a revenue based metric and will likely be calculated as 1-2% of revenue.
Revenue in 09/10 was £125m
Revenue in 17/18 was £500m
Hence in english this means that in 09/10, the auditors have effectively signed off that every single number within those accounts and presented to PL is accurate and free from misstatement (by mistake or deliberately) to within max £2.5m. By 17/18 revenue has grown so the auditors will have signed off that every number is accurate to within max £10m.
To be able to do that on our revenue line (since that seems to be where attention is) they will have at the very least targeted any individual contract of that value or more because if they didn’t and it was wrong there could be a material misstatement. So that pretty much covers every single commercial contract (as well as broadcasting and prize money). And they will have at the very least sample tested everything else (because they are too small to individually result in a material misstatement but could aggregate).
When they tested they will have traced either to a signed contract and/or cash receipt. There are no other options.
Ie in english again. Almost every single £ of commercial revenue we reported will have been agreed to signed contracts and/or cash receipt and the auditors found no issues.
Hence for the charge to be true that our revenue does not present a true and fair view, the auditors will have had to either have not fulfilled their professional duties as auditors and/or our directors will have had to have committed financial fraud to deceive them or in collusion with them. Both are significant claims and should not be dealt with by a premier league internal investigation but are legal cases.
The more likely scenario in my mind is that the financial accounts submitted lawfully as a company are not in question but the PL is effectively taking a moral stance that whilst the accounting is correct, they just dont believe that the revenue has come from a willing third party. Ie yes you have a contract, yes you received the money but we think that money has ultimately come from your owner.
That was the claim made by UEFA and CAS said there was no evidence that had happened. In another process with the same evidence I see no reason why that conclusion would be different.
Wrong. He's been against us ever since the takeover which pre-dated the rules. He calls us (and Chelsea) "artificial clubs" and that's fuck all to do with whether he thinks we broke the rules - it's to do with him slagging off clubs whose owners pump lots of money into football clubs. Well, certain football clubs anyway. Just watch the **** change his tune if the Qataris buy his beloved United.
I couldnt see us keeping say haaland against his will forcing him to play him league 2.Not all would have an option unless we let em. They might want to but they have contracts. In current times we don’t hold onto players that want to go, but in circumstances like that a different policy may be necessary
Good post. Maybe this was the motive?Yes the auditor signs off the accounts to companies house and a separate report (of similar information) to PL on compliance with FFP rules. Hence they are saying everything was lawful, appropriate and accurate with those rules.
They can not confirm 100% where the cash came from. That for me is the only potential point of contention.
However at CAS City brought the CEO of Etihad as a witness. No doubt he said Etihad paid it (or at least arranged for payment and booked the costs) and it was fair. I find it hard for anyone to then rule against that in my opinion. No doubt similar would happen for other deals.
I dont think this is corruption. I just think this is PL saying we dont believe you and although we may not be able to prove it we are going to charge you anyway and see what happens. Whether that motive is due to pressure from the other clubs or a self entitled sense of responsibility by the PL is anyones guess