PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Bill Walker said:
Sadly I agree with you. If you're a top player will you seriously want to come to us ? It's like we will now be known forever as the cheats. We are tarnished.

If we win this case I sincerely hope City sue the PL big time over our reputation being badly tarnished, so badly leading to all sorts of problems in the future.
Click to expand...
We are only tarnished in the eyes of fanboys from the cartel clubs.
Players themselves will have a clearer picture of what City can do to enhance their career
 
I think that says it all in a nutshell. It’s a disgrace. No one can tell me there isn’t an agenda against us when the Portuguese whiners goal was allowed to stand at Old Trafford. That was blatant manipulation of the rules by the authorities to hurt us. The game has been corrupted by the authorities to protect,’the red clubs,’ as Martin Samuel of The Times calls the so called elite who hate the fact that we are breaking their monopoly of the premier league…
 
Sorry If this has been asked previously, but who picks up the cost of all this, If we win, do we claim costs off the Premier league, because If this dude of our charges £80,000 an hour, and If this takes 4 years to complete, together with him and the rest of his team could run Into Billions In costs, If so could this bring down the Premier league.
 
Woody135 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't know about anybody else but reading this gave me a warm fuzzy glow.
Was a fantastic read, you know you're onions woody.

So the premier league are looking for a smoking gun but all they see is a water pistol.

Fuckin A.
 
Tony - MCFC said:
I haven’t bought a newspaper for years, haven’t listened to TalkSPORT/FiveLive in years and blocked all of their social media accounts. Also blocked rival fans YouTube idiots like the ex Forest fan.

Suggest some do the same, no point harping on about what idiots like Simon Jordan say, he’ll say it because he’s given the platform and TalkSPORT / YouTube idiots want people to reply, it’s what they thrive on.

Ignore them and trust me you’ll feel better about it : )
Click to expand...
Done the same. You feel much better. As the Cockney funster Mickey Flanagan says “in the old days we used to hide our idiots and keep em indoors, nowadays there all they’re all over fucking place”
 
First day back in work today since all this broke, full of rags all sticking the knife in. How i got out of the office without twating one of them I will never know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.