PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Too many posts to check if this has been mentioned, but in regard the incorrect references in the initial charges. Apparently these were correct references for old(er) revisions of the rules.

Does this not suggest these charges were compiled some time ago ? only to be pushed out now ?
 
Impeccable One said:
Too many posts to check if this has been mentioned, but in regard the incorrect references in the initial charges. Apparently these were correct references for old(er) revisions of the rules.

Does this not suggest these charges were compiled some time ago ? only to be pushed out now ?
Click to expand...

There is a different rule book for each season! That’s why going back so many years is joke
 
Watching the game on TV & all I can see is Revenue flashing flashing all around the pitch, all around the middle tier. Someone give Neville a nudge & tell him that’s why we’re massive, look at the companies, look at the deals before you comment you ****!

& tell the **** it’s clear he turned up with a narrative that Cancelo missing will affect us. He keeps looking for a fault on Bernardo & he’s running the show.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
It's a possible implication, depending on the amounts, the frequency and how that relates to acceptable accounting standards, but it's possible to have broken the PL rules (e.g. by misrepresentation to them), but not have broken UK law (fraud).

What it is is an easy tag to use for the hard of thinking.
Click to expand...
But they are not alleging just that we broke FFP or did not cooperate remember loosing too much money would also be a breach of FFP. They’re not even alleging that we miss represented the accounts in some FFP way not sure what that would be maybe allowances. I don’t know how FFP works do they look at the accounts or specially accounts prepared for FFP.

They are alleging that we paid people off the books ( that’s a tax / fraud implications) they are alleging that we increased revenue in a dishonest way again that would have tax implications probably for benefit of the tax man but negative ones for other investors.

Remember spurs sponsor getting done for inflating revenue ? Just before it got bought out for far more than it was worth
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Usually it's described as "converting it to equity", but you're right. In this case, he waived it/included it in the club value; as I understand it, there's no difference if you own 100% of the business.

I'm pretty certain that our owner has supplied short term loans that have then been converted to equity (shares, in this case).
Click to expand...
Most of the short term loans have been repaid to Mansour. They tided us over the low cash flow summer.
 
WRicko said:
But they are not alleging just that we broke FFP or did not cooperate remember loosing too much money would also be a breach of FFP. They’re not even alleging that we miss represented the accounts in some FFP way not sure what that would be maybe allowances. I don’t know how FFP works do they look at the accounts or specially accounts prepared for FFP.

They are alleging that we paid people off the books ( that’s a tax / fraud implications) they are alleging that we increased revenue in a dishonest way again that would have tax implications probably for benefit of the tax man but negative ones for other investors.

Remember spurs sponsor getting done for inflating revenue ? Just before it got bought out for far more than it was worth
Click to expand...

I disagree on the off-books interpretation.
It's difficult to be certain, but they appear to be claiming that the non-City contract to Mancini should have been counted or declared differently. I don't think there's a tax implication at all - he got paid, and as long as he declared it, that's fine (and if he didn't, it's not City's problem). It's been known for years that Mancini had a parallel contract - I don't see where the fraud might be in that.

The increased revenue is likely to be claiming that the money came from ADUG and was channelled. The money arrived and was declared - there's no tax implication there either if the revenue was declared.
The claim is likely to be about the route it came to City, not that it arrived.

Spurs - sorry, I don't know what you're referring to.
 
KS55 said:
Most of the short term loans have been repaid to Mansour. They tided us over the low cash flow summer.
Click to expand...

Aargh, yes, that's what I meant to write. No idea what I was thinking of.
As you say, just providing cash for a few months and then getting it back - no FFP effect overall.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
It's a possible implication, depending on the amounts, the frequency and how that relates to acceptable accounting standards, but it's possible to have broken the PL rules (e.g. by misrepresentation to them), but not have broken UK law (fraud).

What it is is an easy tag to use for the hard of thinking.
Click to expand...

I take issue with this, especially the last sentence. Indeed, I resent being labelled by implication as hard of thinking. My reasons are stated in this 1,700-word post from yesterday: https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/threads/media-thread-2022-23.355624/page-1628#post-15718654
 
cheekybids said:
Watching the game on TV & all I can see is Revenue flashing flashing all around the pitch, all around the middle tier. Someone give Neville a nudge & tell him that’s why we’re massive, look at the companies, look at the deals before you comment you ****!

& tell the **** it’s clear he turned up with a narrative that Cancelo missing will affect us. He keeps looking for a fault on Bernardo & he’s running the show.
Click to expand...
Neville’s a poisonous little snidey ****. His ranting about the penalty was a joke.
 
chesterbells said:
That’s why journalists like delaney need pulling up
Click to expand...

Puling up, stringing up... whichever!

Trouble is I suspect he's being 'clever', and saying "if... then...", and there's no doubt that there is a way that fraud could have been committed, unlikely though it is.
It's just more gaslighting for the impressionable who read what they want to read.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone seen @Prestwich_Blue interview with Cheesey? I love the line that the PL are firing Bugs Bunny shotgun pellets that will need picking out of our backside rather than a Clint Eastwood Magnum 44 shot that would take us out completely.
 
petrusha said:
I take issue with this, especially the last sentence. Indeed, I resent being labelled by implication as hard of thinking. My reasons are stated in this 1,700-word post from yesterday: https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/threads/media-thread-2022-23.355624/page-1628#post-15718654
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that I'd seen that; I'm certainly not inclined to argue with you (given your background), and had had the impression that others couldn't see how fraud could have been committed.
If that impression is wrong, then I retract and have learned something.

I also had no intention of referring to you as 'hard of thinking', but was viewing use of those terms as being directed at the target audience of the uninformed who want something to hang onto.

I trust that makes sense, and had no intention of saying such a thing about you.
 
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