halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,119
And my guess would be that they're claiming we've overstated sponsorship income, and that we should only have recorded the £8m Etihad provided rather than the £50+m that Etihad were given from central Abu Dhabi funds.
I assume they're saying that latter figure should have been recorded as equity, which is utterly bizarre. As long as the additional money didn't come from ADUG then it's none of their business. The evidence presented at CAS proved pretty comprehensively that the funds didn't come from ADUG.
Yep. That's the only issue the "filing accounts that don't show a true and fair view" allegation can come from.
One accountant to another, PB, is it really an issue from the "true and fair view" standpoint even if Mansour topped up the sponsorship if it was at fair value, services provided and paid in full?
I get the point about circumventing the PL rules, if it did happen (which, of course, it didn't), but from a purely accounting view point - fair value, services provided for value, paid in full - would you sign off those accounts knowing Mansour part-funded the sponsorship? Would you restate the accounts to show a part equity injection? Or would you just require a note disclosure?
I have never been sure this falsified accounts allegation makes any sense.