PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

BerkshireBlue said:
yeah it's your second paragragh.

If a document exists that suggests some kind of dishonesty or concealment it gives the PL the opportunity to question whether limitation applies and the only way to find that out is by the IC listening and reading to all the "evidence" the PL has. So the whole evidence will be considered regardless. It won't be as, people seem to think, well this charge is over 6 years ago so lets not even bother going over it.

Whether the PL have strong enough evidence to remove the limitation is the question and nobody knows that yet. They might have, they might not.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
yeah it's your second paragragh.

If a document exists that suggests some kind of dishonesty or concealment it gives the PL the opportunity to question whether limitation applies and the only way to find that out is by the IC listening and reading to all the "evidence" the PL has. So the whole evidence will be considered regardless. It won't be as, people seem to think, well this charge is over 6 years ago so lets not even bother going over it.

Whether the PL have strong enough evidence to remove the limitation is the question and nobody knows that yet. They might have, they might not.
Click to expand...
And that re enforces the point I made months ago and was shot down.

Namely the evidence ( or lack of it ) will have to be heard/ produced before any claim to limitation can be decided.
 
GortonBlue62 said:
And to be clear, with respect to that second paragraph, you're of the opinion that City have satisfied the 'true and fair' requirement?

(Assuming the PL don't have a smoking gun).
Click to expand...
The whole basis of UEFA's case at CAS was that there were emails that could be interpreted in a way that suggested we were deliberately setting out to conceal owner investment via ADUG. We presented evidence that no such concealment took place and CAS fully accepted that. Not only that, they said that an inference or suggestion that something might happen, or have happened, did not mean that it did happen. UEFA could offer no evidence to substantiate their claim that we did conceal equity investment as revenue.

Unless the PL have some sort of smoking gun that uncovers a clear and deliberate attempt to conceal equity investment as revenue, then the chance of them succeeding in proving those charges is small. And, as I've speculated before, if they did have such a smoking gun, they wouldn't need to bring the Mancini charges, which are piddling in comparison, and this case would have been concluded long before now I suspect.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I've just been looking at the rules we're alleged to have infringed in (as a specimen) 2012/13. That covers the Mancini contract and the sponsorship issues.

There are five rules mentioned:
B16: "...each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the League with the utmost good faith."
That's really pretty subjective, unless the PL can prove that we deliberately deceived them.

E3: "Each Club shall by 1st March in each Season submit to the Secretary a copy of its
annual accounts in respect of its most recent financial year ... to be prepared and audited in
accordance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements) together with a
copy of the directors’ report for that year and a copy of the auditors’ report on
those accounts."
I find it hard to imagine we didn't do that.

E4: "The accounts referred to in Rule E.3 shall:
E.4.1. include separate disclosure within the balance sheet or notes to the accounts, or by way of supplementary information separately reported on by its auditors by way of procedures specified by the Board, of the total sums
payable and receivable in respect of Compensation Fees, Contingent Sums and Loan Fees;

E.4.2. include a breakdown within the profit and loss account or the notes to the accounts, or by way of supplementary information separately reported on by its auditors by way of procedures specified by the Board, of revenue in appropriate categories such as gate receipts, sponsorship and advertising, broadcasting rights, commercial income and other income."

E11 & E12 require clubs to submit future financial information by 31 March, prepared on the same basis as the annual accounts.

So unless we refused to provide annual accounts and future financial information, apart from the specific mention of a breakdown of revenue to include sponsorship & advertising, there seems to be very little substance to the actual rules themselves and there is nothing about expenses (i.e. manager remuneration).

That reinforces Stefan's point that, if the IC interpret the rules as written, we couldn't have broken any rules around Mancini's Al Jazira contract as there were no rules to break.
Click to expand...

Now you finished your thought, a different comment.

There are rules about managers to breach, but they are innocuous rules as you say: manager should have a contract, contract should include these terms (all of which are, themselves, innocuous). It is difficult to imagine that the club breached those and, if it did, that it would be serious (they certainly don't cover a manager having a second employment, for example).

Where the PL has to try and get the club on Mancini is the (effective) fraud implication of the first tranche, and good luck on that one ..... It's not material so it doesn't affect the true and fair view, it was before FFP so what was the benefit and it is, I am sure, perfectly justifiable from a business and a personal (to Mancini) viewpoint.

Not much need to worry about Mancini before or after the Leicester verdict, I think.
 
blueparrot said:
Like what, think he's said pretty much exactly the same all the way through. To the point keep asking him becomes tedious.
Click to expand...
Yep, he's been pretty consistent in everything I've seen. As he himself said last night, his views haven't changed. Not sure why some feel the need to have a bit of a dig, just because he's not saying exactly what they want to hear.
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
The article is using the reduced costs that Everton now have to pay as a guideline for our case. For example, the PL spent an average of 26k per document whereas it was £515 for Everton. The PL hourly cost for lawyers was double Everton's. They are saying as our case is infinitely more complex than the Everton one then the PL will be spending tens of millions which they may well not get back even if they win.
Click to expand...

Something they should have built in to their decision making on risk / reward when they referred their allegations. The dickheads.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
There's always been an issue with the framing of the PL rules, particularly the finance ones. One example is the requirement to submit "accurate accounts". There is no such concept in accounting though. There is the 'true and fair' requirement but nothing specifying accuracy. Of course, you can equate the two concepts but if you take the issue of Etihad sponsorship, if we receive £60m from Etihad, and record £60m revenue then you could argue that's 'accurate', regardless of the source of the money.

However if we receive £60m and we know £50m of that came from Sheikh Mansour, yet record it as all coming from Etihad as sponsorship, then that could potentially infringe the concept of 'true and fair'.

It's like the offside and handball laws; the more they tweak and piss about with them, the further they get away from their key objectives and the more the potential for interpretation or misinterpretation.
Click to expand...
Never been accountancy trained but I remember the advice given to me that if the company performance is judged by accountants I'd better start thinking like an accountant.

Their rules mattered as to whether profit or loss occurred but again it was just a snapshot of the company.
 
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.