PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Bluemoon230989 said:
A mate of mine who works for the FA once sat on a 3 day tribunal with David Pannick.
He described him as a "scary legal animal".
Combining that with our "irrefutable evidence" I'm totally confident that Masters and his cartel paymasters will be getting their arses handed to them with all the trimmings.
Bring it on!
Click to expand...

The innuendo is City want all this kept hidden but can you imagine Pannick cross examining Masters….

Now that’s a showcase opportunity for dynamic ticketing.
 
I thought related party funding was allowed as long as deemed fair value?

So what exactly is the issue if the money was coming from Sheikh Mansour if the sponsorship was deemed fair value anyway?
 
route46 said:
I thought related party funding was allowed as long as deemed fair value?

So what exactly is the issue if the money was coming from Sheikh Mansour if the sponsorship was deemed fair value anyway?
Click to expand...

Always been my point. From an accounting point of view I don't see how any of this affects the true and fair view given by the accounts at all.

Firstly, most of the allegations aren't material and so fall outside the true and fair determination, even ignoring time limitation.

Secondly, the only material allegation, Etihad, is the main sponsor for ground, shirt and campus. These are all unique sponsorships that every club has, or could have. It's not like Joe Bloggs giving money to someone to buy a shitload of widgets to artificially inflate his revenue. As long as the sponsorship is at fair value, the accounts wouldn't show a "truer" and "fairer" view to stakeholders of the company by leaving the revenue out. The accounts would become, effectively, meaningless for evaluation purposes. They would be less fair and less true and couldn't be compared to other clubs' accounts in any meaningful way. We can discuss note disclosures, but the actual financial statements themselves would be meaningless.

I get that the allegations do effectively represent fraud and I know lawyers wet themselves at the thought of fraud and incorrect accounts, but as an accountant I have always had trouble buying it in this case. And I mean even if Mansour turned up outside Etihad's treasury department with his Maserati full of cash.

You could argue, possibly, that it may not have been possible to find sponsors at the beginning who were willing to pay the amounts that Etihad did. But then I would point to the PL's own definition of fair market value, which is " the amount for which (.....) a service [could be] provided between knowledgable, willing parties engaging in an arm's length transaction in normal market conditions". Unless they are challenging fair market value on that basis (and I doubt very much they are), I just don't get it.

Mind you, that's probably why accountants end up in jail and lawyers end up making money .....
 
Cobwebcat said:
Etisilat are like Asia’s Vodaphone and are worth £15 Billion. Apparently we had to secretly top up the sponsorship money via ADUG. Let that sink in.

It’s not the City fans that are deluded.

There have always been idiots, that’s why the label on bleach says “Do not drink” it’s just that social media gives them a voice.

When the IC see the PL “evidence” it will be laughable unless they too are bleach drinkers, which I doubt.

Social Media is about what is popular not what is correct. Obviously people are making money from slagging City off but that is all it is, a popularity contest.

The PL have been pressured into bringing this case. They will pay the price for years to come. I know that seems incredible but I think Masters IS that stupid and was why he was brought in. In that sense he has fulfilled his role perfectly.

It’s sad that so much time and money has been wasted on this but it’s the World we live in and a smaller club may have collapsed under the financial weight of the PL. They really have picked the wrong guys to attack.

I’ll say it again. This is not a War. This is pest control.
Click to expand...


One argument that I just can't understand, or buy into, is that the PL were pressured into bringing forward the charges. At least not after the CAS verdict, which took any pressure off and gave them something to align their own conclusions of their investigation to.
 
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.