PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Big Joe Corrigan]

Here u go View attachment 131876

We’ve no chance if we’ve only got 9 players.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

I have just sensed a change of tone with Stefan as the trail has got nearer. Could be just me though, could be me misinterpreting what he means .

He's here, ask him!!

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

He's here, ask him!!

Mate asked him away at Chelsea. Was non-comital.
Once we smash them into next week he wont be welcomed back onto Talksport.....

 

[Blue Feather]

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 .....

I thought he drove a Lamborghini....?

 

[malg]

There is a lot of optimism on here and as a FOC and having a ticket stub for York away I'm very nervous about the whole thing.

 

[nmc]

The findings will be timed to coincide with Masters leaving. He will leave with a fat golden bye bye and be the scapegoat.

Masters leaving is an irrelevance - he’s just a patsy. The real villains work at the red shirts - when we win they’ll offer up Masters to protect their own skin but I very much doubt City will accept Masters departure as sufficient - they’ll want a radical overhaul of the PL and an independent regulator. A city win here will be a game changer.

 

[nmc]

It would be interesting to know what is left on the table. It may be that the PL have been completely unwilling to let anything go at this point, but typically the past few months (years) will have seen sufficient evidence presented to have a large number "dropped" where the PL's lawyers saw no legal opportunity of success. Now it's just a case of the panel asking questions of both parties and coming to their conclusion.

I would imagine the extreme confidence from City is because we are now not only armed with the same evidence accepted by CAS, but the CAS decision based on that evidence. So with each testimony or written submission we can also add their finding on that particular matter which is a pretty significant addition.

Suspect the PL have left everything on the table merely to try and get something from the non cooperation charge. Maybe they think that’s a face saver.

 

[MadchesterCity]

They're going to have to find £150m allowable expenditure to avoid a points deduction under PSR, so £50m a year. I reckon City's allowable expenditure is something like £30m a year tops. Maybe £35m in a good year.

No way they should be meeting it, unless they're going to claim some dodgy shit like they did to avoid an FFP failure.

Suspect they are exempt

 

[cheekybids]

Don't think that is true. He's been everywhere this morning. I got bumped from the Today programme. I am on Times Radio later and in the Sun this AM. But KM is the go to guy. No question.

He tells them what they want to hear.

 

[Asa's left peg]

I'm concerned this will drag on. Not because they have a case, but if I was on £5000 per hour like Pannick, I'd be objecting to my own line of questioning and dragging it out as long as I could. In fact, I bet he's asked for a continuance this morning!