PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[manimanc]

Will be interesting to see who the Premier League bring in as witnesses.

 

[cheekybids]

Will be interesting to see who the Premier League bring in as witnesses.

Everyone cos “everyone knows……”

 

[WRicko]

No we don’t… allegedly-:)


Don’t buy the opinion that you have to abide by protectionist rules. City today in its current form would be Newcastle or worse Everton.

The club had no choice but to sign up and to find ways around it.

There is finding ways round the rules and then there is breaking them they are two very different things especially when breaking those rules involves breaking the law

 

[BerkshireBlue]

I have done a little research in the last eighteen months. You know, since this whole thing started. Rules change, they develop. That's normal. The crux of the matter is that the club had to provide accounts to the PL, it had to provide an audit opinion on those accounts and it had to provide interim/future financial information. And it had to do all that in good faith.

But, once again. Explain to me the changes in the rules in respect of the most serious allegations between 2009/10 and 2017/18 that have any substantive effect at all on those allegations.

Actually, never mind, if you are hanging your hat onto a literal reading of the individual rules without seeing the bigger picture of alleged conspiracy and fraud, then it would be wasting all our time.

We clearly don't agree on anything. It's nothing personal, but I think I will leave you to it. I hope you are right, though. If you are, the hearing will be done and dusted by tonight. I wouldn't have any problem with that.

Why would it be done and dusted tonight? All I'm talking about is pre 2014, for some reason you seem to think the charges are all the same for every season. The main charges are from 2015 to 2017 and these charges are where the fraud element kicks in. The wording of rules the 2014/2015 are below for removal of doubt for you


E.53. Each Club shall by 1 March in each Season submit to the Secretary: E.53.1. copies of its Annual Accounts for T-1 (and T-2 if these have not previously been submitted to the Secretary) together with copies of the directors’ report(s) and auditors’ report(s) on those accounts; E.53.2. its estimated profit and loss account and balance sheet for T which shall: E.53.2.1. be prepared in all material respects in a format similar to the Club’s Annual Accounts; and E.53.2.2. be based on the latest information available to the Club and be, to the best of the Club’s knowledge and belief, an accurate estimate as at the time of preparation of future financial performance; and E.53.3. if Rule E.56 applies to the Club, the calculation of its aggregated Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 in a form approved by the Board

E.54. The Board shall determine whether consideration included in the Club’s Earnings Before Tax arising from a Related Party Transaction is recorded in the Club’s Annual Accounts at a Fair Market Value. If it is not, the Board shall restate it to Fair Market Value.

E.55. The Board shall not exercise its power set out in Rule E.54 without first having given the Club reasonable opportunity to make submissions as to: E.55.1. whether the said consideration should be restated; and/or E.55.2. what constitutes its Fair Market Value.

E.56. If the aggregation of a Club’s Earnings Before Tax for T-1 and T-2 results in a loss, any consideration from Related Party Transactions having been adjusted (if appropriate) pursuant to Rule E.54, then the Club must submit to the Secretary the calculation of its Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for each of T, T-1 and T-2.

E.57. If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in a loss of up to £15m, then the Board shall determine whether the Club will, until the end of T+1, be able to pay its liabilities described in Rule E.14.7.1 and fulfill the obligations set out in Rules E.14.7.2 and E.14.7.3.

E.58. If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in a loss of in excess of £15m then the following shall apply: E.58.1. the Club shall provide, by 31 March in the relevant Season, Future Financial Information to cover the period commencing from its last accounting reference date (as defined in section 391 of the Act) until the end of T+2 and a calculation of estimated aggregated Adjusted Earnings Before Tax until the end of T+2 based on that Future Financial Information; E.58.2. the Club shall provide such evidence of Secure Funding as the Board considers sufficient; and E.58.3. if the Club is unable to provide evidence of Secure Funding as set out in Rule E.58.2, the Board may exercise its powers set out in Rule E.15.

E.59. If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in losses of in excess of £105m: E.59.1. the Board may exercise its powers set out in Rule E.15; and E.59.2. the Club shall be treated as being in breach of these Rules and accordingly the Board shall refer the breach to a Commission constituted pursuant to Section W of these Rules.

 

[OrigamiNinja]

Just reading through the talk about witness's being called and people being cross-examined. Couldn’t help but think how much I would love Pannick to have the self-proclaimed expert Nick Harris in front of him. I’d definitely watch that episode.

 

[bluemc]

Just reading through the talk about witness's being called and people being cross-examined. Couldn’t help but think how much I would love Pannick to have the self-proclaimed expert Nick Harris in front of him. I’d definitely watch that episode.

Harris in the morning session. Then he comes back in the afternoon wearing a stick on moustache and fake glasses with goggly eyes, so Pannick can also pick the brains of his Magic Hat persona.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

No - very likely to be Monday to Thursday 10-4 every week. Maybe some gaps for witness availability but generally a lot of ground will be covered over 10 proper weeks.

This week will have been oral openings where the two sides take the panel through an overview of the case and evidence. Next week, I’d expect witness cross examination to kick off - PLs witnesses first although their evidence is not likely critical or particularly disputed.

@slbsn To what extent will our strategy be defensive/offensive. In the past Khaldoon has stated City will have plenty to say about the cartel influence on the PL. I don't think for one moment he meant an interview on Sky Sports. The IC could be the perfect forum were we finally go on an all out attack against the red cartel and their puppet "Masters'. To hell with any negative PR, it would be impossible to be worse as far as direct rivals are concerned, but could win over some neutrals. I'm just curious if you think it will be entirely passive defensive ie just rebutting the charges and not the politics that truly motivated them.

 

[Tomblue]

It's been said before but the thing that makes me super confident about this is just walking around the ground every time I go.

The owners are building a full on new stand, drinks, food and retail campus and a bloody great big hotel haha! Surely they would've put the brakes on this if there was any doubt on this at all.

In saying that it would be bloody hilarious to see a 60,000 seater stadium with the best fan facilities probably in the world for when Chorley FC come to town!

 

[Milesvk]

No - very likely to be Monday to Thursday 10-4 every week. Maybe some gaps for witness availability but generally a lot of ground will be covered over 10 proper weeks.

This week will have been oral openings where the two sides take the panel through an overview of the case and evidence. Next week, I’d expect witness cross examination to kick off - PLs witnesses first although their evidence is not likely critical or particularly disputed.

Would each side have sight of each other's evidence before it all started?

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

Harris in the morning session. Then he comes back in the afternoon wearing a stick on moustache and fake glasses with goggly eyes, so Pannick can also pick the brains of his Magic Hat persona.

After his performance in Bennel Victims v MCFC, where the judge eviscerated his ridiculous impersonation of a 'financial expert' he's probably decided to give this one a miss. Thats where he revealed his mind bending knowledge of the cut/paste feature in MS Excel.
In fact, calling him would be the legal equivalent of putting David James on as striker, when you are desperate for a goal and with only five minutes left on the clock...