PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
Here is a thing.

View attachment 140483


I could have sworn when I looked last Friday it had an update copy dated December 6?

Has it been removed? Or am I getting senile?
Click to expand...

Very interesting. I just downloaded the handbook from the PL website and it's the July handbook without any of the changes approved by the clubs in November. Last week you could download the new amended version.

Does this mean it's been withdrawn? Because if it has, all hell is about to break loose ......

Can somebody else try to see which version they get?
 
handsofstone said:
Expecting a points deduction that's manageable, between 10-20 points, a fine thays manageable and maybe a transfer ban or limit

Doubt we get relegated and doubt we get our titles stripped

Hopefully this sets a rocket up the board so they decide to make us the best team in the world again, no more pandering to neutrals about our net spend and sustainability... let's get aggressive
Click to expand...
Really, I’m expecting full exoneration and Masters arse on a plate.
 
halfcenturyup said:
It's standard accounting practice to evaluate contingent liabilities. Years and years of precedent. There is nothing unusual about this case in accounting terms.
Click to expand...
Surely if it’s been on the accounts the last 2 years it would be on the accounts this year unless we knew positive outcome for city
 
Damocles said:
It's in the "Risks and Uncertainties" section

View attachment 140484
Click to expand...
That's not a Financial Statement disclosure, it's just a nod to the fact that there are risks and uncertainties within the business/industry. I think Stefan is alluding to it not being disclosed within the Statutory Accounts which the auditors will have signed off.

You'll see similar items in any annual report.
 
M12Blue said:
Surely if it’s been on the accounts the last 2 years it would be on the accounts this year unless we knew positive outcome for city
Click to expand...

Once again, there are rules about how contingent liabilities are accounted for / disclosed in the accounts. The fact nothing was accounted for / disclosed in the accounts themselves means (to me) that the management, directors and auditors all think it unlikely there will be any significant sanction. That's all. And that's good enough for me.
 
John Wayne said:
It's not just the implications of any fines - if we are found to have committed serious breaches then we would be liable for tens of millions in compensation to our competitors.

Magic Hat can speculate all he likes, but there's simply no way that auditors "forget" to include the 115 in the report.
Click to expand...

Damocles said:
It's in the "Risks and Uncertainties" section

View attachment 140484
Click to expand...

This is very different.

Its removal from the Going Concern section in particular is significant.
 
Last edited:
Bloody hell here's Alice with the full story of the charges - might as well delete the previous 7000-odd pages of this thread then

 
freshie said:
Bloody hell here's Alice with the full story of the charges - might as well delete the previous 7000-odd pages of this thread then

Click to expand...


She is about 18 months behind, bless her little cotton socks (I hope she wears little cotton socks, anyway ...)

Engagement must be a bit low.
 
BLUE THUNDER said:
A small points deduction gives oxygen to those arguing our achievements are tarnished. It’s not something we’d be thrilled about.
A fine however for non co-operation is not something they can hit us with a stick over. At least not in the sense that our accounts were found to be fraudulent.
I’m assuming non co-operation can only be punished with a fine and not a points deduction. Correct me if wrong.
Click to expand...
I think where you’ve gone wrong there is caring what rival fans/media think. We could be found innocent on every level and it would make zero difference. I don’t know what some blues fans expect. When have City fans ever said we were wrong about Ferguson’s influence over referees as there was never any proof.

It’s just tribalism.
 
Cobwebcat said:
I think where you’ve gone wrong there is caring what rival fans/media think. We could be found innocent on every level and it would make zero difference. I don’t know what some blues fans expect. When have City fans ever said we were wrong about Ferguson’s influence over referees as there was never any proof.

It’s just tribalism.
Click to expand...

To an extent. Having Dan Roan from the BBC reporting live on the 6 news saying ‘Manchester City have been found guilty (regardless of the seriousness of it)’ is something the club will certainty not want. Completely different to the numpties on twitter and TS.
 
Well, this is from our dearest friend Mr Nick Harris. Interesting read though. Seems like he's not that confident. I wonder what changed lately....?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Man City - what will the verdict be?​

This question came via DM on social media from somebody calling themselves ‘Bert’, and I can only assume they are a Manchester City fan. They said they know I hate City (not actually true) but they would be interested in my opinion about whether City will be found guilty and punished in the “115 case”, where closing arguments were heard last Friday.

As I have repeatedly written, and said, I have zero confidence in any prediction, and I think the outcome could range from City effectively being cleared of all charges to City being found guilty of many, but not all. Which means potential punishments ranging from a fine (for non-cooperation with the Premier League probe, which we know is a slam dunk, albeit a minor one) to a points reduction big enough to relegate them.

I honestly cannot say with any confidence which of these outcomes will happen.

For new readers or those who haven’t kept abreast of developments, you might be interested in pieces from recent months about new details of City’s financial chicanery over the years, or how City have tried to shape the 115 narrative with the help of client journalists, and how we got here in the first place as the 10-week independent commission began.

As for my best prediction on the outcome: I have no inside knowledge of what has happened at the commission hearings. I don’t know the full list of witnesses or what they said. I assume City will have used similar tactics they used when getting a two-year Champions League ban overturned at CAS in 2020. They obviously will not have provided information that would incriminate themselves, and instead left it to the Premier League to prove the most significant charges, of disguised investment.

I don’t believe the Premier League will have had any jurisdiction to access financial records of Etihad’s income. So even if City produce records showing Etihad did indeed pay for City sponsorships, there won’t be any ability to see if Etihad did so after having been funded to do so by a UAE government source.

The Mancini and Yaya Toure payments look damning as far as the leaked emails show (links to all documents in pieces linked above), but again there is an element of subjectivity involved.

I don’t think there is any doubt at all that City have failed to co-operate with the Premier League. A High Court judge made this abundantly clear in 2021 when myself and colleagues from the MoS, assisted by a QC, effectively won the right to report on City’s dawdling.

I think it’s important to understand that City have already been caught and punished, twice, for breaking various UEFA and Premier League financial rules. It is abundantly clear what they did. We have been writing about it, with evidence, for a decade.

But I’m not confident the Premier League will have delivered the burden of proof required. I think City will be punished, certainly with a fine, probably with some points deductions. Am I confident they will be hit with sanctions that will relegate them? No.
 
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