PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Apparently the CFC American owners set aside £100m from the deal with Abramovich specifically to offset sanctions, ie from the '74' charges. Has anyone familiar with our ever accounts ever seen an indication of financial provisions or cotigent liabilities relating to 115. Just curious if this (ie the absence of) is another soft signal of the club's super confidence in winning the battle. Also, is it possible to put a figure on our legal costs for the last FY.
 
TShed said:
Hopefully The FA are perusing this because The PL have fucked up on our case
Click to expand...
Isn't this a bit of a slam dunk for the FA as Chelsea have admitted and told the authorities themselves. No way could the FA risk taking on someone like City who have not admitted the allegations and are prepared to spend big on lawyers to prove their innocence. The FA could not afford it, they take on easy jobs and leave big hitters, Klippity, GPC and the red cartel alone to do and behave how they want.
 
bluemanchester said:
Isn't this a bit of a slam dunk for the FA as Chelsea have admitted and told the authorities themselves. No way could the FA risk taking on someone like City who have not admitted the allegations and are prepared to spend big on lawyers to prove their innocence. The FA could not afford it, they take on easy jobs and leave big hitters, Klippity, GPC and the red cartel alone to do and behave how they want.
Click to expand...
That’s my point

FA now taking on low hanging fruit not trusting the PL makes me hopeful
 
Citizen of Legoland said:
They haven’t got the gaul!
Click to expand...
All puns aside, the story has already disappeared from the Fail's sports pages altogether and is the 36th link on the BBC Sport website. Press shamelessly lifting carpet and applying broom. Organised and clear. US owned clubs run the league and the media. Makes me very twitchy about the prospect of getting a positive judgment out of a panel chaired by an Arsenal season ticket holder, who in turn was commissioned by a rag and dipper stooge......
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
Apparently the CFC American owners set aside £100m from the deal with Abramovich specifically to offset sanctions, ie from the '74' charges. Has anyone familiar with our ever accounts ever seen an indication of financial provisions or cotigent liabilities relating to 115. Just curious if this (ie the absence of) is another soft signal of the club's super confidence in winning the battle. Also, is it possible to put a figure on our legal costs for the last FY.
Click to expand...
I’d imagine they just set aside the money to deal with any liabilities that may pop up after the sale, in the same way if you buy a flat a retention of funds is held back to cover any service charge expenses that were incurred but not billed during the previous owner’s tenure - rather than anything specifically to do with the charges
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
Apparently the CFC American owners set aside £100m from the deal with Abramovich specifically to offset sanctions, ie from the '74' charges. Has anyone familiar with our ever accounts ever seen an indication of financial provisions or cotigent liabilities relating to 115. Just curious if this (ie the absence of) is another soft signal of the club's super confidence in winning the battle. Also, is it possible to put a figure on our legal costs for the last FY.
Click to expand...
Yes, last year I think. Stefan Borson said we had removed the potential 115 from risks and liabilities for the season. i think anyway
 
mancboy said:
Its hilarious that the pl were so desperate to charge us that they couldnt even get the amount of charges right in their press release but chelsea have actually admitted to wrongdoing on the same scale if not worse in that they used it to obtain players in an unfair fashion but the pl are apparently still investigating
Click to expand...
They actually got the charges wrong as well as the number but that was purely to try and negate the independent regulator white paper which came out the week after(?).

They've been relatively speedy in Chelsea's case, presumably the self reporting helped there.
 
Bluewonder said:
Because it was previously considered by directors and auditors to be a risk to the club's financial viability, but that was no longer the case when the FY24 accounts were signed.
Click to expand...
Unless we're talking about different things it's still a consideration.

2022/23
22-23.jpg

2023/24
23-24.jpg

 
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