PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

bobbyowenquiff said:
It is just a pure guess but I wouldn't be surprised if Khaldoon and Sheikh Mansour were happy with United's proposals. Sheikh Mansour has made enormous profits on his investments in Manchester. The more successful Manchester is the richer he will become. Inward investment in Trafford can only boost the ongoing development of the city region. I also don't believe Burnham and Ratcliffe would have both been so public with their comments unless they had an investor lined up. Burnham has been adamant that no public money will be used. It would be career suicide for him if he was lying about that.
Click to expand...
I think Gov money is not going to be easily obtained for any project let alone Sir Jim's.
I know our owner planned investment deals in the past with Real Madrid that eventually fell through so we may find he may simply see investment opportunity with Sir Jim (that's what he does).
 
IrishBlueSince92 said:
Magic Twat saying he’s 90% sure that we’ve been told we’re guilty and that’s why we haven’t released our annual accounts yet
Click to expand...
The accounts relate to 2024/25 season which has no relevance to the allegations. If guilty another hearing will be held to decide any sanction. So Magic Hat is a clueless liar.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
I heard the middle east link to the United plans soon after it was announced from a business contact. The Ratcliffe stance is clear because he knows Khaldoon and he has recruited some of our senior staff. Notably Berrada. Ratcliffe has publically supported City on the 115 case allegations. He must have done due diligence on Berrada before taking him on. The media have stopped running stories which have obviously come from David Gill via Tariq Panja. Ratcliffe has also put Ferguson back in his box. The main drivers of the hate since then (and probably before) have been Levy and Lewis and they have both gone for whatever reasons. Liverpool have also calmed down since Klopp left.
Click to expand...

So 3 of 4 CEOs in place in 2023 at Rags, Arsenal & Spurs have all left with only Billy Hogan at the Dippers still in place. So if Hogan goes which is unlikely as he’s embedded in FSG then I can defo climb on this conspiracy.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
The accounts relate to 2024/25 season which has no relevance to the allegations. If guilty another hearing will be held to decide any sanction. So Magic Hat is a clueless liar.
Click to expand...

I think he is trying to say that a very negative "liability hearing" outcome for City would require some serious discussions between auditors and management / Board about how it would affect the club's ability to continue as a "going concern". The club has large fixed costs (wages) and revenue tied largely to success or, at least, propriety. It's not about 2024/25, it would be about the future. And, in case of a seriously negative outcome on liability, the auditors may insist on waiting for the sanctions before concluding. At least, they would need confirmation that Mansour would continue to invest in the club as needed and, if he and the club had been found guilty of fraud, would he want to, or would he be able to? Would Etihad continue their sponsorship, for example? Also, there would be the huge question of compensation to other clubs. It's not unreasonable to suspect the auditors would delay the accounts if there was a very unfavourable outcome on liability.

But it ignores two things: firstly, a very negative outcome just isn't going to happen and, secondly, the "delay" in announcing, such as it is, just doesn't support such a radical conclusion.

So, as you were ....
 
halfcenturyup said:
I think he is trying to say that a very negative "liability hearing" outcome for City would require some serious discussions between auditors and management / Board about how it would affect the club's ability to continue as a "going concern". The club has large fixed costs (wages) and revenue tied largely to success or, at least, propriety. It's not about 2024/25, it would be about the future. And, in case of a seriously negative outcome on liability, the auditors may insist on waiting for the sanctions before concluding. At least, they would need confirmation that Mansour would continue to invest in the club as needed and, if he and the club had been found guilty of fraud, would he want to, or would he be able to? Would Etihad continue their sponsorship, for example? Also, there would be the huge question of compensation to other clubs. It's not unreasonable to suspect the auditors would delay the accounts if there was a very unfavourable outcome on liability.

But it ignores two things: firstly, a very negative outcome just isn't going to happen and, secondly, the "delay" in announcing, such as it is, just doesn't support such a radical conclusion.

So, as you were ....
Click to expand...
He's not intelligent enough to know or think that
He's just added 2+2 and got 7

In fact, he'll copy and paste what you've written into his next few tweets
 
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