PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Legalamb777 said:
Don’t worry Ted is currently eating a corned beef(dog)sandwich normal service will resume shortly.
Click to expand...

ff878874-4e12-44e1-9dd5-39ddca1e85fc.png
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I was watching the Women v Leicester tonight and noticed an advert for First National Abu Dhabi Bank, which was one of the disputed sponsorships in the APT case.
Click to expand...
City have proved that a "local' arrangement with Etihad Airways can be mutually financially beneficial to both to both parties not to mention it's benefit to the PL or even UEFA.
Why is this and other relationships have to be seen as potentially subsidising a particular football team. Both see it as investment and just because some historical propping up by others has not worked all must bar themselves from proper sponsorship.
 
What ever happened to Etihad floating on the NYSE and that enable everyone to see their accounts and we would know how much they actually sponsored city for?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The rules on Related Parties aren't determined by the PL. They're determined by IAS 24 and that's the standard that drives our statutory reporting.

As was explained to you, the PL introduced their associated party rules to add an additional classification of associated parties, although they conveniently forgot to also include 'soft' shareholder loans that their legal advisers told them they should include.

They didn't include them in the APT rules because someone who had provided significant loans to his club (believed to be Bloom at Brighton) lobbied them not to. And that also proves that the PL could be induced to act irrationally and illegally by its members, in the face of explicit legal guidance to the contrary, which also casts a shadow over the argument that the PL acted in good faith in the charges against us on the advice of their lawyers.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Premier League rules for 2009/10 require accounts to be prepared and audited in accordance with applicable English law and regulatory requirements. That brings IAS 24 (Related Party Disclosures) into play, and under IAS 24 our sponsorship with Aabar appears to have been misclassified.
 
Keith Moon said:
Yes, the Premier League rules for 2009/10 require accounts to be prepared and audited in accordance with applicable English law and regulatory requirements. That brings IAS 24 (Related Party Disclosures) into play, and under IAS 24 our sponsorship with Aabar appears to have been misclassified.
Click to expand...

When is see this “Appears” tells me they are guessing unless you have hard evidence!?
 
TinFoilHat said:
www.birminghammail.co.uk

Aston Villa 'facing heavy punishment' for rule breach as UEFA take action

Aston Villa may be thriving in the Europa League this season, but that hasn't prevented the club from finding themselves in hot water over UEFA's strict financial rules
www.birminghammail.co.uk www.birminghammail.co.uk
Click to expand...
And only managed to meet the PSR targets due to:- "That standard was ultimately helped by the club's decision to register the £55m sale of the women's team to their parent company being accepted as registered income."

Not bent at all is it?
 
TinFoilHat said:
www.birminghammail.co.uk

Aston Villa 'facing heavy punishment' for rule breach as UEFA take action

Aston Villa may be thriving in the Europa League this season, but that hasn't prevented the club from finding themselves in hot water over UEFA's strict financial rules
www.birminghammail.co.uk www.birminghammail.co.uk
Click to expand...
They’ll dock them enough points to put the Rags and Liverpool into the top 5 for Champions League places, and 99% of people associated with Villa and their fans will point at us.

Just wait…
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
There's also two separate issues here. The first is, whether related or associated parties are involved or not, were the sponsorship agreements at market value? Given they've never been challenged, and that even UEFA accepted Etihad was broadly in line with the market (which CAS also agreed with) then there is no financial issue.

Where the problem arises is in statutory reporting, and the CAS judgment made a comment about this, stating that if had improperly failed to declare related party transactions then we could be guilty of misreporting. But that has zero impact on our financial reporting, as long as a sponsorship is fair value and correctly accounted for.

I've speculated previously that one of the reasons that related parties are of interest in our case is that we would be forced to publish the value of these sponsorships, and this is exactly what some clubs want.

And para 11 of IAS 24 specifically states
"In the context of this Standard, the following are not related parties:
(a) two entities simply because they have a director or other member of key management personnel in common or because a member of key management personnel of one entity has significant influence over the other entity."

Sheikh Mansour himself is clearly a related party to Manchester City, but to prove Aabar was, the PL would have to show that he played a central role there and played a key part in arranging the sponsorship agreement. And I'm not sure how they'd do that.
Click to expand...
For the Panel to find that Aabar was misclassified, the Premier League only needs to show, on the balance of probabilities, that Aabar should have been treated as a related party and wasn’t. That can be done by showing that both Aabar and City were under common control or significant influence from the same ultimate decision-makers. HH Sheikh Mansour was Chairman of IPIC, and his two closest aides were CEOs of IPIC and Aabar. That should be enough for the Premier League, and if they need more, there’s plenty of material from other court cases involving IPIC and Aabar.
 
manimanc said:
Yet more sponsorship deals and new sponsorship deals i might add.

What is that for number of the soft signals the club keep giving out? Must be double figures.

If we are as rotten to the core as the Premier League, Masters and all the red cartel wanker cheerleaders say we are then I'm sorry these new companies come nowhere near us. Fact.

This only backs up the confidence and the positivity that khaldoon has shown and has spoke about regarding the 115.

It is quite simple. You don't associate yourself with bad eggs or want your name plastered all over a club or an organisation who are guilty of wrongdoing.

Over to you masters you fat fuckin ponce.

I do believe it is 6 love, 6 love, 5 love and we're on match point!!
Click to expand...

I dont disgrace BUT Liverpool have Stand Charter as their sponsor and the pl are happy to have a money laundering bank as a clubs main sponsor
 
You have the so called best league in the world so its said.
Yet this league is hell bent on stopping competition.
Doesn't want new owners spending money making it possible for a higher standard league.
The league wants a status quo, an American type league.

The best league in the world wouldn't be scared of new investment and challenges from its members.

It would make it exciting instead its all about money being taken out by the American cartel.

To me its ridiculous that a club can fail Uefa ffp put pass the pl ffp. To me its mad that one club can get millions more covid leeway.
But the clubs run the league surly they could have stopped rags from getting favored treatment ?
 
Cityfan1977 said:
I dont lnow what that says about UK regulations but Revolut has full banking licence every where else.


In the EU/EEA, Revolut operates as a fully-licensed bank under the Bank of Lithuania and is regulated at EU level. Customer deposits in those jurisdictions are generally protected under the EU deposit guarantee scheme (up to €100,000 per person). �
Revolut
In the UK, Revolut has a restricted banking licence and is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), but full licence conditions (like consumer credit services) are still being finalised. �
Financial Times
In the US, it partners with an FDIC-insured bank, so deposits are protected up to $250,000. �
Forbes
Click to expand...
That's all well and go but do they money launder for terrorist
 
halfcenturyup said:
Long post warning - sorry.

But, fair enough. Maybe I am not explaining my thought process properly or maybe I'm not making any sense. Let's see - I'll try one last time, then you can tell me.

Forget fair value for a moment. That is a separate issue which we can talk about later, if you want.

The PL is alleging (as far as we know) that Mansour came to Etihad with a fraudulent scheme whereby he wanted them to sign a super-generous sponsorship scheme with City, but they didn't have to worry about funding it because he would personally give them most of the funds himself.

Now, we can assume for a number of reasons that the PL doesn't have a "smoking gun" such as a whistle-blower with irrefutable evidence. So the PL needs to convince the panel on the balance of probabilities, with particularly cogent evidence, that that happened. They will presumably have many lines of attack - emails, presentations, financial documents and the like, and then they will have to answer the question - why would Etihad do that?

If a complete stranger came to you and asked you to break the law, you would tell him to fuck off. And quite rightly. If someone who had significant control over your life asked you to do it, you may consider it. So if the PL could show Mansour had significant control it strengthens their case, if they can't it weakens their case.

That's my point, really. Up to everyone else to pooh-pooh it. No problem.

How would the PL be able to show that? There are decades of audited accounts that show Mansour doesn't have significant control (as defined by accounting standards) over any of the club's sponsors. To over-ride that consistent and accepted auditor opinion the PL would have to have some pretty serious "evidence". Just quoting publicly known facts about who does what where won't be enough no matter what Harris and Magic Twat say.

So I wouldn't be surprised if the PL have been sniffing around the "owned by Abu Dhabi" narrative in the hope of raising it as a line of attack. I don't know enough about the legal and company structure situation in Abu Dhabi to come to any conclusion on that, but I do know the "ultimate controlling undertaking" of the club changed in the middle of these investigations from a company with one legal form to one with another. I am speculating that may be connected, as a means of strengthening the club's defence, or of weakening an attack from the PL.

In fact, the accounts now refer to Mansour as the ultimate controlling "party" under the"ultimate controlling undertaking" note, which is a little odd as it has previously referred to ADUG and then Newton. May all be nothing, it just seemed strange to me at the time, and still does, tbh.

I'm not sure I can explain it all any more clearly than that. So, there you go. It's probably all bollocks - we will see soon enough.

Oh, and corned beef sandwiches are delicious. Sue me.
Click to expand...
Your long point may explain why some of the more malicious media parasites continue to describe City as “state owned” when there is irrefutable proof that it is not true. Perhaps the PL are still briefing it out because they know that if the “state owned” trope collapses then so does the main element of their case.
 
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