PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

citizen_maine said:
I'm not quite following this - are you saying that the value of our sponsorships is only known by the PL board if they're not deemed to be RPT's, but would be divulged to the other clubs if they are deemed to be RPT's?
Click to expand...
Basically yes. They're deemed to be APTs, so have to be agreed (or not) by the PL. But if they're RPTs then we have to declare them as such in our published accounts, and probably the values as well.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Basically yes. They're deemed to be APTs, so have to be agreed (or not) by the PL. But if they're RPTs then we have to declare them as such in our published accounts, and probably the values as well.
Click to expand...
So, if they're APT's, we don't have to declare them in our published accounts? Apologies if this is basic stuff that I'm just not getting, but I can't see why one needs to be declared, but the other doesn't. Both would be used in any FFP/PSR calculation (even if one might be modified to FMV) so why does one not need to be declared in our accounts, but the other does?
Confused? Yes I am :-)
 
Kangaroo court - Arsenal the main complainer - their headed paper. Yet the Prem allowed the so-called Independent Panel to be chosen by an Arsenal club member and season ticket holder. Colossal mistake. Just my opinion here, but I believe that David Pannick would not risk his world class reputation if he thought there was evidence of wrongdoing. If he found evidence of wrongdoing he would have plea bargained years ago relative to the scale of things and explained that to the club beforehand, but that hasn't happened. We demolished UEFA at CAS when they tried to screw us over with stolen, tampered with and out-of-date so-called evidence. We were happy to take the fine for non-cooperation - why cooperate with a bent organisation trying to screw us over........??????

I don't trust the panel to treat us fairly with the red cartel pushing them/the Prem to get rid of us so although I believe we are innocent of wrongdoing I expect the Prem/the panel to try and screw us over with the result that we see them in court - more years of waiting. My second thought is that the panel are telling the Prem there's nothing of substance that can be held against us in the evidence but the Prem are begging us in reverse to accept some form of sanction that causes minimum damage to all. We should not accept responsibility for things we haven't done. The Prem therefore says nothing because they believe the longer they keep this dark cloud created by them in place it'll continue to harm us.
 
Last edited:
HarrytheBlue said:
Kangaroo court - Arsenal the main complainer - their headed paper. Yet the Prem allowed the so-called Independent Panel to be chaired by an Arsenal club member and season ticket holder. Colossal mistake. Just my opinion here, but I believe that David Pannick would not risk his world class reputation if he thought there was evidence of wrongdoing. If he found evidence of wrongdoing he would have plea bargained years ago relative to the scale of things and explained that to the club beforehand, but that hasn't happened. We demolished UEFA at CAS when they tried to screw us over with stolen, tampered with and out-of-date so-called evidence. We were happy to take the fine for non-cooperation - why cooperate with a bent organisation trying to screw us over........??????

I don't trust the panel to treat us fairly with the red cartel pushing them/the Prem to get rid of us so although I believe we are innocent of wrongdoing I expect the Prem/the panel to try and screw us over with the result that we see them in court - more years of waiting. My second thought is that the panel are telling the Prem there's nothing of substance that can be held against us in the evidence but the Prem are begging us in reverse to accept some form of sanction that causes minimum damage to all. We should not accept responsibility for things we haven't done. The Prem therefore says nothing because they believe the longer they keep this dark cloud created by them in place it'll continue to harm us.
Click to expand...
Getting paid. Will probably be the only thing pannick gives a fuck about
 
I think the verdict was announced privately to both parties ages ago.
Our 'punishment' was Arsenal being blatantly 'given the title' by our accusers.
Crazy thinking I know, but they made it so obvious that Arsenal were having the title this year at our expense I can see no other explanation for this.
The only thing is they were so hellbent on giving Arsenal the title, all the other clubs saw this too, hence the snubs in congratulating them.
If not this then it's just corrupt to fuck and the verdict wait just goes on and on.
Just thought I'd dip my toe in as I'm bored to fuck with the wait
 
HarrytheBlue said:
Kangaroo court - Arsenal the main complainer - their headed paper. Yet the Prem allowed the so-called Independent Panel to be chaired by an Arsenal club member and season ticket holder. Colossal mistake. Just my opinion here, but I believe that David Pannick would not risk his world class reputation if he thought there was evidence of wrongdoing. If he found evidence of wrongdoing he would have plea bargained years ago relative to the scale of things and explained that to the club beforehand, but that hasn't happened. We demolished UEFA at CAS when they tried to screw us over with stolen, tampered with and out-of-date so-called evidence. We were happy to take the fine for non-cooperation - why cooperate with a bent organisation trying to screw us over........??????

I don't trust the panel to treat us fairly with the red cartel pushing them/the Prem to get rid of us so although I believe we are innocent of wrongdoing I expect the Prem/the panel to try and screw us over with the result that we see them in court - more years of waiting. My second thought is that the panel are telling the Prem there's nothing of substance that can be held against us in the evidence but the Prem are begging us in reverse to accept some form of sanction that causes minimum damage to all. We should not accept responsibility for things we haven't done. The Prem therefore says nothing because they believe the longer they keep this dark cloud created by them in place it'll continue to harm us.
Click to expand...
The panel was picked by Rosen, he isn't the chair. And I hate to burst your bubble but Lord Pannick is also an Arsenal season ticket holder.
 
levets said:
I agree. Can it be pinned again?
forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk

115 Charges - FAQs

Mods, this has been a request on and off in the 115 Charges thread for some time. Feel free to move but I thought it might warrant a thread of its own. The idea here is that the information is essentially factual with very little/no opinion thrown into the mix. There are also some significant...
forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk
Click to expand...
Should be in Classic Threads really.

Just sayin’…
 
Keith Moon said:
In Section 1, we are accused of knowingly submitting information relating to sponsorship revenue and related parties that did not provide a true and fair view of the club's financial position.

In Section 4, Rule E.54 states that the Premier League Board has the power to determine whether revenue from a Related Party Transaction has been recorded at Fair Market Value. If it concludes that it has not, the League can make an adjustment and substitute its own Fair Market Value assessment.

So my point, which has probably been done to death on here over the last three years, is that maybe the Premier League's case is simply that some or all of the Abu Dhabi-linked sponsors should have been treated as related parties, either because of ownership links or because of the influence figures such as Simon Pearce and Khaldoon Al Mubarak were alleged to have through their positions within the Executive Affairs Authority.

If that's the route they've gone down, then, just as we saw in the APT case, they may have instructed an external firm to assess whether the sponsorship deals were at Fair Market Value. Presumably that assessment didn't come back in City's favour, which then leaves City having to prove either that the companies were not related parties in the first place, or that even if they were, the deals were still at FMV.
Click to expand...
No, that's bollocks - see PBs post above re fmv and related parties.
 
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