UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[roxy]

Interestingly, as a private company City aren't even obliged to release their accounts publicly but they do in the interests of transparency. As a publicly quoted company United are so obliged but keep a shedload of murky financial secrets hidden inside a Cayman Islands bank which will never see the light of day. Oh the irony.

All companies have to file accounts at Companies House.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

All companies have to file accounts at Companies House.

I thought that.
Also it would be a bit strange to have to supply them for FFP but not UK law.

 

[laserblue]

All companies have to file accounts at Companies House.

You're right but what I was driving at is that private companies aren't obliged to release the accounts publicly themselves. City announce their results to the world.

 

[Asa's left peg]

I was just reacquainting myself with the make up of the City board and there is some serious legal and accounting weight on there, as well those that are well know to us fans - Galassi particularly sounds an interesting guy. The one that surprised me was Mohamed Al Mazrouei, who is Chairman of Etihad Airways. I am still trying to work out whether that will work to our advantage or not in the investigations to come, if they ever get past procedural issues.

 

[Blue Feather]

Wasn’t it on early afternoons if i recall haha yeah the ropey acting and wooden sets ahh those were the days ..

Yeah, 1.30pm...ish? One of those progs watched when off school

 

[KS55]

I was just reacquainting myself with the make up of the City board and there is some serious legal and accounting weight on there, as well those that are well know to us fans - Galassi particularly sounds an interesting guy. The one that surprised me was Mohamed Al Mazrouei, who is Chairman of Etihad Airways. I am still trying to work out whether that will work to our advantage or not in the investigations to come, if they ever get past procedural issues.

That would depend on whether Etihad was represented on our board at the relevant time. I thought that they were not, but I could be wrong. If they were, it might call into question whether the sponsorship were related, but Uefa ruled at the time that it was not.. What is called into question by the current enquiry is who paid the sponsorship. We and Etihad said it was Etihad from their own resources. Leaked emails suggest otherwise. Hence the accusation of deception.

 

[Gremlin]

That would depend on whether Etihad was represented on our board at the relevant time. I thought that they were not, but I could be wrong. If they were, it might call into question whether the sponsorship were related, but Uefa ruled at the time that it was not.. What is called into question by the current enquiry is who paid the sponsorship. We and Etihad said it was Etihad from their own resources. Leaked emails suggest otherwise. Hence the accusation of deception.

it's pretty common for top people to be directors of more than one company - particularly non-executive directors, which this guy is at MCFC Ltd. Doesn't make them related parties - that's a legal accounting definition.

 

[KS55]

it's pretty common for top people to be directors of more than one company - particularly non-executive directors, which this guy is at MCFC Ltd. Doesn't make them related parties - that's a legal accounting definition.

Correct, except that UEFA have their own interpretation of IS 25, which, if you recall, they used to declare our other sponsorships such as aabar related. That's what Khaldoon was referring to when he said that we had a fundamental disaggreement with their asssessment.. I'm told by those who know accountancy that there is some wriggle room in interpreting IS 25 and that is partly why we took a pinch, to avoid a long drawn out wrangle.
I don't know what the difference was.
PS EDIT. Bayern whose three main sponsors are both shareholders and directors don't seem to have a problem !

 

[petrusha]

Correct, except that UEFA have their own interpretation of IS 25, which, if you recall, they used to declare our other sponsorships such as aabar related. That's what Khaldoon was referring to when he said that we had a fundamental disaggreement with their assessment.

UEFA's auditors declared that they were related but UEFA didn't follow through with that. The settlement agreement treated them as unrelated, in return for City undertaking not to increase those two sponsorships for a specified period (either two or three years, IIRC).

 

[Centurions]

Correct, except that UEFA have their own interpretation of IS 25, which, if you recall, they used to declare our other sponsorships such as aabar related. That's what Khaldoon was referring to when he said that we had a fundamental disaggreement with their asssessment.. I'm told by those who know accountancy that there is some wriggle room in interpreting IS 25 and that is partly why we took a pinch, to avoid a long drawn out wrangle.
I don't know what the difference was.
PS EDIT. Bayern whose three main sponsors are both shareholders and directors don't seem to have a problem !

The fundamental disagreement was in relation to the pre FFP wages and how they were allowed to be offset, we used the original toolkit but UEFA decided it wasn't clear enough and republished it but crucially, after we'd submitted our figures. using the original toolkit we would have scraped through, the new version caused us to just fail so that we couldn't offset them which had the effect of making us fail it massively.