comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club over there (U18109)
posted 1 minute ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You obviously do not understand what is being looked at for them if you think it doesn’t add up. It does add up, the issue is whether those sponsorship deals are truly 3rd party and if they are representative of market value. They are completely different offences to the ones Everton have admitted and been found guilty of
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite sure if you understand accounting works but generally if you're reporting fradulent items on them it means they don't add up. Obviously you think that's worse than reporting honestly.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes because you’ve still not answered the question! The value of those sponsorships aren’t what’s in question, they were deemed market value at the time by both Uefa and CAS so I’m not sure you understand what the allegation actually is. It is who was funding those sponsorships via the sponsors. That’s also why if there is fraud, it would be at the sponsors too not at City, which is why it’s a PL investigation and not a criminal one…
You said PL clubs anyway, as in plural...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I could come up with quite a list but it would only result in long my club's brown stuff don't stink posts like this one.
comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club... (U18109)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because matchday revenue hasn’t been the biggest generator in a long time. What do you think doesn’t add up?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know maybe the fraudulent sponsorship deals you're being investigated for. Are we really having this conversation?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You obviously do not understand what is being looked at for them if you think it doesn’t add up. It does add up, the issue is whether those sponsorship deals are truly 3rd party and if they are representative of market value. They are completely different offences to the ones Everton have admitted and been found guilty of
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are also accused of failing to comply with PL and UEFA FFP, and this will be on the basis of the main charges that they have failed to disclose accurate financial information relating to sponsorship but also costs such as Mancini's wages.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because matchday revenue hasn’t been the biggest generator in a long time. What do you think doesn’t add up?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know maybe the fraudulent sponsorship deals you're being investigated for. Are we really having this conversation?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes because you’ve still not answered the question! The value of those sponsorships aren’t what’s in question, they were deemed market value at the time by both Uefa and CAS so I’m not sure you understand what the allegation actually is. It is who was funding those sponsorships via the sponsors. That’s also why if there is fraud, it would be at the sponsors too not at City, which is why it’s a PL investigation and not a criminal one…
You said PL clubs anyway, as in plural. Who are you accusing of fudging their PSR calculations and how
(aside from you yourselves trying to?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
chelsea have admitted it.
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes because you’ve still not answered the question! The value of those sponsorships aren’t what’s in question, they were deemed market value at the time by both Uefa and CAS so I’m not sure you understand what the allegation actually is. It is who was funding those sponsorships via the sponsors. That’s also why if there is fraud, it would be at the sponsors too not at City, which is why it’s a PL investigation and not a criminal one…
You said PL clubs anyway, as in plural...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I could come up with quite a list but it would only result in long my club's brown stuff don't stink posts like this one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven’t said whether I think it stinks or not though, I’m just correcting you on what you think the actual accusation is (personally I think some of it for us does stink).
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because matchday revenue hasn’t been the biggest generator in a long time. What do you think doesn’t add up?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know maybe the fraudulent sponsorship deals you're being investigated for. Are we really having this conversation?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes because you’ve still not answered the question! The value of those sponsorships aren’t what’s in question, they were deemed market value at the time by both Uefa and CAS so I’m not sure you understand what the allegation actually is. It is who was funding those sponsorships via the sponsors. That’s also why if there is fraud, it would be at the sponsors too not at City, which is why it’s a PL investigation and not a criminal one…
You said PL clubs anyway, as in plural. Who are you accusing of fudging their PSR calculations and how
(aside from you yourselves trying to?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
chelsea have admitted it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fudging psr? I thought they’d admitted all the stuff they did in the Abramovich era?
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven’t said whether I think it stinks or not though, I’m just correcting you on what you think the actual accusation is (personally I think some of it for us does stink).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you're not correcting me, because the accusations entail their account's don't add up.
Absolute farce. Hope one of them sues the prem for millions.
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven’t said whether I think it stinks or not though, I’m just correcting you on what you think the actual accusation is (personally I think some of it for us does stink).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you're not correcting me, because the accusations entail their account's don't add up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not for the sponsorship deals it isn’t, which is what you said. There’s also no accusation they don’t add up now or haven’t done for a while. There’s no accusation since PSR was implemented. You said the sum of PL clubs who’s figures don’t add up and I was asking which ones, as none of the rest of them have reported PSR breaches themselves so either you know something nobody else does or you are actually accusing everyone apart from you and Forest of posting fraudulent accounts.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not for the sponsorship deals it isn’t, which is what you said. There’s also no accusation they don’t add up now or haven’t done for a while. There’s no accusation since PSR was implemented. You said the sum of PL clubs who’s figures don’t add up and I was asking which ones, as none of the rest of them have reported PSR breaches themselves so either you know something nobody else does or you are actually accusing everyone apart from you and Forest of posting fraudulent accounts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you talking about now melton? Your club has literally been accused of lying to their auditors, and you pointed out the accounts have been audited and asked why I don't think their accounts add up. What's the point of discussing anything further after that?
comment by Darkphoenix (U11503)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
The timing of this extra two-points to avoid any significant spanner for those in the relegation zone, strongly indicates their concern of a wider-backlash.
I'll call it now, Manchester City or Chelsea will be asked to pay a significant fine and will be informed at the start of next season, they will be -30 points, knowing full well it will have no significant impact on them for their future.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with all of this except the Chelsea part.
-30 points and they could genuinely be relegated based on the past 2 years.
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not for the sponsorship deals it isn’t, which is what you said. There’s also no accusation they don’t add up now or haven’t done for a while. There’s no accusation since PSR was implemented. You said the sum of PL clubs who’s figures don’t add up and I was asking which ones, as none of the rest of them have reported PSR breaches themselves so either you know something nobody else does or you are actually accusing everyone apart from you and Forest of posting fraudulent accounts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you talking about now melton? Your club has literally been accused of lying to their auditors, and you pointed out the accounts have been audited and asked why I don't think their accounts add up. What's the point of discussing anything further after that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh? No they haven’t! Auditors wouldn’t see anything wrong with City’s accounts, how could they, that’s just misunderstanding the accusations again.
I’m still not sure why you’re focussing on that anyway though as it’s irrelevant to PSR. My first question was asking you who you thought was fudging their books for that.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh? No they haven’t! Auditors wouldn’t see anything wrong with City’s accounts, how could they, that’s just misunderstanding the accusations again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"What the Premier League are alleging is extremely serious, not just in terms of football’s rules and regulations. The accusation is that City executives have colluded with officials from Etihad and have lied not only to the club’s independent auditors but to the Court of Arbitration for Sport."
You can go google that recent quote. I'm not misunderstanding anything.
Apparently Everton are appealing - unbelievable, on what basis?
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh? No they haven’t! Auditors wouldn’t see anything wrong with City’s accounts, how could they, that’s just misunderstanding the accusations again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"What the Premier League are alleging is extremely serious, not just in terms of football’s rules and regulations. The accusation is that City executives have colluded with officials from Etihad and have lied not only to the club’s independent auditors but to the Court of Arbitration for Sport."
You can go google that recent quote. I'm not misunderstanding anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know who’s said that though. Whoever it is, I agree with two thirds of it. If found guilty, then it is essentially arguing fraud has been committed at the sponsors, it would mean that city executives would have colluded with them and it would mean that those executives (and those of the sponsors) will be guilty of committing perjury.
That it would involve lying to city’s auditors themselves makes no sense given the transaction were allegedly through the sponsors though.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
I’m still not sure why you’re focussing on that anyway though as it’s irrelevant to PSR. My first question was asking you who you thought was fudging their books for that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"By extension, that also calls into question what information was disclosed by City's owners to Silverlake before the American private equity firm bought a significant stake in the club in 2019. That's why the Premier League's allegations go way beyond accusing City of failing to meet Profit and Sustainability Rules."
Irrelevant to PSR
Just read that Everton now face a third punishment for being £6.5m over on stadium payments - when will they stop cheating
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh? No they haven’t! Auditors wouldn’t see anything wrong with City’s accounts, how could they, that’s just misunderstanding the accusations again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"What the Premier League are alleging is extremely serious, not just in terms of football’s rules and regulations. The accusation is that City executives have colluded with officials from Etihad and have lied not only to the club’s independent auditors but to the Court of Arbitration for Sport."
You can go google that recent quote. I'm not misunderstanding anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The accusations are based on hacked emails, other emails 'released' by the same hacker have proved to have been altered and edited in the past. He's recently been found guilty of blackmailing a Maltese businessman using the same method.
comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club... (U18109)
posted 3 minutes ago
Apparently Everton are appealing - unbelievable, on what basis?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last time they tried to make the case that Richarlison was worth £80m and being made to sell him early cost them £20m
They also relied on expected sponsorship money from a deal that hadnt been finalised, and then didnt come to pass.
Really, their only defence is that they are poor businessmen, and that isnt a winning defence.
Newsflash. Manchester City fans assure us that their books are in order
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh? No they haven’t! Auditors wouldn’t see anything wrong with City’s accounts, how could they, that’s just misunderstanding the accusations again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"What the Premier League are alleging is extremely serious, not just in terms of football’s rules and regulations. The accusation is that City executives have colluded with officials from Etihad and have lied not only to the club’s independent auditors but to the Court of Arbitration for Sport."
You can go google that recent quote. I'm not misunderstanding anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The accusations are based on hacked emails, other emails 'released' by the same hacker have proved to have been altered and edited in the past. He's recently been found guilty of blackmailing a Maltese businessman using the same method.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh here he is.
If I found proof you were cheating on your partner, and tried to bribe you, then I would be guilty of blackmail. But that doesnt mean you were not cheating
IN many cases, such evidence is inadmissible, but that does not necessarily undermine its accuracy or authenticity.
Newsflash. Everton fan moans about punishment after club admits breaking rules
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh? No they haven’t! Auditors wouldn’t see anything wrong with City’s accounts, how could they, that’s just misunderstanding the accusations again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"What the Premier League are alleging is extremely serious, not just in terms of football’s rules and regulations. The accusation is that City executives have colluded with officials from Etihad and have lied not only to the club’s independent auditors but to the Court of Arbitration for Sport."
You can go google that recent quote. I'm not misunderstanding anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The accusations are based on hacked emails, other emails 'released' by the same hacker have proved to have been altered and edited in the past. He's recently been found guilty of blackmailing a Maltese businessman using the same method.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh here he is.
If I found proof you were cheating on your partner, and tried to bribe you, then I would be guilty of blackmail. But that doesnt mean you were not cheating
IN many cases, such evidence is inadmissible, but that does not necessarily undermine its accuracy or authenticity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He edited the emails to make them look incriminating, CAS agreed with that when their investigators were allowed access to the originals and City's mail servers.
He also tried to blackmail City along with a number of Portugese clubs and players - Over 300 charges levelled against him to which he was found guilty.
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
I’m still not sure why you’re focussing on that anyway though as it’s irrelevant to PSR. My first question was asking you who you thought was fudging their books for that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"By extension, that also calls into question what information was disclosed by City's owners to Silverlake before the American private equity firm bought a significant stake in the club in 2019. That's why the Premier League's allegations go way beyond accusing City of failing to meet Profit and Sustainability Rules."
Irrelevant to PSR
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah that’s just someone talking rubbish. Even so, that’s nothing to do with PSR, why would you think it is?
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 13 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah that’s just someone talking rubbish. Even so, that’s nothing to do with PSR, why would you think it is?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah, it's just someone who isn't a fan of the club taking a reasoned view.
Charging them with PSR breaches would be like charging them with manslaughter when they've committed murder, you're just trying your best to minimise it. No point asking the question again when you're just going to ignore the answer.
Sign in if you want to comment
Everton fined a further 2 points
Page 3 of 5
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club over there (U18109)
posted 1 minute ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You obviously do not understand what is being looked at for them if you think it doesn’t add up. It does add up, the issue is whether those sponsorship deals are truly 3rd party and if they are representative of market value. They are completely different offences to the ones Everton have admitted and been found guilty of
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite sure if you understand accounting works but generally if you're reporting fradulent items on them it means they don't add up. Obviously you think that's worse than reporting honestly.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes because you’ve still not answered the question! The value of those sponsorships aren’t what’s in question, they were deemed market value at the time by both Uefa and CAS so I’m not sure you understand what the allegation actually is. It is who was funding those sponsorships via the sponsors. That’s also why if there is fraud, it would be at the sponsors too not at City, which is why it’s a PL investigation and not a criminal one…
You said PL clubs anyway, as in plural...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I could come up with quite a list but it would only result in long my club's brown stuff don't stink posts like this one.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club... (U18109)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because matchday revenue hasn’t been the biggest generator in a long time. What do you think doesn’t add up?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know maybe the fraudulent sponsorship deals you're being investigated for. Are we really having this conversation?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You obviously do not understand what is being looked at for them if you think it doesn’t add up. It does add up, the issue is whether those sponsorship deals are truly 3rd party and if they are representative of market value. They are completely different offences to the ones Everton have admitted and been found guilty of
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are also accused of failing to comply with PL and UEFA FFP, and this will be on the basis of the main charges that they have failed to disclose accurate financial information relating to sponsorship but also costs such as Mancini's wages.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because matchday revenue hasn’t been the biggest generator in a long time. What do you think doesn’t add up?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know maybe the fraudulent sponsorship deals you're being investigated for. Are we really having this conversation?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes because you’ve still not answered the question! The value of those sponsorships aren’t what’s in question, they were deemed market value at the time by both Uefa and CAS so I’m not sure you understand what the allegation actually is. It is who was funding those sponsorships via the sponsors. That’s also why if there is fraud, it would be at the sponsors too not at City, which is why it’s a PL investigation and not a criminal one…
You said PL clubs anyway, as in plural. Who are you accusing of fudging their PSR calculations and how
(aside from you yourselves trying to?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
chelsea have admitted it.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes because you’ve still not answered the question! The value of those sponsorships aren’t what’s in question, they were deemed market value at the time by both Uefa and CAS so I’m not sure you understand what the allegation actually is. It is who was funding those sponsorships via the sponsors. That’s also why if there is fraud, it would be at the sponsors too not at City, which is why it’s a PL investigation and not a criminal one…
You said PL clubs anyway, as in plural...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I could come up with quite a list but it would only result in long my club's brown stuff don't stink posts like this one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven’t said whether I think it stinks or not though, I’m just correcting you on what you think the actual accusation is (personally I think some of it for us does stink).
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because matchday revenue hasn’t been the biggest generator in a long time. What do you think doesn’t add up?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know maybe the fraudulent sponsorship deals you're being investigated for. Are we really having this conversation?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes because you’ve still not answered the question! The value of those sponsorships aren’t what’s in question, they were deemed market value at the time by both Uefa and CAS so I’m not sure you understand what the allegation actually is. It is who was funding those sponsorships via the sponsors. That’s also why if there is fraud, it would be at the sponsors too not at City, which is why it’s a PL investigation and not a criminal one…
You said PL clubs anyway, as in plural. Who are you accusing of fudging their PSR calculations and how
(aside from you yourselves trying to?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
chelsea have admitted it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fudging psr? I thought they’d admitted all the stuff they did in the Abramovich era?
posted on 8/4/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven’t said whether I think it stinks or not though, I’m just correcting you on what you think the actual accusation is (personally I think some of it for us does stink).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you're not correcting me, because the accusations entail their account's don't add up.
posted on 8/4/24
Absolute farce. Hope one of them sues the prem for millions.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven’t said whether I think it stinks or not though, I’m just correcting you on what you think the actual accusation is (personally I think some of it for us does stink).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you're not correcting me, because the accusations entail their account's don't add up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not for the sponsorship deals it isn’t, which is what you said. There’s also no accusation they don’t add up now or haven’t done for a while. There’s no accusation since PSR was implemented. You said the sum of PL clubs who’s figures don’t add up and I was asking which ones, as none of the rest of them have reported PSR breaches themselves so either you know something nobody else does or you are actually accusing everyone apart from you and Forest of posting fraudulent accounts.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not for the sponsorship deals it isn’t, which is what you said. There’s also no accusation they don’t add up now or haven’t done for a while. There’s no accusation since PSR was implemented. You said the sum of PL clubs who’s figures don’t add up and I was asking which ones, as none of the rest of them have reported PSR breaches themselves so either you know something nobody else does or you are actually accusing everyone apart from you and Forest of posting fraudulent accounts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you talking about now melton? Your club has literally been accused of lying to their auditors, and you pointed out the accounts have been audited and asked why I don't think their accounts add up. What's the point of discussing anything further after that?
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Darkphoenix (U11503)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
The timing of this extra two-points to avoid any significant spanner for those in the relegation zone, strongly indicates their concern of a wider-backlash.
I'll call it now, Manchester City or Chelsea will be asked to pay a significant fine and will be informed at the start of next season, they will be -30 points, knowing full well it will have no significant impact on them for their future.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with all of this except the Chelsea part.
-30 points and they could genuinely be relegated based on the past 2 years.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not for the sponsorship deals it isn’t, which is what you said. There’s also no accusation they don’t add up now or haven’t done for a while. There’s no accusation since PSR was implemented. You said the sum of PL clubs who’s figures don’t add up and I was asking which ones, as none of the rest of them have reported PSR breaches themselves so either you know something nobody else does or you are actually accusing everyone apart from you and Forest of posting fraudulent accounts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you talking about now melton? Your club has literally been accused of lying to their auditors, and you pointed out the accounts have been audited and asked why I don't think their accounts add up. What's the point of discussing anything further after that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh? No they haven’t! Auditors wouldn’t see anything wrong with City’s accounts, how could they, that’s just misunderstanding the accusations again.
I’m still not sure why you’re focussing on that anyway though as it’s irrelevant to PSR. My first question was asking you who you thought was fudging their books for that.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh? No they haven’t! Auditors wouldn’t see anything wrong with City’s accounts, how could they, that’s just misunderstanding the accusations again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"What the Premier League are alleging is extremely serious, not just in terms of football’s rules and regulations. The accusation is that City executives have colluded with officials from Etihad and have lied not only to the club’s independent auditors but to the Court of Arbitration for Sport."
You can go google that recent quote. I'm not misunderstanding anything.
posted on 8/4/24
Apparently Everton are appealing - unbelievable, on what basis?
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh? No they haven’t! Auditors wouldn’t see anything wrong with City’s accounts, how could they, that’s just misunderstanding the accusations again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"What the Premier League are alleging is extremely serious, not just in terms of football’s rules and regulations. The accusation is that City executives have colluded with officials from Etihad and have lied not only to the club’s independent auditors but to the Court of Arbitration for Sport."
You can go google that recent quote. I'm not misunderstanding anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know who’s said that though. Whoever it is, I agree with two thirds of it. If found guilty, then it is essentially arguing fraud has been committed at the sponsors, it would mean that city executives would have colluded with them and it would mean that those executives (and those of the sponsors) will be guilty of committing perjury.
That it would involve lying to city’s auditors themselves makes no sense given the transaction were allegedly through the sponsors though.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
I’m still not sure why you’re focussing on that anyway though as it’s irrelevant to PSR. My first question was asking you who you thought was fudging their books for that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"By extension, that also calls into question what information was disclosed by City's owners to Silverlake before the American private equity firm bought a significant stake in the club in 2019. That's why the Premier League's allegations go way beyond accusing City of failing to meet Profit and Sustainability Rules."
Irrelevant to PSR
posted on 8/4/24
Just read that Everton now face a third punishment for being £6.5m over on stadium payments - when will they stop cheating
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh? No they haven’t! Auditors wouldn’t see anything wrong with City’s accounts, how could they, that’s just misunderstanding the accusations again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"What the Premier League are alleging is extremely serious, not just in terms of football’s rules and regulations. The accusation is that City executives have colluded with officials from Etihad and have lied not only to the club’s independent auditors but to the Court of Arbitration for Sport."
You can go google that recent quote. I'm not misunderstanding anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The accusations are based on hacked emails, other emails 'released' by the same hacker have proved to have been altered and edited in the past. He's recently been found guilty of blackmailing a Maltese businessman using the same method.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club... (U18109)
posted 3 minutes ago
Apparently Everton are appealing - unbelievable, on what basis?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last time they tried to make the case that Richarlison was worth £80m and being made to sell him early cost them £20m
They also relied on expected sponsorship money from a deal that hadnt been finalised, and then didnt come to pass.
Really, their only defence is that they are poor businessmen, and that isnt a winning defence.
posted on 8/4/24
Newsflash. Manchester City fans assure us that their books are in order
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh? No they haven’t! Auditors wouldn’t see anything wrong with City’s accounts, how could they, that’s just misunderstanding the accusations again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"What the Premier League are alleging is extremely serious, not just in terms of football’s rules and regulations. The accusation is that City executives have colluded with officials from Etihad and have lied not only to the club’s independent auditors but to the Court of Arbitration for Sport."
You can go google that recent quote. I'm not misunderstanding anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The accusations are based on hacked emails, other emails 'released' by the same hacker have proved to have been altered and edited in the past. He's recently been found guilty of blackmailing a Maltese businessman using the same method.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh here he is.
If I found proof you were cheating on your partner, and tried to bribe you, then I would be guilty of blackmail. But that doesnt mean you were not cheating
IN many cases, such evidence is inadmissible, but that does not necessarily undermine its accuracy or authenticity.
posted on 8/4/24
Newsflash. Everton fan moans about punishment after club admits breaking rules
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh? No they haven’t! Auditors wouldn’t see anything wrong with City’s accounts, how could they, that’s just misunderstanding the accusations again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"What the Premier League are alleging is extremely serious, not just in terms of football’s rules and regulations. The accusation is that City executives have colluded with officials from Etihad and have lied not only to the club’s independent auditors but to the Court of Arbitration for Sport."
You can go google that recent quote. I'm not misunderstanding anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The accusations are based on hacked emails, other emails 'released' by the same hacker have proved to have been altered and edited in the past. He's recently been found guilty of blackmailing a Maltese businessman using the same method.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh here he is.
If I found proof you were cheating on your partner, and tried to bribe you, then I would be guilty of blackmail. But that doesnt mean you were not cheating
IN many cases, such evidence is inadmissible, but that does not necessarily undermine its accuracy or authenticity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He edited the emails to make them look incriminating, CAS agreed with that when their investigators were allowed access to the originals and City's mail servers.
He also tried to blackmail City along with a number of Portugese clubs and players - Over 300 charges levelled against him to which he was found guilty.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
I’m still not sure why you’re focussing on that anyway though as it’s irrelevant to PSR. My first question was asking you who you thought was fudging their books for that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"By extension, that also calls into question what information was disclosed by City's owners to Silverlake before the American private equity firm bought a significant stake in the club in 2019. That's why the Premier League's allegations go way beyond accusing City of failing to meet Profit and Sustainability Rules."
Irrelevant to PSR
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah that’s just someone talking rubbish. Even so, that’s nothing to do with PSR, why would you think it is?
posted on 8/4/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 13 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah that’s just someone talking rubbish. Even so, that’s nothing to do with PSR, why would you think it is?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah, it's just someone who isn't a fan of the club taking a reasoned view.
Charging them with PSR breaches would be like charging them with manslaughter when they've committed murder, you're just trying your best to minimise it. No point asking the question again when you're just going to ignore the answer.
Page 3 of 5