They werent passed, they were submitted and accepted.
Its not the same as passing them.
Considering FFP is a rolling 3 year window im not sure how you can keep saying "They passed our accounts", they didnt.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
- Status
Its not the same as passing them.
Considering FFP is a rolling 3 year window im not sure how you can keep saying "They passed our accounts", they didnt.
Blue peter
Player Valuation: £35m
I‘m just absolutely speculating here (as we all are) but is it possible that the PL have adopted a similar tactic for a pre/post Covid income average to more accurately quantify the uncrystalised Covid losses?
For example if EFC say match day revenue was down, say £25m (pulled out of thin air) but pre & post Covid suggests the impact was more like £10m, then the PL have a more robust case to build their allegations on. This would not excuse the PL in not communicating this new strategy, but historic context places those uncrystalised losses in much clearer focus.
Its as easy as this to me.
The threshold for FFP/P&L is 105m over 3 years.
We submitted accounts that showed a loss of 360million over that period, we didnt just break the rules, we spat in the rules face and then kicked them in the balls. I hope they throw the book at us.
The threshold for FFP/P&L is 105m over 3 years.
We submitted accounts that showed a loss of 360million over that period, we didnt just break the rules, we spat in the rules face and then kicked them in the balls. I hope they throw the book at us.
I don't believe that the regulator scrutinised them, they are deemed to be true and correct as they have been approved by the club and the club's accountants. It is only after accounts have been submitted that they can be scrutinised and then if a problem is found the club will be investigated and charged if they feel they have broken the rules. Look at Derby, their accounts were accepted as true and correct and it was only at a later point in time that the FFP breaches were identified. The FA accepting a set of accounts from a club does not mean they approve them
catcherintherye
Player Valuation: £80m
Well I think we are splitting hairs a bit with what we understand "pass" and "accept" to mean mate.
But I'm happy with accepted as the word. They did not feel there was anything in them that required us to either be charged, clarified, or to be in breach of their rules. I'm happy to attach any label to that action, but that is the key.
And the accounts were, from my subjective standpoint woeful. So if I can see it, what is the regulator doing?
Precisely.
20 clubs submit their accounts in March, do people really think The Premier League dont review them over time.
Its baffling that people are still trotting out the "THEY ACCEPTED THEM".
Passed, accepted, signed off, the wording doesnt matter.
What does matter is that the regulator is well within its right to analyse the accounts submitted at any point it pleases.
Your whole "argument" seems to boil down to the fact that you are claiming they have no recourse to take.
catcherintherye
Player Valuation: £80m
I'm really sorry mate, but this is just weaselling around with terms.
Are you seriously saying a regulator, who's job it is to uphold their rules, does not bother to do any scrutiny on accounts? If so, this is surely gross negligence?
It is also worth saying, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that any of the accounts on that page have not been passed.
The 2021/22 have been. This is a point of order.
So if you feel the earlier accounts are not being accepted now (some years later) then feel free to share.
I'm not really sure the basis of your argument, which is essentially " we dont know what the regulator thinks, as the regulator doesnt bother to regulate and scrutinise what's put to them" resolves any of the questions either. It just opens up a whole set of new questions.
My view, is they had to fulfil their duty as a regulator, looked at the accounts, and found nothing wrong with the. Occams razor theory.
catcherintherye
Player Valuation: £80m
They did accept them. By no challenging them, they are accepting them. But over and above that, on multiple occasions they have confirmed they accepted them.
catcherintherye
Player Valuation: £80m
Yes I agree.
I mean yes they can, but there would be some expectation that this is done within a reasonable time frame, as how could businesses be expected to comply if they are not given timely feedback.
I dont have an argument per se, I am just summarising the situation. Even now, theh have questioned the 21/22 accounts not the others. They can take recourse if they wish, but I have not seen evidence to see they have towards historical accounts.
What about that story that claimed our accountants wouldnt sign off on the accounts cos they were a work of fiction?
Look, if you submit a tax return to HMRC, they will accept the tax return, but at some point somebody will look close at the submission and come for you.
Man City were charged for account breaches they made in 2014.
Premier League clubs can not use the no backsys rule.
Bluerover
Player Valuation: £50m
I can only assume how long it takes to forensically scrutinise a Premier League clubs accounts.
I cant imagine its something somebody does in their lunch hour.
But again, from what I can see and this is ALL just total guesswork.
We submitted our accounts, I reckon the PL thought they stunk, but to protect the brand, they let them through.
Leeds, Burnley and probably other clubs didnt let it go and pushed and pushed, so then they were sent to an independent company, who laughed at them and thus left the PL with no choice but to pursue us.
We submitted our accounts, I reckon the PL thought they stunk, but to protect the brand, they let them through.
Leeds, Burnley and probably other clubs didnt let it go and pushed and pushed, so then they were sent to an independent company, who laughed at them and thus left the PL with no choice but to pursue us.
- Status