PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[wolviedinho]

Once Masters gets the boot I nominate Mike Summerbee for the top job -:)

He had them pegged on Sky from the start.

 

[HelloCity]

Obviously we have disagreed on the topic - albeit I think respectfully and in good faith - so once again I would just pick up on these few points, once again being my opinion only.

On Mancini, I would actually say it would be pretty easy for the PL to show concealment, not least because we all know full well that the reason Mancini signed the deal with the UAE was to enable both parties to lock in without risking his €14m payout from Inter.

I don’t think any of us disagree that for the most important topics, the evidenciary requirement is going to be huge and likely impossible to meet, but for €1,25m I don’t think the panel will have issue ruling ‘only’ on balance of probabilities, which again only in my opinion wouldn’t be hard for the PL to meet.

On Fordham, the agreement with City wasn’t wound down until sometime between 17 & 19, so it’s highly likely it won’t found to be time barred, but as I’ve said before, it wouldn’t have needed Sherlock Holmes to uncover the setup as Cliff was even a director….

That said, the Fordham arrangement ultimately added £59.9m in revenue to the club, so clearly it would in theory pass the materiality test for filing false accounts and acting in bad faith, however as above would in my opinion fall on the fact that City weren’t ever hiding the setup…

As said before, ultimately my opinion is that Mancini and Fordham are slam dunks for the PL, but they can only ever carry a minimal sporting sanction as Mancini is immaterial and Fordham was never concealed.

The interesting question is why the PL didn’t just stick with these 2x + non compliance which likely could’ve been wrapped up by now…perhaps the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze for ‘only’ those charges.

I’ve had a good look through your post history and the vast majority of your posts are negative about City and City fans.

This classic included:


You talk utter shite and tbh, I’m doubting if you even support City. Something stinks about your posts - they drip with insincerity and I don’t think it’s a coincidence you turned up when the charges dropped.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Domo would suffice, no need for such formal language Blue 2 Blue ;)

To a teacher?

Anyway, I was just trying to be clever and screwed up. Nothing unusual there. :)

 

[cheekybids]

I’ve had a good look through your post history and the vast majority of your posts are negative about City and City fans.

This classic included:

View attachment 119271
You talk utter shite and tbh, I’m doubting if you even support City. Something stinks about your posts - they drip with insincerity and I don’t think it’s a coincidence you turned up when the charges dropped.

There’s no doubt…

 

[halfcenturyup]

Obviously we have disagreed on the topic - albeit I think respectfully and in good faith - so once again I would just pick up on these few points, once again being my opinion only.

On Mancini, I would actually say it would be pretty easy for the PL to show concealment, not least because we all know full well that the reason Mancini signed the deal with the UAE was to enable both parties to lock in without risking his €14m payout from Inter.

I don’t think any of us disagree that for the most important topics, the evidenciary requirement is going to be huge and likely impossible to meet, but for €1,25m I don’t think the panel will have issue ruling ‘only’ on balance of probabilities, which again only in my opinion wouldn’t be hard for the PL to meet.

On Fordham, the agreement with City wasn’t wound down until sometime between 17 & 19, so it’s highly likely it won’t found to be time barred, but as I’ve said before, it wouldn’t have needed Sherlock Holmes to uncover the setup as Cliff was even a director….

That said, the Fordham arrangement ultimately added £59.9m in revenue to the club, so clearly it would in theory pass the materiality test for filing false accounts and acting in bad faith, however as above would in my opinion fall on the fact that City weren’t ever hiding the setup…

As said before, ultimately my opinion is that Mancini and Fordham are slam dunks for the PL, but they can only ever carry a minimal sporting sanction as Mancini is immaterial and Fordham was never concealed.

The interesting question is why the PL didn’t just stick with these 2x + non compliance which likely could’ve been wrapped up by now…perhaps the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze for ‘only’ those charges.

(Just read this again before posting. Maybe I should have put it in a DM, but maybe someone, somewhere is interested. If you didn't like the post I am replying to, you should probably skip this).

Nothing wrong with disagreeing and you don't deserve the stick you get on here, even if you may expect it on a rival fans' forum on a particularly sensitive issue.

On Mancini, do we agree this?
* The original intent of the AJ contract was to tie Mancini down when he couldn't sign a full-time contract and other clubs were sniffing around?
* There was no FFP when Mancini was here, certainly not when he was signed?
* There was no PL requirement to include all a manager's remuneration until after Mancini left?

If we do, how can the PL show deliberate concealment (with intent) in those circumstances?

As for reducing the threshold for deliberate concealment because it's a small amount, I would be very surprised if that happens. Each allegation will be judged on its own merits, imho, not on its size in relation to the others.

On Fordham, I should probably say first that I am assuming the player contract issue in the allegations is, in fact, Fordham. We don't know, of course, and there are other murmurings in the press that it is to do with Yaya Toure's image rights. The seasons covered by the allegations cover 2010/11 to 2015/6, well before Fordham, so this could support the Toure suggestion (he started in 2010). Maybe it's a combination of both. Anyway, about the timing, the last season the allegations cover is 2015/16. Why? Maybe Fordham was wound down by then (although Fordham's accounts suggest not) or maybe Toure's contract was changed.

My point, though, is that if we can agree:
* the player contract issue relates to Fordham
* the Fordham arrangement wasn't deliberately concealed
* the allegations stop in the 2015/6 season,

then Fordham is, clearly, time limited. (I also didn't like the way you determined materiality either, but for the sake of brevity, I will let it pass).

I will, however, grant you that all the uncertainty/ lack of information over Fordham/Toure could lead to some surprises. It is the allegation I am least comfortable with, just because of how little we actually know.

So, I suppose we will continue to disagree, and that's fine.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I’m not

I liked that just on the off chance it's a Monty Python reference. :)

 

[Newman Noggs]

Pretty punchy stuff from Tolmie again tonight.

If this is true, it's interesting that, whilst he isn't welcome at City, he's very welcome at arsenal.

 

[Xhavenjoe]

And some fireworks

Balotelli?

 

[117 M34]

(Just read this again before posting. Maybe I should have put it in a DM, but maybe someone, somewhere is interested. If you didn't like the post I am replying to, you should probably skip this).

Nothing wrong with disagreeing and you don't deserve the stick you get on here, even if you may expect it on a rival fans' forum on a particularly sensitive issue.

On Mancini, do we agree this?
* The original intent of the AJ contract was to tie Mancini down when he couldn't sign a full-time contract and other clubs were sniffing around?
* There was no FFP when Mancini was here, certainly not when he was signed?
* There was no PL requirement to include all a manager's remuneration until after Mancini left?

If we do, how can the PL show deliberate concealment (with intent) in those circumstances?

As for reducing the threshold for deliberate concealment because it's a small amount, I would be very surprised if that happens. Each allegation will be judged on its own merits, imho, not on its size in relation to the others.

On Fordham, I should probably say first that I am assuming the player contract issue in the allegations is, in fact, Fordham. We don't know, of course, and there are other murmurings in the press that it is to do with Yaya Toure's image rights. The seasons covered by the allegations cover 2010/11 to 2015/6, well before Fordham, so this could support the Toure suggestion (he started in 2010). Maybe it's a combination of both. Anyway, about the timing, the last season the allegations cover is 2015/16. Why? Maybe Fordham was wound down by then (although Fordham's accounts suggest not) or maybe Toure's contract was changed.

My point, though, is that if we can agree:
* the player contract issue relates to Fordham
* the Fordham arrangement wasn't deliberately concealed
* the allegations stop in the 2015/6 season,

then Fordham is, clearly, time limited. (I also didn't like the way you determined materiality either, but for the sake of brevity, I will let it pass).

I will, however, grant you that all the uncertainty/ lack of information over Fordham/Toure could lead to some surprises. It is the allegation I am least comfortable with, just because of how little we actually know.

So, I suppose we will continue to disagree, and that's fine.

In terms of mancini, these are the alleged rules that were broken:
In respect of:
(a) each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2012/13 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2009/10 to 2011/12 inclusive, Premier League Rules Q.7 and Q.8; and
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules P.7 and P.8;

This looks like there was some rule in place at the time about showing full manager renumeration.
I'll try and find what q7 and q8 actually say.

 

[halfcenturyup]

In terms of mancini, these are the alleged rules that were broken:
In respect of:
(a) each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2012/13 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2009/10 to 2011/12 inclusive, Premier League Rules Q.7 and Q.8; and
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules P.7 and P.8;

This looks like there was some rule in place at the time about showing full manager renumeration.
I'll try and find what q7 and q8 actually say.

Been there, done that. But let me know what you see .... :)