If Bobby Manc was called as a witness he has already said that he has paid tax on the payments and everything was above board as far as he's concerned. So I don't think there is a smoking gun there.For six months after he was sacked the press had regular articles about how disruptive he was. I am not saying he wasn't, he cleatly was, I am saying Soriano runs a tight enough ship for me to know that if that happens it happens with, at least, the blessing of the club, if not directly from the club.
Mancini was man enough to keep his silence, but it wasn't a good look for the club and it wasn't even necessary.
At least, that's how I remember it.
Not providing full details of manager remuneration. They can’t say they continued the contract with the negotiations done by the club as that does show it was a related transaction.
It’s not a related party transaction thoughNot providing full details of manager remuneration. They can’t say they continued the contract with the negotiations done by the club as that does show it was a related transaction.
That’s worries meWell, yes, that makes sense. They met him once before they offered him the City job and liked him, so they offered him the City job but couldn't sign him up because of the Inter clause, so they kept him warm with a lucrative consultancy contract until they could comfortably sign him or, in Hughes's case, had to sign him because it was going tits up. The contract was continued for Mancini's tax reasons, all negotiations and contracts being handled by the club.
Sounds more than plausible to me.
Anyway, its all speculation, but I am much more comfortable with that as an explanation than the club deliberately trying to mislead the PL for reasons which aren't, at all, apparent. Balance of probability, if you will.
It's OK to disagree, though.
If Bobby Manc was called as a witness he has already said that he has paid tax on the payments and everything was above board as far as he's concerned. So I don't think there is a smoking gun there.
It’s not a related party transaction though
Why?That’s worries me
Well, yes, that makes sense. They met him once before they offered him the City job and liked him, so they offered him the City job but couldn't sign him up because of the Inter clause, so they kept him warm with a lucrative consultancy contract until they could comfortably sign him or, in Hughes's case, had to sign him because it was going tits up. The contract was continued for Mancini's tax reasons, all negotiations and contracts being handled by the club.
Sounds more than plausible to me.
Anyway, its all speculation, but I am much more comfortable with that as an explanation than the club deliberately trying to mislead the PL for reasons which aren't, at all, apparent. Balance of probability, if you will.
It's OK to disagree, though.
They most certainly are being investigated this very moment by the auditing company "Blind, Deaf And Dumb"Come off it, there is absolutely no way Liverpool, Arsenal, United and Spurs will be investigated the way we are!
There was no requirement to provide details of the manager's contract with other clubs in those days, was there?
And even if there was, what was the consequence? Did it give a sporting advantage?