PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
Well yes, but if it wasn't presented to the investigation, could that be construed as non-cooperation with the investigation given that it was presented at CAS and presumably will be at the independent panel?

Otherwise I am struggling to see how a charge for non-cooperation could stick, given it appears the club have provided all the internal information that was asked for, even if it was after legal clarification.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly why I am less convinced than many on here that we will take the failure to cooperate charge lying down this time.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
So how do you assure impartiality and non-confirmation bias?

Most jury's won't be exposed to the level of reporting we already have, jurors are certainly weeded out in the States and profiled.
Click to expand...
That’s down to the Chairman. For Employment Tribunals in the Uk there is usually a lawyer, someone from the Unions and an experienced Business Owner/CEO. It works as the view is balanced by an independent legal arbiter who will guide the issues of law.
 
Shads said:
Which is exactly why I am less convinced than many on here that we will take the failure to cooperate charge lying down this time.
Click to expand...

Fairy Nuff. This is one of the areas where I am struggling to see exactly what the PL is charging the club with, and why ...... and, the more I think about it, how they are expecting a favourable outcome in any of them.
 
terraloon said:
The question the panel will mainly be interested in would revolve around reality.

In other words is it realistic to think that a Man City manager would be paid more for an insignificant amount of work for another entity within the same ownership group than he received for in effect his full time job at a much higher level within world wide football . Or was it a way to disguise his true remuneration package.
I think you also have to throw into the equation it was, I think, Mancinis Italian company that issued the invoices
Click to expand...
However that contract was in place, as I understand it prior to him even interviewing for the City job. Makes a mockery of your theory if I am Correct… which I usually am.
 
Rory Bluelow said:
At the very least that sounds feasible (apart from the threats from Spurs !). Assuming the other clubs on the call were Liverpool, United and Arsenal, you have the prime movers with the Super League and therefore the most dissatisfied with the status quo…it may explain why Levy was personally called out at Pep’s presser (and why we’ve not heard a squeak from him in response or indeed since). I wondered what motivated the club to single him out like that.
Click to expand...

I can tell you Chelsea new people are very much trying to have good relations with City.
 
Shads said:
However that contract was in place, as I understand it prior to him even interviewing for the City job. Makes a mockery of your theory if I am Correct… which I usually am.
Click to expand...

Der Spiegel alleges that Mancini signed contracts with City and Al Jazira on the same date. I certainly recall that, when he joined City, he was reported as already having a consultancy with Al Jazira, as this was suggested to have amounted to a way City could in effect pay him not to take another job until ours became vacant.

It was also reported at the time, however, that City spoke to Jose Mourinho and Guus Hiddink before lining up Mancini. We supposedly discontinued talks with the former because he made clear viewed City as a stepping stone, while the latter at the time preferred the relatively easy life of international management. If true, this gives the lie to the idea that Mancini's Al Jazira arrangement origianted purely with a view to eventually bringing him to City.
 
petrusha said:
Der Spiegel alleges that Mancini signed contracts with City and Al Jazira on the same date. I certainly recall that, when he joined City, he was reported as already having a consultancy with Al Jazira, as this was suggested to have amounted to a way City could in effect pay him not to take another job until ours became vacant.

It was also reported at the time, however, that City spoke to Jose Mourinho and Guus Hiddink before lining up Mancini. We supposedly discontinued talks with the former because he made clear viewed City as a stepping stone, while the latter at the time preferred the relatively easy life of international management. If true, this gives the lie to the idea that Mancini's Al Jazira arrangement origianted purely with a view to eventually bringing him to City.
Click to expand...

I remembered that as well, but having a contract in place pre-City doesn't stop them re-negotiating at the same time he signs with City, I suppose.

Btw, do you know much about Mancini's contract? The DS documents seem to show pretty clearly that his AJ contract was being paid by MCFC through ADUG, so presumably the cost must have ended up in the MCFC accounts. So do you have an idea what the PL's problem with Mancini's contract actually is? Is it just a PL disclosure issue?
 
Shads said:
However that contract was in place, as I understand it prior to him even interviewing for the City job. Makes a mockery of your theory if I am Correct… which I usually am.
Click to expand...
If and of a course a big if the leaked documents are genuine it would seem

1) The heads of agreements for both contracts were signed on the same day19/12/2009 ( contracts were indeed signed on different dates )
2) There was considerable involvement in both contracts from very senior employees at City.
3) The invoices from Mancinis company were sent to Man City direct and payment of those invoices we’re actually routed via a Man City Bank account
 
Luca1894 said:
I bumped into an old buddy in town today, he's an Evertonian, we went for a coffee and he told me the following, strictly on the QT...
The week before the charges were announced four clubs demanded a video conference with PL Chief Exec Richard Masters. One of the clubs execs led the meeting let's say "TH". He requested the latest status of the PL investigation into MCFC. He was told it was effectively stalled with no progress. Then on behalf of all four clubs TH demanded the PL proceed with all possible charges irrespective of the prospects of winning. After a series of threats were made by TH, Masters capitulated and agreed to rush the charges through before the announcement of the White Paper. That's why there were so many errors in the published charges requiring numerous corrections.The club are confident this is a golden opportunity to resolve these issues once and for all.
Click to expand...

Obviously you aren't going to name your old buddy but what does he do, why would he know ?
 
halfcenturyup said:
I remembered that as well, but having a contract in place pre-City doesn't stop them re-negotiating at the same time he signs with City, I suppose.

Btw, do you know much about Mancini's contract? The DS documents seem to show pretty clearly that his AJ contract was being paid by MCFC through ADUG, so presumably the cost must have ended up in the MCFC accounts. So do you have an idea what the PL's problem with Mancini's contract actually is? Is it just a PL disclosure issue?
Click to expand...
The PLs issue is that individuals have contracts elsewhere they have a rule that all any money paid by a club to a manager / a player has to be paid through the clubs payroll in line with the contract.
The charge therefore is that part of his City pay package was routed through another club. In a way it’s the same charge re the Image rights issue.
Irrespective if that was the case or not, and assuming it wasn’t, it was naive for City senior staff to be anywhere near this and as for it being paid via a city bank account that was sloppy
 
Last edited:
manimanc said:
Well their name does have a lot of syllables in it.

And that's about it.
Click to expand...
Bluesince1979 said:
All jokes apart, why and how have spurs got themselves into the Big Club Gang? Its bizarre!
Click to expand...
Spurs were the first team to win the double in the 20th century, they were the first English team to win a European trophy, and Jimmy Greaves was going to lead us to victory in the 66 World Cup.
Some of you may have spotted this was more than 50 years ago. The media haven't.
They were 6th on the all-time major trophy list before we came along and are now 7th.
Villa have won more than Spurs but most of it was even earlier.
 
Shads said:
However that contract was in place, as I understand it prior to him even interviewing for the City job. Makes a mockery of your theory if I am Correct… which I usually am.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the decision to sack Hughes was taken around November but not necessarily to sack him straight away. It's possible we might have given him till later in the season but he forced the issue. We did very much have Mourinho in our sights but he wasn't prepared to commit till the summer.

As a result we sacked Hughes without a long-term replacement lined up. Mancini seemingly already had some sort of relationship with the guys in Abu Dhabi so he was asked to take over at least till the summer. I don't know if that relationship was personal or contractual though.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
My understanding is that the decision to sack Hughes was taken around November but not necessarily to sack him straight away. It's possible we might have given him till later in the season but he forced the issue. We did very much have Mourinho in our sights but he wasn't prepared to commit till the summer.

As a result we sacked Hughes without a long-term replacement lined up. Mancini seemingly already had some sort of relationship with the guys in Abu Dhabi so he was asked to take over at least till the summer. I don't know if that relationship was personal or contractual though.
Click to expand...

That’s quite interesting because I think that there were certain restrictions as to when Mancini could take up paid employment again following his pay off from Inter.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I remembered that as well, but having a contract in place pre-City doesn't stop them re-negotiating at the same time he signs with City, I suppose.

Btw, do you know much about Mancini's contract? The DS documents seem to show pretty clearly that his AJ contract was being paid by MCFC through ADUG, so presumably the cost must have ended up in the MCFC accounts. So do you have an idea what the PL's problem with Mancini's contract actually is? Is it just a PL disclosure issue?
Click to expand...

It's what @terraloon says above, basically. The allegation, as far as I can tell, seems to be that the fee Mancini received from from Al Jazira for a minor consultancy was so great that it can reasonably be inferred to have been a part of his remuneration at City.

The PL will need to produce cogent evidence that this is actually so and City dishonestly concealed it. Otherwise it will fall outside the limitation period under the 1980 Act.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
My understanding is that the decision to sack Hughes was taken around November but not necessarily to sack him straight away. It's possible we might have given him till later in the season but he forced the issue. We did very much have Mourinho in our sights but he wasn't prepared to commit till the summer.

As a result we sacked Hughes without a long-term replacement lined up. Mancini seemingly already had some sort of relationship with the guys in Abu Dhabi so he was asked to take over at least till the summer. I don't know if that relationship was personal or contractual though.
Click to expand...

That’s quite interesting because I think that there were certain restrictions as to when Mancini could take up paid employment again following his pay off from Inter.
 
petrusha said:
It's what @terraloon says above, basically. The allegation, as far as I can tell, seems to be that the fee Mancini received from from Al Jazira for a minor consultancy was so great that it can reasonably be inferred to have been a part of his remuneration at City.

The PL will need to produce cogent evidence that this is actually so and City dishonestly concealed it. Otherwise it will fall outside the limitation period under the 1980 Act.
Click to expand...
If the PL fail to prove dishonesty, then we'll 'get off on a technicality' again then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top