By waffling a lot?So if that's the case I would say the pl 'management' arent fit for purpose. How can you make such a school boy error ? Even I know you cant be charged if the rules weren't there !! Are the pl really that thick and amateurish
Hopefully we will see the pl investigate dipperpool fro their 50million to improve their dump which never happen
It's been ongoing for 4 years(?) and the PL aren't going to pause it. It's not like Pep is managing it all.I thought we'd have waited until the season finished to start these proceedings
No doubt Lord Ferguson of Govan would get the job.It came out a couple of weeks later and was on the front page of the BBC Sport page. I know because I commented on it at the time.
I was hoping it would go further personally. The whitepaper has the kind non-controversial suggestions you’d expect but nothing ground-breaking. It announces the plan to introduce an independent regulator that will “improve financial resilience” and “ensure the appropriateness of owners and their source of wealth”. Talked a lot about protecting fans and club heritage. I’m paraphrasing, but it was all quite vague and banal.
Maybe an independent regulator will remove some of the biases we currently see against different types of ownership models but I’m not holding my breath.
Are the club saying that all the charges were issued before the rule change?You can't, which is why City are 100 per cent confident this will all bite the dust and finally be put to bed.
So if that's the case I would say the pl 'management' arent fit for purpose. How can you make such a school boy error ? Even I know you cant be charged if the rules weren't there !! Are the pl really that thick and amateurish
Hopefully we will see the pl investigate dipperpool fro their 50million to improve their dump which never happen
Are the club saying that all the charges were issued before the rule change?
It’s not that charges that are impacted by the rule change it’s the rules around disclosure of information relating to the chargesAre the club saying that all the charges were issued before the rule change?
Was listening to a Rag the other day on the radio. I mean he actually said we are only this dominant because we were paying Mancini backhanders. Not even pulled up by the host either.
Yes, the Vanarama National League :)Maybe they will finish up in a different competition entirely where they don't have these trumped up charges hanging over them.
I don't think they're saying we paid him secretly as it was known(?) that an AD club employed him as a consultant before(I think) he joined us. The inference is that he was ringfenced off so that City could employ him as manager at the end of that season. They seem to be saying we should have told them he was being paid by an AD club and presumably want us to supply paperwork from the AD club regarding his contract.I'm very confused over the Mancini allegations. From what the media state, it is a stand alone charge that City paid him secretly. Mancini has clearly stated he has never been interviewed about the allegations and will happily attend court to deny it.
This implies the only evidence regarding Mancini is the Der Speigel leaks and the fact that the PL have asked City to provide proof of these payments. As they didn't happen City cant providecanything and have been charged with failing to assist the investigation. All very bizarre.
I don't think they're saying we paid him secretly as it was known(?) that an AD club employed him as a consultant before(I think) he joined us. The inference is that he was ringfenced off so that City could employ him as manager at the end of that season. They seem to be saying we should have told them he was being
paid by an AD club and presumably want us to supply paperwork from the AD club regarding his contract.
More that a little bit of guess work in the above perhaps.
So City allegedly paid Mancini a backhander, before there were any PL Financial Fair play rules.I'm very confused over the Mancini allegations. From what the media state, it is a stand alone charge that City paid him secretly. Mancini has clearly stated he has never been interviewed about the allegations and will happily attend court to deny it.
This implies the only evidence regarding Mancini is the Der Speigel leaks and the fact that the PL have asked City to provide proof of these payments. As they didn't happen City cant providecanything and have been charged with failing to assist the investigation. All very bizarre.
So City allegedly paid Mancini a backhander, before there were any PL Financial Fair play rules.
Even if true how much did we pay him, £1m? 12 years ago!
If that is all that has happened it hardly supports the narrative of endemic cheating and reasons why other clubs cannot compete with City does it?
Most fans of other clubs would probably just shrug their shoulders and say 'is that all'.
The media narrative is what is doing the damage and what needs to be cleaned up.
I think the Mancini thing is a minor part of the investigation and the large part is did the club inflate sponsorship revenue. If you look at when financial fair play was implemented by Uefa it was in the 2011/12 season, the Premier league adopted it in the 2013-14 season. How can they retrospectively apply those rules to things that happened before 2013?
Its all about tarnishing the club and its past achievements for the past ten years-Asterix seems to be their favourite word, City only won this and that because we financially cheated blah blah blah.So if that's the case I would say the pl 'management' arent fit for purpose. How can you make such a school boy error ? Even I know you cant be charged if the rules weren't there !! Are the pl really that thick and amateurish
Hopefully we will see the pl investigate dipperpool fro their 50million to improve their dump which never happen