PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Eric Hitchmough]

The Dippers really can do whatever the fuck they want, can’t they? The relevant authorities are terrified of upsetting them.

Words like protected and entitled barely tell the story.

 

[give it to gordon]

Going off Tolmie's tweets, the settlement would have been against PL rules, so would probably be another chance to hammer us anyway even though we were the victims (and not the dippers for once).

Both City and the dippers get a small fine for settling outside the pl than the pl investigate the dippers for the hacking

 

[Metalartin]

Someone else in the thread alluded to Spurs being hacked similarly by ex-employees who went to Liverpool.

If this is the case (big if), would this be treated differently as it would show repeated behaviour, perhaps a strategy to do this even?

Don't quote me on that, I just vaguely remember it being mentioned on BM at some point. Even if there was something to it, it would probably require their participation to make a thing of it and I don't see them doing that given how Spurs and their chairman are.

 

[domalino]

I never understood the fuss over this - and still don’t. My understanding was that Mancini under the terms of his severance deal with Inter couldn’t take a managers position for a specified timeframe. Mansour gave Mancini a consultancy gig which I assumed was similar to putting him on retainer, or an option on his services, as there were doubts over Hughes.

Hughes then got the bullet earlier than the owners ideally would have liked and Mancini was installed. The consultancy deal was common knowledge at the time and that the two jobs overlapped was more about timing than anything else.

Whether Mancini did any consultancy work or how long the jobs overlapped I don’t know, but why anyone cares a decade or so later is beyond me.

Nah this is wrong, Mancini's 2 contracts, the one with the club to be manager and the one with Al Jazira were both signed on the same day, so the "he couldn't sign as manager yet" theory can't be true.

IMO It's pretty clear they were using the Al Jazira job as a way of paying Mancini tax free money. For starters, City were only paying him £1.4m per year to be manager which is less than half what Mark Hughes was reportedly paid (£3m) by the Shinawatra regime. Which would probably make him the only employee at the entire club that earned less in 2009 than his pre-takeover equivalent.

And then there's the email (We have some payments that require to be made by Al Jazira...We will need to send monies to ADUG and ADUG will then pass on to Al Jazira with payment instruction.) which intimates money is going from City to Al Jazira. What reason do Manchester City have to send money to Al Jazira to "make payments"? That seems clear that City were using Al Jazira just as an intermediary.

The real question is not whether it happened, it's whether it was actually against the rules to do so. There's no FFP at this point, the financial rules were much less strict.

Also the amounts we're dealing with here...something like £5m total, 14 years ago?

 

[Rory Bluelow]

Another belting post.

You’re either connected as fuck or need serious immediate help.

Although there’s no tangible evidence to support Pablo’s posts, that is literally how things work. I never imagined for one minute our principals would just sit back and get kicked around by a tuppence halfpenny organisation like the Premier League. Compared to them, United and Liverpool etc our owners are the 800lb gorilla in the room. So what Pablo is saying is entirely credible. Let’s hope it comes to pass.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

Nah this is wrong, Mancini's 2 contracts, the one with the club to be manager and the one with Al Jazira were both signed on the same day.

IMO It's pretty clear they were using the Al Jazira job as a way of reducing Mancini's salary on the City books. For starters, City were only paying him £1.4m per year to be manager which is less than half what Mark Hughes was reportedly paid (£3m) by the Shinawatra regime.

And then there's the email (We have some payments that require to be made by Al Jazira...We will need to send monies to ADUG and ADUG will then pass on to Al Jazira with payment instruction.) which intimates money is going from City to Al Jazira. What reason do Manchester City have to send money to Al Jazira?

The real question is not whether it happened, it's whether it was actually against the rules to do so.

And whether that motive - which is a reasonable supposition - can actually be proven.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

I never understood the fuss over this - and still don’t. My understanding was that Mancini under the terms of his severance deal with Inter couldn’t take a managers position for a specified timeframe. Mansour gave Mancini a consultancy gig which I assumed was similar to putting him on retainer, or an option on his services, as there were doubts over Hughes.

Hughes then got the bullet earlier than the owners ideally would have liked and Mancini was installed. The consultancy deal was common knowledge at the time and that the two jobs overlapped was more about timing than anything else.

Whether Mancini did any consultancy work or how long the jobs overlapped I don’t know, but why anyone cares a decade or so later is beyond me.

Is the correct assessment.

To think the media and rival fans want to cry "cheat" over this and matters that had absolutely no bearing on how we became the best team in World football - just reeks of the jealousy that it is.
A modern day Witch Hunt with frothing mouthed, torch bearers who just want action over something they know absolutely nothing about - just that their team is no longer winning everything (not that it was - Arse and Spuds).

 

[M18CTID]

"Whataboutery" is not going to win this case.

It’s not and City know that they’ll win it by presenting their own evidence relevant to the case.

What I think is happening here is that if what TH has tweeted is true then the club are simply dropping the odd bomb here and there to remind the footballing world what other clubs have been up to. For me, there wasn’t nearly enough column inches dedicated to this hacking story when it broke in 2019. Only The Times bothered to run with it and the rest of the media couldn’t be arsed. I don’t think most fans of all other clubs know about it. If it’s reared its head again now, it might get much wider traction this time round, especially with the spotlight currently being on the PL and the various cases that have been concluded and are ongoing.

 

[rickmcfc]

Can this all be wrapped up and over so we can crack on with watching the best footballing team on the planet. It’s like a bad dream that keeps occurring

 

[Shirley]

Yep that's my guess! Premier league didn't want to investigate it even though it's very serious! Was it because it was Liverpool who did the hacking and they have influence?

Martyn Ziegler, Chief Sports Reporter|Matt Dickinson, Chief Sports Writer



September 21 2019, 12:01am, The Times



Liverpool paid a £1 million settlement to Manchester City after their Premier League rivals made a complaint that their scouting system had been hacked into.

The confidential settlement took place in September 2013 after it was reported that City had employed computer-espionage experts to see if the system had been spied on.

The scandal would appear to be the biggest incident of alleged misbehaviour by one top-flight club to another in the Premier League’s history.

 

[domalino]

And whether that motive - which is a reasonable supposition - can actually be proven.

I don't think the motive needs to be proven because the rules simply say you've got to disclose all remuneration to the PL. The bit the PL would need to prove would be "was this 1.7m a year from Al Jazira actually remuneration for being Manchester City manager?".

How would you prove that? I suppose you'd want to -

a) Show how ludicrously low Mancini's official salary was compared to Hughes, Pellegrini and other managers in the PL in 2009.

b) Show a clear flow of payments from City to Al Jazira to Mancini.

c) Show Mancini never actually went to Al Jazira to do the work he was being paid for.

d) Show how paying Mancini via a tax haven saved City enough money to be important. For Mancini to take home an extra £1.7m a year would have cost City about another £4m+ p/a if paid in the UK.



However, to do that you'd need a lot of information from Al Jazira like bank records, and Mancini's travel schedule and I don't think the PL can access that.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Martyn Ziegler, Chief Sports Reporter|Matt Dickinson, Chief Sports Writer



September 21 2019, 12:01am, The Times



Liverpool paid a £1 million settlement to Manchester City after their Premier League rivals made a complaint that their scouting system had been hacked into.

The confidential settlement took place in September 2013 after it was reported that City had employed computer-espionage experts to see if the system had been spied on.

The scandal would appear to be the biggest incident of alleged misbehaviour by one top-flight club to another in the Premier League’s history.

Should never have settled.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

"Whataboutery" is not going to win this case.

Is that name of the PL's lawyer?

 

[waspish]

Martyn Ziegler, Chief Sports Reporter|Matt Dickinson, Chief Sports Writer



September 21 2019, 12:01am, The Times



Liverpool paid a £1 million settlement to Manchester City after their Premier League rivals made a complaint that their scouting system had been hacked into.

The confidential settlement took place in September 2013 after it was reported that City had employed computer-espionage experts to see if the system had been spied on.

The scandal would appear to be the biggest incident of alleged misbehaviour by one top-flight club to another in the Premier League’s history.

Yep one report that died a deaf no one in the media were interested in it! Why? Because of the club!

 

[Damanino]

it just seems impossible to me we come out of all this unscathed. the number of charges against us clearly designed in a way for something to stick for sure. let alone the reputation damage since the charges.

 

[Stoned Rose]

What was the price difference, out of interest?

Nostalgia.

 

[HelloCity]

The Times

So an Arsenal fan could decide whether we pay compensation to Arsenal.

 

[Chappie]

If all the club has to throw at Liverpool is the hacking affair that was settled 'out of court' between the two parties then everyone can forget about 'going nuclear' or 'shit storms' or whatever.

If we had any evidence of major wrongdoing by any rival club it would be out there already, either directly or via third parties. We have nothing of note.

Conversly, if the people who have laid 115 charges against City had any major evidence of City's alleged wrong doing,it would have been over every major news outlet by now.
They having nothing of note.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I don't think the motive needs to be proven because the rules simply say you've got to disclose all remuneration to the PL. The bit the PL would need to prove would be "was this 1.7m a year from Al Jazira actually remuneration for being Manchester City manager?".

How would you prove that? I suppose you'd want to -

a) Show how ludicrously low Mancini's official salary was compared to Hughes, Pellegrini and other managers in the PL in 2009.

b) Show a clear flow of payments from City to Al Jazira to Mancini.

c) Show Mancini never actually went to Al Jazira to do the work he was being paid for.

d) Show how paying Mancini via a tax haven saved City enough that money to be important. For Mancini to take home an extra £1.7m a year would have cost City about another £4m+ p/a if paid in the UK.



However, to do that you'd need a lot of information from Al Jazira like bank records, and Mancini's travel schedule and I don't think the PL can access that.

Mancini's City contract was heavily incentivised on top of his basic. So in his first full season (2010/11) we won the FA Cup and finished in the top four. I think that netted him about £5m in total.

Winning the league increased that and he renegotiated his City contract, to the point where he would be earning something like £11-12m in that 2012-13 season.

Also, he didn't personally have to provide that consultancy to Al Jazira, his company did. So he could legitimately get someone else to do it.

 

[Maly]

I don't think the motive needs to be proven because the rules simply say you've got to disclose all remuneration to the PL. The bit the PL would need to prove would be "was this 1.7m a year from Al Jazira actually remuneration for being Manchester City manager?".

How would you prove that? I suppose you'd want to -

a) Show how ludicrously low Mancini's official salary was compared to Hughes, Pellegrini and other managers in the PL in 2009.

b) Show a clear flow of payments from City to Al Jazira to Mancini.

c) Show Mancini never actually went to Al Jazira to do the work he was being paid for.

d) Show how paying Mancini via a tax haven saved City enough money to be important. For Mancini to take home an extra £1.7m a year would have cost City about another £4m+ p/a if paid in the UK.



However, to do that you'd need a lot of information from Al Jazira like bank records, and Mancini's travel schedule and I don't think the PL can access that.

Was the Al Jazira contract with Mancini himself or his Ltd company?

If it’s the latter, Mancini wouldn’t have had to attend at all, as long as someone attended on behalf of or from of his company