PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Just going back to the Mancini contract. Many of us - me included - have said that it makes no sense to do what we've been accused of and pay him off the books to make our figures look better as we were posting eye-watering losses at the time anyway, not to mention that the "arrangement" commenced before FFP was even a thing, so a couple of million extra a year on our books wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference.

Anyway, I've been thinking about it over the past couple of days and while my above stance hasn't changed one explanation I have considered is that it wasn't done for our own benefit with the intention to deliberately mislead the PL (as there was no need to) and instead it was done to suit Mancini as perhaps he didn't want to pay full UK tax. I'm presuming the income tax rate for his Al Jazira job was lower than it was for his City role? So give him 2 jobs - one in the UK and one in the UAE and split his wages between the two perhaps? Surely this is only really a matter for HMRC and even then I would guess it comes under tax avoidance rather than tax evasion, but even then would they really want to go there if Mancini confirms that he fulfilled his role with Al Jazira? Seriously, I don't think HMRC would even be interested, so it stands to reason as to why the PL should be. Whatever's gone on, it's fuck-all in the grand scheme of things and certainly not worthy of a points deduction/relegation/liquidation.

A side issue to this is that his initial wage at City was quite low and we're being called out for that, yet ironically it's normally the opposite as we're forever getting accused of over-paying players!
 
Last edited:
There will be all sorts of guesses at this but how long do you think the hearing will take once it actually sits?

The PL team will have to present their evidence on a huge number of individual charges and then ours will offer our defence on each of them. The non cooperation charges could probably be dealt with as one but none of the others. You'd imagine there will be additional points coming up all the time for the panel to address and there is the question of will it sit all day, every day until it's over (I highly doubt that). My guess would be at least a month for the hearing and then deliberations would take time after that.
 
ayrshire_blue said:
I saw Stefan's tweet from 2019 regarding the Liverpool hacking stuff, with him suggesting (when the leak happened) that it probably came from City and was perhaps a sign that the investigation or negotiations wasn't going to plan. I wonder if us subsequently having been charged points to Stefan being right on with this. I'm then probably thinking too much into things but wondering how significant that is in terms of our own confidence in clearing our name. If we thought the investigation wasn't going well and we might be getting charged, what did we know that they have over us?
Click to expand...
Thing is, back in 2019 it was all about the UEFA investigation. No-one was talking about the PL investigation even though they opened a case at roughly the same time as UEFA did. So Stefan would've been talking in respect of the UEFA investigation at the time and we ultimately came through that victorious on all the main charges.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
Regulator my arse.
They‘ve got regulators all over the place and they’re absolutely useless.
OFWAT. Rivers and seas full of shit
OFGEM. Consumers getting rinsed on fuel prices
OFCOM. Consumers getting rinsed on broadband and mobile prices (inflation PLUS 3.9% every year ffs)
Also, GB News running party political channels with impunity.
OFQUAL. Pointlessly changing education, to nobodies benefit.
Gambling Commission. More gambling available than ever and more people in trouble with it than ever.
IPSO. That’s worked brilliantly and the press now always print the truth……..

There are many others who, certainly under the present government, give the impression that they ‘regulate’ but invariably just do the industries bidding.
Anyone who imagines a ‘football regulator’ will not soon be in cahoots with the PL and the usual suspects, is likely in for some disappointment!
Click to expand...
Ofsted: not fit for purpose
 
JewelZee said:
They can try but I honestly don't think we'll accept anything that isn't unequivocally factual. I don't believe our ownership group has the least bit of interest in seeing to it that the Prem save face, nor should they. I truly believe City has and will continue to approach this as all or nothing...
Click to expand...

Masters will be complete toast along with all the rest of them at the top of the hierarchy. City will absolutely and rightly hammer them.

After our own immediate interests are satsified, clearing this shit show up is the priority. It is in our commercial interests to have a strong and healthy Premier League rather than one with the reputation in tatters. The only way this moves forward is with all stakeholders, including our historic enemies, being onside. It is in their commerical interests as well. And they already know it.

The Super League court case next month is the only thing that potential could derail or change the direction of the process we will see play out before the end of the season.
 
domalino said:
It’ll be interesting how people view Chelsea if/when they start coming good.

They spent more in a year than we did in the first decade of UAE ownership.
Click to expand...

Haven't looked but would guess on a comparable number of new players as well. They bought something like over 30 'first team' players in one year under the new owner, not sure how many we did, but feels like not more than that.

They sacked more managers in the first year though than we did in the first decade. And have had more overall.
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
There will be all sorts of guesses at this but how long do you think the hearing will take once it actually sits?

The PL team will have to present their evidence on a huge number of individual charges and then ours will offer our defence on each of them. The non cooperation charges could probably be dealt with as one but none of the others. You'd imagine there will be additional points coming up all the time for the panel to address and there is the question of will it sit all day, every day until it's over (I highly doubt that). My guess would be at least a month for the hearing and then deliberations would take time after that.
Click to expand...
Whenever it is let’s hope we don’t find out until the verdict is in. If the media gets wind that it’s taking place then expect 10x the pressure and bullshit we’re seeing now.
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
There will be all sorts of guesses at this but how long do you think the hearing will take once it actually sits?

The PL team will have to present their evidence on a huge number of individual charges and then ours will offer our defence on each of them. The non cooperation charges could probably be dealt with as one but none of the others. You'd imagine there will be additional points coming up all the time for the panel to address and there is the question of will it sit all day, every day until it's over (I highly doubt that). My guess would be at least a month for the hearing and then deliberations would take time after that.
Click to expand...
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
There will be all sorts of guesses at this but how long do you think the hearing will take once it actually sits?

The PL team will have to present their evidence on a huge number of individual charges and then ours will offer our defence on each of them. The non cooperation charges could probably be dealt with as one but none of the others. You'd imagine there will be additional points coming up all the time for the panel to address and there is the question of will it sit all day, every day until it's over (I highly doubt that). My guess would be at least a month for the hearing and then deliberations would take time after that.
Click to expand...
It will take a lot longer than that. How long did the arms to Iraq inquiry take before fizzling out?
 
The media narrative now being peddled for simple minds.

Everton were deducted 10 points for one breach even though they co-operated with the PL.

Manchester City face 115 charges and fail to co-operate and admit their guilt so should be punished accordingly.

No mention that Everton admitted their breach with the evidence in the public domain through their published accounts. We have seen no such hard evidence against City yet 115 charges are being pushed as uncontroversial and the possibility of them not being proven is incomprehensible.

How dare City challenge what are very serious charges and claim to have irrefutable evidence to disprove them? Punishment needs to be delivered without further delay. The only way City conceivably can get off is by delaying further through the use of expensive lawyers and exploiting loopholes and technicalities. In spite of being cleared by UEFA of similar charges, the possibilty that the charges cannot be proven and the consequences of the reputational damage done to the PL as well as City, does not feature in the narrative.
 
I'm no cynic but... said:
It will take a lot longer than that. How long did the arms to Iraq inquiry take before fizzling out?
Click to expand...
That's comparing apples and oranges.

Our case needs to be resolved one way or another whereas pointless, after the event inquiries such as the one you reference are just window dressing. It can't just be parked whilst it meanders along for years until everyone has forgotten about it.
 
waspish said:
Listen to that times podcast with MS on it and he pointed out that that spurs dodgy deal for Defoe got them in the champs league and city could argue that if we got that champs league spot our finances would been better and Uefa failing wouldn't of happened! Everything now has led to where we are now!
Click to expand...

I listened to that earlier.
Martin Samuel in fine form and not diverging in any way from his position 10+ years ago.
Great listen.

Link here if not already posted:

www.thetimes.co.uk

The Game

The Game is a football podcast from The Times, hosted by Gregor Robertson and Tom Clarke. Join them for insightful discussions, expert analysis, and the latest updates in the world of football. A must-listen for football enthusiasts and fans of quality sports journalism.
www.thetimes.co.uk www.thetimes.co.uk
 
Saw a KC quoted saying it could be 2/4 years away (decision).

No idea if he’s right but if they rush it thru quicker, that might work in our favour!!
 
If PL wants to strip titles, which might befall on the decades-long effort, goodwill and charity of the Abu Dhabi United Group, of which its subsidiary is the City Football Group that has invested for the greater global good.

I wonder if, given the culture of Emiratis as a very philanthropic community, the 14 billion quid invested by UAE for UK on the advancement of future and clean technologies, they might reconsider investing - given that the pedanticism by PL on City, allegedly until proven beyond reasonable doubt, on the Mancini contract, as if the CFG is avoiding administration.
 
M18CTID said:
Just going back to the Mancini contract. Many of us - me included - have said that it makes no sense to do what we've been accused of and pay him off the books to make our figures look better as we were posting eye-watering losses at the time anyway, not to mention that the "arrangement" commenced before FFP was even a thing, so a couple of million extra a year on our books wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference.

Anyway, I've been thinking about it over the past couple of days and while my above stance hasn't changed one explanation I have considered is that it wasn't done for our own benefit with the intention to deliberately mislead the PL (as there was no need to) and instead it was done to suit Mancini as perhaps he didn't want to pay full UK tax. I'm presuming the income tax rate for his Al Jazira job was lower than it was for his City role? So give him 2 jobs - one in the UK and one in the UAE and split his wages between the two perhaps? Surely this is only really a matter for HMRC and even then I would guess it comes under tax avoidance rather than tax evasion, but even then would they really want to go there if Mancini confirms that he fulfilled his role with Al Jazira? Seriously, I don't think HMRC would even be interested, so it stands to reason as to why the PL should be. Whatever's gone on, it's fuck-all in the grand scheme of things and certainly not worthy of a points deduction/relegation/liquidation.

A side issue to this is that his initial wage at City was quite low and we're being called out for that, yet ironically it's normally the opposite as we're forever getting accused of over-paying players!
Click to expand...

Yes, likely the original intention was helping Mancini with offshore funds for tax reasons and obviously nothing to do with FFP.

If you read the documents though you will see that it ended up with him billing us for his tax liability in Italy. We paid.

Almost certainly HMRC would have discussed this with us as some point. They were all over every club for a variety of reasons and have since reclaimed c£750m I think form loads of clubs. Point is this isn't an HMRC issue.
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
I listened to that earlier.
Martin Samuel in fine form and not diverging in any way from his position 10+ years ago.
Great listen.

Link here if not already posted:

www.thetimes.co.uk

The Game

The Game is a football podcast from The Times, hosted by Gregor Robertson and Tom Clarke. Join them for insightful discussions, expert analysis, and the latest updates in the world of football. A must-listen for football enthusiasts and fans of quality sports journalism.
www.thetimes.co.uk www.thetimes.co.uk
Click to expand...
I'd vote for Martin Samuel as an Independant Regulator.
 
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