PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

WRicko said:
How would a club know what a manager was being paid by other unrelated parties and how can they be punished if they did not know ? And why is it anyone’s business other than perhaps the tax man. Why should the club inform the league and not the manager ? Why should the league know ? In other lines of work your bosses do not need to know or if they do it’s only if it’s a conflict of interest and they don’t need to tell anyone else. It’s only really an issue in regulated financial services and maybe a few other industries
Click to expand...
The regs state the manager needs to provide the info that the clubs need to fulfil this requirement. I guess a club could write it into the managers contract then if they breach the rule they can sue the manager for breach of contract or claim ignorance as mitigation. Ultimately I don't know :)
 
GaudinoMotors said:
Not just idiots unfortunately. Had it last night with someone senior at Deloittes, of all places. "115", "cheats", "dirty money"...etc. Pointed out that he ought to hope we're exonerated as his firm signed off on things - looked taken aback.
My wife quickly moved the ensuing silence along.
Click to expand...
Brilliant
 
The biggest negative for the PL case against Mancini is that his consultancy contract started while he was Inter manager and before City had been taken over, then was amalgamated on our books purely so this type of speculation couldn't occur. They only know about it because we told them we're doing it.

Proving that City used a contract signed before Sheikh Mansour owned City as a renumeration for a management contract for Mancini, in the years before FFP was even a thing, and during the time that City lost £197m is going to take some doing. Good luck to them.
 
Didsbury Dave said:
This would be a good time for 1894 to put a massive banner together, in the style of those ultras things, like the one they did about UEFA, stating that FPP is to close the door on competition or something. It would get media coverage and state the club's case well. Arsenal would have been perfect. I'd contribute.

"FPP - Damaging the Many to Protect the Few" or "FPP - Closing The Drawbridge" with the badges of Liverpool and Arsenal in it os summat like that.
Click to expand...
The only problem if that banner is in the south stand it is easy for the cameras to avoid it. I do realise it would be the 1894 lads doing it but for effect and wider viewing it needs to be in the East stand.
Obviosly only my opinion and I have no wish to tread on anyones toes;-)
 
joeyh123 said:
theres an article floating about this morning saying we should have a 690 point deduction and be relegated, but heres the kicker when we get back in to the prem each time we start on negative 690 points so you start the season already relegated and then work the points off......


Crazy how much people are desperate for city to be found guilty. It really does show mob mentality is not just in person but is digital too.
Click to expand...
That's a letter not an article. Still insane mind
 
Damocles said:
The biggest negative for the PL case against Mancini is that his consultancy contract started while he was Inter manager and before City had been taken over, then was amalgamated on our books purely so this type of speculation couldn't occur. They only know about it because we told them we're doing it.

Proving that City used a contract signed before Sheikh Mansour owned City as a renumeration for a management contract for Mancini, in the years before FFP was even a thing, and during the time that City lost £197m is going to take some doing. Good luck to them.
Click to expand...

Is that right though? The only document in the public domain is the Mancini signed contract with Al Jazira that he signed on the same day he signed with us in 2009, I’ve not seen anything saying he had a contract with Al Jazira prior to taking the role with us, let alone pre-takeover. Surely Al Jazira would have said that at the time if that was the case, it would have been a pretty big deal he was working with them at the time.

The leaks show more than just him having a contract too, if they’re genuine it shows City personnel renegotiating his Al Jazira contract as well as the transactions. That’s the one out of all the charges that concerns me the most tbh.
 
Last edited:
Moss Side's Finest said:
I also think that if we do beat all the charges, we do a 115 countdown animation on the big screens like we did mocking the rags banner when we won the first PL title
Click to expand...
Errrrrrrrr :)

FogBlueInSanFran said:
I hope when/if we’re cleared, the club run the same graphic on the Etihad screens it did when Agueroooooo happened, but with the counter running down from 115 to zero.
Click to expand...
Great minds think alike :)
 
mrbelfry said:
It was part of the regs that we had to send in Mancini's contract to the Premier League secretary. The contract with Al Jazeera (sp?) would have been irrelevant then (except the De Spiegal leaks suggested City paid that or something).

It's actually now the rule that we also have to provide details of any payments made to the manager from anyone else as well (P.7.3 in this years handbook)

Here's a screenshot of the rules we breached in the first 2 Mancini seasons. The rule the following year was the same just in section P.
View attachment 111654

The 22/23 rulebook when we were charged does have the rule that we have to list other payments made to the manager by other parties. Maybe they are using that criteria to charge us for not giving details of Mancini's other contract. OR they are alleging the other contract was a way to pay Mancini more whilst declaring less (although no one has provided a good reason why we would do that) OR they are saying we never sent them Mancinis contract OR they are saying we sent something in but it wasn't the contract under which Mancini was working

Alternatively Im an idiot and all this theory is false
Click to expand...
The one difficulty we have with the original contract with Al Jazeera is that it was drawn up by Pearce and other City execs. PL could claim we already had the details.
 
KS55 said:
The one difficulty we have with the original contract with Al Jazeera is that it was drawn up by Pearce and other City execs. PL could claim we already had the details.
Click to expand...
Are all the details reference emails, manager's contracts ,various other details about who did what and why,freely available for scrutiny or have some of our cleverer members hacked City's database.
 
KS55 said:
The one difficulty we have with the original contract with Al Jazeera is that it was drawn up by Pearce and other City execs. PL could claim we already had the details.
Click to expand...

It’s the second contract he signed that I think is dodgier. That one had Garry Cook basically negotiating it and treating it as part of the same package, if the leaks are genuine mails.
 
KS55 said:
The one difficulty we have with the original contract with Al Jazeera is that it was drawn up by Pearce and other City execs. PL could claim we already had the details.
Click to expand...
We wouldn't have needed to provide details of Mancini's other jobs under the regs in the years we employed him. So the allegation must be the Al Jaz job was under the table payments from City for the job he was doing at City.
 
Chappie said:
Are all the details reference emails, manager's contracts ,various other details about who did what and why,freely available for scrutiny or have some of our cleverer members hacked City's database.
Click to expand...

It was part of the second load of leaks that Der Spiegel released after the CAS case.
 
Fail to comprehend how stolen , hacked and manipulated e-mails can even be considered in any legal argument , especially when they have come from a convicted blackmailer/criminal , beggars belief that UEFA , CAS and the Premier league have pinned their hopes on such dubious evidence.
But it is a means to an end , it has created negativity around the best run club in europe , desperate times require desperate measures from our two faced , back stabbing competitors.
 
Legal Alien said:
I stick with my stock reply:

My club have denied the charges, said we're not guilty and say they have irrefutable evidence to prove it.
So unless the PL can prove their accusations against us with hard evidence, there will be no case to answer and we won't be receiving any punishment!

Next subject...
Click to expand...
The next subject will be...

115 charges, no smoke without fire.

You only got away with it at CAS because the charges were time barred.
 
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