PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

bluemanchester said:
I also in the depths of my memory seem to recall Khaldoon himself said Mancini was a friend and they had worked/talked about football before his appointment at City.
Then Mancini upset one of the main instigators of this vendetta by beating them to our first Premier League title in dramatic circumstances. And who can forget the scenes with their entitled players at the end of the FAcup semi which we won. Ferdinand Anderson and others were looking for blood after Scholes had already drawn the blood of Zabba during the game. That was the moment we etched deep into their consciousness from where we have never left and torment them still.
The days get better;-)
Click to expand...
If you can find footage of just after the final whistle of the first leg of the League Cup semi final win over united (1-3) at OT on Jan 7th 2020 - David Gill is shown leaving his seat with a 'that's it, I've had enough of them face, time to hit back' - you could visibly see his bitterness spilling over.
 
halfcenturyup said:
For six months after he was sacked the press had regular articles about how disruptive he was. I am not saying he wasn't, he cleatly was, I am saying Soriano runs a tight enough ship for me to know that if that happens it happens with, at least, the blessing of the club, if not directly from the club.

Mancini was man enough to keep his silence, but it wasn't a good look for the club and it wasn't even necessary.

At least, that's how I remember it.
Click to expand...
If Bobby Manc was called as a witness he has already said that he has paid tax on the payments and everything was above board as far as he's concerned. So I don't think there is a smoking gun there.
 
meltonblue said:
Not providing full details of manager remuneration. They can’t say they continued the contract with the negotiations done by the club as that does show it was a related transaction.
Click to expand...

There was no requirement to provide details of the manager's contract with other clubs in those days, was there?

And even if there was, what was the consequence? Did it give a sporting advantage?
 
halfcenturyup said:
Well, yes, that makes sense. They met him once before they offered him the City job and liked him, so they offered him the City job but couldn't sign him up because of the Inter clause, so they kept him warm with a lucrative consultancy contract until they could comfortably sign him or, in Hughes's case, had to sign him because it was going tits up. The contract was continued for Mancini's tax reasons, all negotiations and contracts being handled by the club.

Sounds more than plausible to me.

Anyway, its all speculation, but I am much more comfortable with that as an explanation than the club deliberately trying to mislead the PL for reasons which aren't, at all, apparent. Balance of probability, if you will.

It's OK to disagree, though.
Click to expand...
That’s worries me
 
eastmanc said:
If Bobby Manc was called as a witness he has already said that he has paid tax on the payments and everything was above board as far as he's concerned. So I don't think there is a smoking gun there.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is a smoking gun anywhere in these allegations, or a gun of any kind. Not even a water pistol.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Well, yes, that makes sense. They met him once before they offered him the City job and liked him, so they offered him the City job but couldn't sign him up because of the Inter clause, so they kept him warm with a lucrative consultancy contract until they could comfortably sign him or, in Hughes's case, had to sign him because it was going tits up. The contract was continued for Mancini's tax reasons, all negotiations and contracts being handled by the club.

Sounds more than plausible to me.

Anyway, its all speculation, but I am much more comfortable with that as an explanation than the club deliberately trying to mislead the PL for reasons which aren't, at all, apparent. Balance of probability, if you will.

It's OK to disagree, though.
Click to expand...

Thing is, why would 2009 City be arsed about keeping an extra couple of million off the books for Mancini's wage? There was no FFP and we were throwing huge sums of money around and incurring heavy losses. That they're even bringing this up just shows how desperate they are.
 
halfcenturyup said:
There was no requirement to provide details of the manager's contract with other clubs in those days, was there?

And even if there was, what was the consequence? Did it give a sporting advantage?
Click to expand...

But if we were negotiating it ourselves, we can’t really argue it was with other clubs, it was part of the same overall package. That and the transactions in the leaks show it from us rather than Al Jazira.

We’re not going to argue that, I imagine we’ll say it was an entirely separate contract funded fully by Al Jazira and the contract he had with us was at market value at the time. That’s going to be the key point - was his remuneration from us in itself fair at the time.
 
meltonblue said:
But if we were negotiating it ourselves, we can’t really argue it was with other clubs, it was part of the same overall package. That and the transactions in the leaks show it from us rather than Al Jazira.

We’re not going to argue that, I imagine we’ll say it was an entirely separate contract funded fully by Al Jazira and the contract he had with us was at market value at the time. That’s going to be the key point - was his remuneration from us in itself fair at the time.
Click to expand...

That would work, except you told me you were concerned that the club was involved in the negotiation of the contract, per the emails. I tried to explain why that won't, imo, be a problem. So let's just agree on your last post then :)
 
halfcenturyup said:
That would work, except you told me you were concerned that the club was involved in the negotiation of the contract, per the emails. I tried to explain why that won't, imo, be a problem. So let's just agree on your last post then :)
Click to expand...

Right and I’m saying that would be a problem, which is why I highly doubt they’ll try and argue that.
 
halfcenturyup said:
No it isn't. There would be no related party transaction, only intra-group discussions and negotiations.
Click to expand...

But there are transactions as part of the leaks too though. There aren’t intra-group discussions, it’s potentially us negotiating with him on their behalf.
 
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