PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

KS55 said:
I always got on well with auditors. They were impressed by my ability to produce documentation very quickly and so there was no tension.
Click to expand...
I once had to produce an old document that wasn’t there, so I re-did it, and put it in an envelope and was jumping up and down on the envelope when the senior auditor walked into my office
 
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...
I'm probably missing the point, but doesn't 'fair market value' apply to sponsorships, not manager/player remuneration?
 
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...
I checked yesterday and there was no requirement to provide details of any other payments made to our manager from another party. the requirement is in the rules for 2022/23 season when we were charged.

Wasn't there some chat a while ago that City had gone to court or complained about something? The media theory was that we were complaining that the guy in charge of the IC was an Arsenal fan but I seem to remember someone saying on here that it was because they were charging us under current guidelines and understanding of the rules rather than what the rules actually said in the season we are accused of breaching them
 
mrbelfry said:
I checked yesterday and there was no requirement to provide details of any other payments made to our manager from another party. the requirement is in the rules for 2022/23 season when we were charged.

Wasn't there some chat a while ago that City had gone to court or complained about something? The media theory was that we were complaining that the guy in charge of the IC was an Arsenal fan but I seem to remember someone saying on here that it was because they were charging us under current guidelines and understanding of the rules rather than what the rules actually said in the season we are accused of breaching them
Click to expand...
I’d be surprised if they could make such changes have retrospective effect? Can they?
 
meltonblue said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are apparently bank transfers. They are not disclosable transactions in the accounting sense or the FFP sense even if it existed at the time, which it didn't.

I think we are getting away from the point. The only important point is that there were two contracts with two different clubs. We can agree on that. Who discussed or negotiated what isn't important. Only who signed what. Who paid for what isn't even that important as long as the right charges ended up in the right clubs.

You seemed to be worried the emails showed the club was involved in negotiating some Mancini arrangements also for AJ. I tried to explain why I don't think that is a problem.

That's all.

I think Mancini is the least of our problems, honestly, so we have probably hogged the thread long enough .....
 
mrbelfry said:
I checked yesterday and there was no requirement to provide details of any other payments made to our manager from another party. the requirement is in the rules for 2022/23 season when we were charged.

Wasn't there some chat a while ago that City had gone to court or complained about something? The media theory was that we were complaining that the guy in charge of the IC was an Arsenal fan but I seem to remember someone saying on here that it was because they were charging us under current guidelines and understanding of the rules rather than what the rules actually said in the season we are accused of breaching them
Click to expand...

The "media" at the time reported that the club was complaining about Arsenal fans, the less "irresponsible" "media" said it was because we were challenging that some of the alleged breaches were of new rules and the club was challenging that.

I thought at the time it was about not cooperating with external evidence (rule changed last year, conveniently) but it could also be about manager's remuneration.

Pretty desperate stuff from the PL, if it is.
 
malg said:
I know. Funny as fuck.
Click to expand...
Nigel Clough *could* replace Pep Guardiola?

Football 365 have actually managed to outdo themselves with that pearler. :-)

They're not even hiding the fact they're a desperate clickbait outfit taking the piss. The sad thing is that people are actually buying it too!
 
Eccles Blue said:
Have we been given a date yet? I try to avoid the sensationalism by the media. (& the up and downism on here) ;-)
So I’m in ignorance. :-)
Click to expand...
Last update from Tolmie was that we should know the date of the hearing by June.

Projectriver put a timeline up ages ago and my take on where it might be now is:

Hearing date announced in June

Hearing in early autumn

Judgement released around this time next year

Appeals by either party to be concluded by the end of 2025
 
Dribble said:
Nigel Clough *could* replace Pep Guardiola?

Football 365 have actually managed to outdo themselves with that pearler. :-)

They're not even hiding the fact they're a desperate clickbait outfit taking the piss. The sad thing is that people are actually buying it too!
Click to expand...
A fool/s and his money are easily parted.
 
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