I'm probably missing the point, but doesn't 'fair market value' apply to sponsorships, not manager/player remuneration?
What rules define 'acceptable' remuneration though?Yes. I meant that more as in the renumeration. If we were paying Mancini an acceptable amount at the time just from us, then unless we were also paying Al Jaziras wage to him too, I’d argue there’s nothing wrong with it, it’s got sod all to do with the PL.
There might be water pistols full of boiling piss when the red top loonies read the judgement.I don't think there is a smoking gun anywhere in these allegations, or a gun of any kind. Not even a water pistol.
I wish that had occurred to me when we were kids.There might be water pistols full of boiling piss when the red top loonies read the judgement.
In between reporting to a police station and his printing "hobby".Was this written by a two year old fukin dipper
Bet you wouldn't want to be that kid that turned up at A&E with a water pistol stuck to their todger after trying to refill it a bit too enthusiastically.I wish that had occurred to me when we were kids.
Crayon eating at its finest. I wonder if Lewis Oldham wore a Crash Helmet when typing that masterpiece?Was this written by a two year old fukin dipper
I know posters on here have said that his salary from us seemed to be on the low side but wasn't it heavily loaded with extras in the form of bonuses?Yes. I meant that more as in the renumeration. If we were paying Mancini an acceptable amount at the time just from us, then unless we were also paying Al Jaziras wage to him too, I’d argue there’s nothing wrong with it, it’s got sod all to do with the PL.
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 .....
I know posters on here have said that his salary from us seemed to be on the low side but wasn't it heavily loaded with extras in the form of bonuses?
Even if it wasn't and it was being "topped up" with his Al Jazira wage then like I've said before, the arrangement wouldn't have been in place to deceive the Premier League. I mean, why would we need to when there was no FFP in 2009 and back then we were posting eye-watering losses that absolutely dwarf the amounts we're talking about with regards to Mancini? When you look at what the likes of Wayne Bridge and Croque Santa Cruz were being paid through the books, why would we hide part of Mancini's salary which, even when you combine his AJ wage, was probably lower than what those two were being paid? It makes no sense to do it, so this was almost certainly only ever being done for tax purposes for Mancini's benefit rather than ours, and as such that's none of the Premier League's business. I mentioned this to my boss at work. He's a United fan so obviously he wants us found guilty but when I told him about the Mancini stuff he said what I said - that it would've been a tax thing - then shrugged his shoulders as if to say "Where's the scandal in that?"
alot of pissing into the windI don't think there is a smoking gun anywhere in these allegations, or a gun of any kind. Not even a water pistol.
I dont, I think that and the Fordham one are our two main problems as they’re the only two for which there’s no defence already out there, so we’re hypothesising. I just disagree with who discussed or negotiated what isn’t important, I think that’s the main crux of the whole issue.
I think @malg is a bit older tbf..Was this written by a two year old fukin dipper
Mancini's basic was £1.7m, but heavily incentivised, averaging £6m per season. He also said he paid the relevant taxes on all remuneration & that neither UEFA or the PL had ever been in touch with him about it, & if they did, he'd be happy to put them straight.I know posters on here have said that his salary from us seemed to be on the low side but wasn't it heavily loaded with extras in the form of bonuses?
Even if it wasn't and it was being "topped up" with his Al Jazira wage then like I've said before, the arrangement wouldn't have been in place to deceive the Premier League. I mean, why would we need to when there was no FFP in 2009 and back then we were posting eye-watering losses that absolutely dwarf the amounts we're talking about with regards to Mancini? When you look at what the likes of Wayne Bridge and Croque Santa Cruz were being paid through the books, why would we hide part of Mancini's salary which, even when you combine his AJ wage, was probably lower than what those two were being paid? It makes absolutely no sense to do it as a form of deception, so this was almost certainly only ever being done for tax purposes for Mancini's benefit rather than ours, and as such that's none of the Premier League's business. It most definitely is HMRC's business though but it seems they're not in the least bit arsed because they've not exactly been banging our door down about it. I mentioned this to my boss at work. He's a United fan so obviously he wants us found guilty but when I told him about the Mancini stuff he said what I said - that it would've been an arrangement for tax purposes - then shrugged his shoulders as if to say "Where's the scandal in that?"
Also, let's not forget that last year Mancini said the PL hadn't even approached him about it. Now you'd have thought that he'd be the first person they'd want to interview about it.
Sad but trueSo you could say he's the master of puppets...I'll get me coat!
It takes just under an hour and a half though!There’s a direct tram from Didsbury to Rochdale. Every cloud.
Any background on Fordham for me?
UEFA looked into Fordham & said it was OK, but they wanted us & other clubs to wind down these schemes.Only what’s out there in terms of the Der Spiegel leak.
The only question I’ve got on the Fordham one is why wasn’t it part of Uefa’s case against us
I think the two issues get mixed up on this thread, and I admit I am as guilty as anyone for doing this. The first is the matter of the 115 very serious charges brought against us by the PL. Fortunately we have briefed Lord Pannick to argue our case and I think we are very safe in his hands. In addition we trust our owners and opinion on here appears to be overwhelmingly that our evidence is indeed irrefutable. What we find impossibly difficult at times is to keep the PL charges separate from our belief that the PL is little, if anything, more or less than a vehicle for the protection of the "red cartel" as Sir Mark Hendrick describes it. Lord Pannick will not fall into this trap but what our club should be doing, and I'd be surprised if it isn't, and our fan organisations should be doing as well, is making representations to MPs and other representative bodies to ensure the regulations which the IR works with are in the best interests of football and the fans. What our owners have done for our club and our city are models for the English game.
Yes but mcfc and nothing else matters .Sad but true