PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

WRicko said:
KSurely they must be related party then or should be that’s what worries me your effectively saying they where group negations like being employed by City and CFG and CFG doing the contract for both
Click to expand...

I am not saying they are or aren't related parties. I am saying, prima facie, there are no related party transactions (a simple movement of cash isn't a related party transaction although it may give rise to a related party receivable/ payable).

Anyway, we are discussing whether Pearce or anyone else from the club being involved in negotiating the terms of a split salary is a problem. I don't see any problem at all. Other people seemingly do. I can live with that.

And, quite frankly, I would like to move on. A whole day discussing something I don't see as an issue is driving me nuts. :)
 
halfcenturyup said:
I am not saying they are or aren't related parties. I am saying, prima facie, there are no related party transactions (a simple movement of cash isn't a related party transaction although it may give rise to a related party receivable/ payable).

Anyway, we are discussing whether Pearce or anyone else from the club being involved in negotiating the terms of a split salary is a problem. I don't see any problem at all. Other people seemingly do. I can live with that.

And, quite frankly, I would like to move on. A whole day discussing something I don't see as an issue is driving me nuts. :)
Click to expand...
Steering wheel shaped penis?
 
BringBackSwales said:
My point to the other poster was that he said he thought we had settled with Fordham in 2014; if that inferred there was a problem that was put right in 2014 and the premier league cunts were going back earlier than 2014 then might we have an issue with it?
Click to expand...

Well yes, I don't think there is anything to stop the PL revisiting things that were settled with UEFA in 2014, other than time limitation which may apply to Fordham.

Iirc, CAS concluded UEFA could revisit some of them in 2019 (as they did on the sponsorships) although they don't seem to have pushed anything too contentious like related parties and fair values. To be expeditious, maybe.
 
Last edited:
Dribble said:
Ashworth is from Salford isn't he & was parachuted into Leicester. It might just be politically expedient to claim he's a Leicester fan, that's of he's even said he is one.
Click to expand...
Manchesters politicians have been very quiet on the whole issue, considering the investment in East Mcr by City.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Correct imho. I think his point is that it looks suspicious for City directors/employees to be involved in negotiations/discussions with any company with which a senior employee has a second contract. I just don't see it. I think the opposite. It would be negligent not to be involved to ensure the club isn't at any fiscal or legal risk from a second contract.

The related party argument is a red herring. If Mancini had taken a part-time job to manage England in the international breaks I would equally expect the leading club to be involved in negotiations/discussions for the same reasons.
Click to expand...
As someone who used to draft and approve/decline secondary employment contracts we would look at the following (in the UK) : working time regulations and potential opt out, reputational risk (we would not allow people to do a similar 2nd job or imply this second job is in anyway connected to the main employers role) and also ensure the employee knew it was their role to inform hmrc of any tax implications. Payments or terms of the contract were none of our business and just between the employee and second employer (or self employed etc)
 
Sky Blue Thinking said:
Manchesters politicians have been very quiet on the whole issue, considering the investment in East Mcr by City.
Click to expand...
Very true. However, because it's a private members club matter between City & the non-statutory PL, it doesn't surprise me one jot that Manchester City Council have remained tactically silent, whilst continuing to collaborate on huge infrastructure projects with City. That in itself speaks volumes, without MCC having to come out publicly supporting us.

Trust me. If MCC got a whiff of impropriety about City, they'd have little issue with distancing themselves from us, regardless of our past close business ties, & the fact we're Tenants at CoMS.

Those baying for our blood in the media should pay serious attention to this fact. There's zero chance that English football clubs complaining it's not fair that we're richer than they are, so our investments should be neutered, will ever trump MCC's priority for building vital new homes & travel infrastructure for Manchester, whilst providing well paid employment.

The lot of them need to get fuckin real. Governments & Councils will not allow these petty football spats to get in the way of big business, infrastructure & employment...
 
Sky Blue Thinking said:
Manchesters politicians have been very quiet on the whole issue, considering the investment in East Mcr by City.
Click to expand...
As I remember it pre Sheikh M there was no money left after investment into Salford Quays and other South Manchester area.
This left the carcigenic contaminated Clayton Aniline and other industrial remnants to dacay via nature.
Similar fate was left to Ancoats.

In the absence of State and Local Gov Funding our owner decontaminated some of the land then built over a number of years in association with the local council.

In short our owner provided the money, the council made the land and buildings available.

I think that was how it happened but as an east Manchester resident at the time I was disgusted how our area had been discarded for investment.

Thinking about it Sheikh M's investment saved Manchester Business Plan yet he is paradoxically charged with over investment into his own part of that investment.

Yes. Manchester Council should be backing him more.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I am not saying they are or aren't related parties. I am saying, prima facie, there are no related party transactions (a simple movement of cash isn't a related party transaction although it may give rise to a related party receivable/ payable).

Anyway, we are discussing whether Pearce or anyone else from the club being involved in negotiating the terms of a split salary is a problem. I don't see any problem at all. Other people seemingly do. I can live with that.

And, quite frankly, I would like to move on. A whole day discussing something I don't see as an issue is driving me nuts. :)
Click to expand...

Ooh prima facie, check you out!
 
halfcenturyup said:
I find the idea that the club doesn't have a valid defence extraordinary, I have to say.

What is it about the other allegations that worries you?
Click to expand...

Nothing, like I said I only really think this one is an issue. I think the club will have a valid defence, the reason I think this one is potentially an issue is because they haven’t said what their defence is and I haven’t seen anything put forward that would work.
 
I'm wondering, with respect to the Super Casino project. The Government set up and independent commission to assess and choose the best option. When it came in favour of our site the Gov reneged. They had final say, maybe this may happen with the football regulator.
 
meltonblue said:
Nothing, like I said I only really think this one is an issue. I think the club will have a valid defence, the reason I think this one is potentially an issue is because they haven’t said what their defence is and I haven’t seen anything put forward that would work.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. What about this as a suggested defence to the panel?:

"Oh, just tell the PL to fuck off will you? All they have is a couple of emails chosen to show the club in the worst possible light. We have valid contracts signed by the appropriate people in the appropriate companies and UK legal and tax clearances to support the contracts, the services provided and the amounts involved. And you can tell them not to even think about using the new rules. It was 13 fucking years ago, the cunts. I rest my case."

Could work. And my last post on Mancini ....
 
halfcenturyup said:
Fair enough. What about this as a suggested defence to the panel?:

"Oh, just tell the PL to fuck off will you? All they have is a couple of emails chosen to show the club in the worst possible light. We have valid contracts signed by the appropriate people in the appropriate companies and UK legal and tax clearances to support the contracts, the services provided and the amounts involved. And you can tell them not to even think about using the new rules. It was 13 fucking years ago, the cunts. I rest my case."

Could work. And my last post on Mancini ....
Click to expand...
I think that is the case our KC will put forward, couched in more legal language, with a few hereinafters, prima facies and mutatis mutandis. Piece of piss this KC business.
 
SilverFox2 said:
As I remember it pre Sheikh M there was no money left after investment into Salford Quays and other South Manchester area.
This left the carcigenic contaminated Clayton Aniline and other industrial remnants to dacay via nature.
Similar fate was left to Ancoats.

In the absence of State and Local Gov Funding our owner decontaminated some of the land then built over a number of years in association with the local council.

In short our owner provided the money, the council made the land and buildings available.

I think that was how it happened but as an east Manchester resident at the time I was disgusted how our area had been discarded for investment.

Thinking about it Sheikh M's investment saved Manchester Business Plan yet he is paradoxically charged with over investment into his own part of that investment.

Yes. Manchester Council should be backing him more.
Click to expand...

I can understand why they don't back him more.
I'm thinking of the NW Tonight piece on the topping out of the new arena as an example. Nearing completion of Europes largest, state of the art indoor arena, Burnham is interviewed and is naturally buoyant about the project. So what does Annabel Tiffin ask.. 'this is all well and good, but how do you feel about accepting investment from a country with such an appalling human rights record?'. (The way she emphasized 'appalling', I thought she was going to throw-up)
Anything positive MCC say about any investments will be totally twisted into a 'whatabout...?' and it's just not worth their while to stick their head above the parapet.
Frankly, if some people dont appreciate what UAE (and Chinese, for that matter) investment has done for the residents of Manchester, they should piss off to one of the many bankrupt shithole cities that will charge them a fortune in CT to not empty their bins.
 
Son of Merv said:
I can understand why they don't back him more.
I'm thinking of the NW Tonight piece on the topping out of the new arena as an example. Nearing completion of Europes largest, state of the art indoor arena, Burnham is interviewed and is naturally buoyant about the project. So what does Annabel Tiffin ask.. 'this is all well and good, but how do you feel about accepting investment from a country with such an appalling human rights record?'. (The way she emphasized 'appalling', I thought she was going to throw-up)
Anything positive MCC say about any investments will be totally twisted into a 'whatabout...?' and it's just not worth their while to stick their head above the parapet.
Frankly, if some people dont appreciate what UAE (and Chinese, for that matter) investment has done for the residents of Manchester, they should piss off to one of the many bankrupt shithole cities that will charge them a fortune in CT to not empty their bins.
Click to expand...
Sometimes not giving a reply to comments like "the UAE's appalling human rights record" is the best way to starve it of oxygen.

Ask most people what's wrong with Abu Dhabi's HRRR, they wouldn't have a fuckin Scooby.

Sensationalist bullshit journalism by Annabelle. After the way successive Westminster governments have disenfranchised the North of England, she should know better.

It's not like we had a choice of badly needed Central Government investment, or investment from Abu Dhabi. Manchester graciously accepted the only offer on the table, which its citizens have greatly benefitted from.

If it was up to Westminster, think of 70s/80 Manchester & the decay they were happy to allow to fester.
 
its grim up north said:
I'm wondering, with respect to the Super Casino project. The Government set up and independent commission to assess and choose the best option. When it came in favour of our site the Gov reneged. They had final say, maybe this may happen with the football regulator.
Click to expand...
Gordon Brown has a particular dislike of gambling, & the effects it has on those least able to afford it.

The proposals were made under Blair who was all for it. It's just our misfortune Brown succeeded him when the final decision was being made.
 
Son of Merv said:
I can understand why they don't back him more.
I'm thinking of the NW Tonight piece on the topping out of the new arena as an example. Nearing completion of Europes largest, state of the art indoor arena, Burnham is interviewed and is naturally buoyant about the project. So what does Annabel Tiffin ask.. 'this is all well and good, but how do you feel about accepting investment from a country with such an appalling human rights record?'. (The way she emphasized 'appalling', I thought she was going to throw-up)
Anything positive MCC say about any investments will be totally twisted into a 'whatabout...?' and it's just not worth their while to stick their head above the parapet.
Frankly, if some people dont appreciate what UAE (and Chinese, for that matter) investment has done for the residents of Manchester, they should piss off to one of the many bankrupt shithole cities that will charge them a fortune in CT to not empty their bins.
Click to expand...
I didn't know that.

As said they are in the job for votes so react accordingly.

Sad to say the media has done a good job in demonizing even the regeneration of East Manchester.
 
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