PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Prophet of Doom said:
He might well be - but all the other journalists respect him and know he gets the big stories first.

If he is saying the IC hearing is in the Autumn you can be sure that’s what Arsenal think as well.
Click to expand...
If it is the shit show Tolmie is suggesting, I believe the hard arguments have already been had, and there will be an announcement after the season finishes. This will allow the furore to die down over the summer and get lost in the Euro's build up before the new season starts, and it also allows the pl time to get a new patsy in place.
No way this decision gets reported on mid-season.
 
Hopefully it will drag on for another couple of seasons, as sadly I fear once we are cleared on all charges , Pep will sail off into the sunset.

The rumours of him leaving at the end of next season are increasing sadly.
 
eastmanc said:
Just heard Talk shite going on about it being dragged out in the courts. What is it not being heard by an independent tribunal? And the other take on our case is that City should be doing everything to get this case heard earlier. Again I thought the burden of proof lay with the Premier League, we are not driving this they are.
Click to expand...

The accused doesn't have to do a damn thing. It's for the accuser to put up or shut up.

They either don't know this and they're incompetant fools or they do know this and they're encouraging everyone to pile on City falsely in which case they are snide twats.

It should be the PL/the independant commission they should be directing their anger at.

This is what annoys me with City. They should be going after this and putting out briefs to journalists over it. Very admirable keeping quiet and not caring about the opinions of sheep, etc, etc. However City are losing in the court of public opinion and it does matter if you want to grow the fanbase.
 
Last edited:
FanchesterCity said:
The commonly held view is that Mancini was paid 'on the side' via a deal to provide consulting services to another company.
However any manager can do a bit of work on the side and the details of the 3rd party contracts are unknown to the club.
Even if they are known and deemed 'relevant' they are not contracts formed by the club therefore the word 'its' is a problem for our accusers.
If the PL still believe that any club who is even aware of a 3rd party contract should declare that knowledge it is still unrealistic to assume they know the remuneration details or other particulars.


Imagine a manager having a contract with a newspaper to write a column. That contract states they will receive between 500k and 800k depending on subscriber figures and that the pay will increase between 5% and 10% per annum based on company and personal performance...

How are the PL going to determine his pay? Do they expect to see the managers personal bank account or the newspaper accounts?
Click to expand...

The issue with Mancini is the club were negotiating (and facilitating payment) on behalf of Al Jazira if the emails are true.
 
burning blue soul said:
If it is the shit show Tolmie is suggesting, I believe the hard arguments have already been had, and there will be an announcement after the season finishes. This will allow the furore to die down over the summer and get lost in the Euro's build up before the new season starts, and it also allows the pl time to get a new patsy in place.
No way this decision gets reported on mid-season.
Click to expand...

The hearing hasn't happened yet so there have been no hard arguments.

No indication at all that anything will happen this summer. It's likely that the hearing is in Autumn and the decision in 2025.

Read somewhere yesterday, maybe Orstein, that they're only just preparing witness statements.
 
halfcenturyup said:
(Just read this again before posting. Maybe I should have put it in a DM, but maybe someone, somewhere is interested. If you didn't like the post I am replying to, you should probably skip this).

Nothing wrong with disagreeing and you don't deserve the stick you get on here, even if you may expect it on a rival fans' forum on a particularly sensitive issue.

On Mancini, do we agree this?
* The original intent of the AJ contract was to tie Mancini down when he couldn't sign a full-time contract and other clubs were sniffing around?
* There was no FFP when Mancini was here, certainly not when he was signed?
* There was no PL requirement to include all a manager's remuneration until after Mancini left?

If we do, how can the PL show deliberate concealment (with intent) in those circumstances?

As for reducing the threshold for deliberate concealment because it's a small amount, I would be very surprised if that happens. Each allegation will be judged on its own merits, imho, not on its size in relation to the others.

On Fordham, I should probably say first that I am assuming the player contract issue in the allegations is, in fact, Fordham. We don't know, of course, and there are other murmurings in the press that it is to do with Yaya Toure's image rights. The seasons covered by the allegations cover 2010/11 to 2015/6, well before Fordham, so this could support the Toure suggestion (he started in 2010). Maybe it's a combination of both. Anyway, about the timing, the last season the allegations cover is 2015/16. Why? Maybe Fordham was wound down by then (although Fordham's accounts suggest not) or maybe Toure's contract was changed.

My point, though, is that if we can agree:
* the player contract issue relates to Fordham
* the Fordham arrangement wasn't deliberately concealed
* the allegations stop in the 2015/6 season,

then Fordham is, clearly, time limited. (I also didn't like the way you determined materiality either, but for the sake of brevity, I will let it pass).

I will, however, grant you that all the uncertainty/ lack of information over Fordham/Toure could lead to some surprises. It is the allegation I am least comfortable with, just because of how little we actually know.

So, I suppose we will continue to disagree, and that's fine.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with your first point there, I’ve seen it said a few times and not sure where it comes from. The only contract in the public domain, Mancini signed with Al Jazira the same day he signed with us.
 
argyle said:
The hearing hasn't happened yet so there have been no hard arguments.

No indication at all that anything will happen this summer. It's likely that the hearing is in Autumn and the decision in 2025.

Read somewhere yesterday, maybe Orstein, that they're only just preparing witness statements.
Click to expand...
I doubt there will be witness statements it’s a tribunal not a court of law, there will be a lot of documents to read through
 
meltonblue said:
Not sure I agree with your first point there, I’ve seen it said a few times and not sure where it comes from. The only contract in the public domain, Mancini signed with Al Jazira the same day he signed with us.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but just because it's not in the public domain doesn't mean it isn't true. Really, though, I am just piecing things together from what I remember being discussed at the time. And I only really have two pieces of evidence to back it up. A Guardian article from just after his appointment saying Mancini and Khaldoon had an existing relationship (where would he have got that) and a comment from Savage (who knew Mancini, of course, from his time at Leicester) saying Mancini had been advising Mansour in the UAE. I may be wrong, of course. I am old. I misremember things from last week, let alone 15 years ago :) We will find out soon enough, I guess.

Not that it changes the main point that FFP didn't exist when the Mancini contracts were signed, so it wasn't an attempt to circumvent anything, unless there was a four year forward planning for such a small amount. Unlikely I think.
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
Fair enough, but just because it's not in the public domain doesn't mean it isn't true. Really, though, I am just piecing things together from what I remember being discussed at the time. And I only really have two pieces of evidence to back it up. A Guardian article from just after his appointment saying Mancini and Khaldoon had an existing relationship (where would he have got that) and a comment from Savage (who knew Mancini, of course, from his time at Leicester, of course) saying Mancini had been advising Mansour in the UAE. I may be wrong, of course. I am old. I misremember things from last week, let alone 15 years ago :) We will find out soon enough, I guess.

Not that it changes the main point that FFP didn't exist when the Mancini contracts were signed, so it wasn't an attempt to circumvent anything, unless there was a four year forward planning for such a small amount. Unlikely I think.
Click to expand...

Yeah it might well be true, just I’ve never seen it backed up. When Mancini signed with us, he said he’d only spoken to Khaldoon a couple of times before.
 
eastmanc said:
Who were them two bitter cunts on Sunday supplement about 14 years ago, going on about City being morally bankrupt before the Fulham away match I think.
Click to expand...
Rob Beasley and some gooner can't remember his name. Pissed myself when they said who the fuck are David Silva and Yaya Tourwey, we've signed two duffers there. Oh how the eggs were left smothered on their cockney mugs
 
halfcenturyup said:
Fair enough, but just because it's not in the public domain doesn't mean it isn't true. Really, though, I am just piecing things together from what I remember being discussed at the time. And I only really have two pieces of evidence to back it up. A Guardian article from just after his appointment saying Mancini and Khaldoon had an existing relationship (where would he have got that) and a comment from Savage (who knew Mancini, of course, from his time at Leicester, of course) saying Mancini had been advising Mansour in the UAE. I may be wrong, of course. I am old. I misremember things from last week, let alone 15 years ago :) We will find out soon enough, I guess.

Not that it changes the main point that FFP didn't exist when the Mancini contracts were signed, so it wasn't an attempt to circumvent anything, unless there was a four year forward planning for such a small amount. Unlikely I think.
Click to expand...

I thought it was part of the story how we disrespected Hughes that Mancini had been already consulting in the UAE.
 
cheekybids said:
I thought it was part of the story how we disrespected Hughes that Mancini had been already consulting in the UAE.
Click to expand...
I think the 'disrespecting things' started in the awkward pause in-between 'you can't buy success' and 'you've bought success' stories.
 
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