PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Kinkys Left Foot]

They didn’t consider Mancini, Uefa didnt charge us about that. You’re right about the rest though.

Yes agreed - I made a supposition from memory and its been a while since I read the CAS Ruling

- it seems UEFA thought that was a nothing burger not worthy of including in their charges - seems to me they were aware of their own time barring but thought they could sneak the Etisalat issues under the proverbial limbo bar by conflating the date that the time barring ran from. I suspect they knew this was a "loser" and thats why no evidence was offered.

I think the limitation bits apply to the PL charges which seem to clearly involve the Mancini contract.

In addition pinched from Projectriver below the 12/13 Rules don't state anywhere the requirements mentioned in the "list of allegations" to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager

and City deny that the contract with Al Jazira was part of his City remuneration - good luck proving otherwise when there will be signed separate contracts and likely testimony that contract obligations were met.

2. In respect of:
(a) each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2012/13 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2009/10 to 2011/12 inclusive, Premier League Rules Q.7 and Q.8; and
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules P.7 and P.8;

 

[meltonblue]

Yes agreed - I made a supposition from memory and its been a while since I read the CAS Ruling

- it seems UEFA thought that was a nothing burger not worthy of including in their charges - seems to me they were aware of their own time barring but thought they could sneak the Etisalat issues under the proverbial limbo bar by conflating the date that the time barring ran from. I suspect they knew this was a "loser" and thats why no evidence was offered.

I think the limitation bits apply to the PL charges which seem to clearly involve the Mancini contract.

In addition pinched from Projectriver below the 12/13 Rules don't state anywhere the requirements mentioned in the "list of allegations" to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager

and City deny that the contract with Al Jazira was part of his City remuneration - good luck proving otherwise when there will be signed separate contracts and likely testimony that contract obligations were met.

2. In respect of:
(a) each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2012/13 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2009/10 to 2011/12 inclusive, Premier League Rules Q.7 and Q.8; and
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules P.7 and P.8;

View attachment 120884

Yep. Always thought with the Mancini one, unless his contract with City was a tenner a month or something, then it’s got sod all to do with them!

That might not be true if we were negotiating his contract with them directly too though.

 

[KS55]

Yep. Always thought with the Mancini one, unless his contract with City was a tenner a month or something, then it’s got sod all to do with them!

That might not be true if we were negotiating his contract with them directly too though.

Pearce etc merely ADVISED!

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Yep. Always thought with the Mancini one, unless his contract with City was a tenner a month or something, then it’s got sod all to do with them!

That might not be true if we were negotiating his contract with them directly too though.

I suspect its the contractual documentation that will win out.
Even if we brokered that contract, paid it separately (as long as the re-imbursements from Al-Jazira are equally documented), appropriate tax was paid by whoever, the PL cannot prove its a sham contract.

 

[Metalartin]

I am no lawyer, but I think I have deduced the exact law being referenced concerning time limitations, is the Limitation Act 1980. Where Section 7 states; an arbitration award may not be enforced more that 6 years from the date on which the cause of action accrued(charges brought forward?).

The concealment and fraud bit, is where I'm now confused because I thought that would lift any restrictions completely(the reason why the PL took 5 years to act and then went as far back as 2009/10).

And then there is this helpful site which shows this:

So a 6 year limit does still apply, the difference is the discovery date(Nov 2018) vs the date of official proceedings(charged Feb 2023). Is that about right? If that's the case, then anything before November 2012 would be outside the limitation period. I still hope City prove their case regardless, learn from CAS, leave the cretins in the press(and twitter) no room to avoid admitting defeat.

 

[meltonblue]

Pearce etc merely ADVISED!

It was Garry Cook, the emails I saw.

 

[meltonblue]

I suspect its the contractual documentation that will win out.
Even if we brokered that contract, paid it separately (as long as the re-imbursements from Al-Jazira are equally documented), appropriate tax was paid by whoever, the PL cannot prove its a sham contract.

Agreed.

 

[casserole of nonsense]

almost, its bottle and glass = class, it comes from boxing when a boxer loses his ability to duck and dive

I checked in my cockernee dictionary, whilst tearing it apart again, and turns out bottle (and glass) is used for both arse and class.

 

[wolviedinho]

View attachment 120874

Class album, still listen to it today.

 

[Ashleymcduff]

You should join Twitter just to tweet to this Magic guy and call him Nick (nonchalantly, in passing). See what happens.

Would be funny as fuck if everyone joined up just to do that :)

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Have we been cleared yet?

 

[Ethan23]

Have we been cleared yet?

Yeh and talksport are putting on a 1 hour special apologising for ever doubting us

 

[I'm Blue]

Have we been cleared yet?

Yes but we’ve been charged again for wasting everyone’s time.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Yeh and talksport are putting on a 1 hour special apologising for ever doubting us.

Thank fuck for that, not sure about the TS apology though ;-)

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Yes but we’ve been charged again for wasting everyone’s time.

Cheeky bastards, assume the death penalty has been called?

 

[I'm Blue]

Cheeky bastards, assume the death penalty has been called?

They’re just waiting for the lawyers on Facebook to decide on the punishment.

 

[HelloCity]

View attachment 120909View attachment 120910

Literally the exact same behaviours.

 

[supercity88]

I’ve read it at least 100 times! Here’s the relevant bit in Uefa’s submission. The whole allegation and our defence to it is around disguised equity through the sponsors.

View attachment 120885

That’s why I put the picture I did before. Uefa’s whole case was ADUG were providing Etihad with the funds, which is why Mansour went on record with this -

View attachment 120886
And why the CAS panel found this in their conclusion -

View attachment 120887

Send that to the Magic **** in Twitter! They clearly have only just joined the party and haven't got a clue what they're talking about. They won't be interested in facts mind.

 

[bluemoonjack]

Bit of light relief from Harris/Magic Hat

 

[jrb]

This was his first post on X/Twitter. Straight into City cheating FFP. Pinned.



This is his latest post.



He’s nothing more than a bitter Tarquin ****!(if it’s not Harris?) Who like every other Tarquin, Rag, and Scouser(Liverpool fan) are bitter as fuck because CIty stopped their teams from winning the PL title on numerous occasions over the past 12 years.