Stefan was, I think, referring to the original rule on managers remuneration in which it is explicitly stated that the managers contract is the evidence needed. Well we submitted Mancini’s contract. His arrangement with Mansour is not part of his relationship with City. End of.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Regulator will not have that power.This has to be one of the PL's most inept and stupid decisions, and christ knows they have made so many in their attempts to appease the redshirt cartel.
Firing Masters has to be the first and easiest of the jobs for an Independent Regulator.
Atoma est……it’s actually comical they are asking him to comment on this. They might as well ask him to explain quantum mechanics in Latin.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,943
Stefan was, I think, referring to the original rule on managers remuneration in which it is explicitly stated that the managers contract is the evidence needed. Well we submitted Mancini’s contract. His arrangement with Mansour is not part of his relationship with City. End of.
Yes, I think the point is that the "spirit of the rules" has died a death. The rules are the rules as written. If someone does something not against the actual written rules, it doesn't matter what the "spirit" is. The wording of any contract, any rule is important.
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 12,927
But they have been adopted. So they would have to be changed. This happens by a vote in general meeting. What happens if the PL doesn't get enough votes from the clubs to change?
Just a theoretical question out of interest. To see if seven clubs could cause a lot of nuisance if they aren't listened to .....
Yeah I was thinking you go back to the vote where they were adopted.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,943
Atoma est……
Eureka! Now I understand it.
i know they do , it was tongue in cheek but you have to question the veracity of the kc based on the pls case with leicester and the fact he didnt advise the pl that the language in the rules was shaky at best.The PL have a top KC.
Yup. The PL rules are to be applied in accordance with English law. The law has a ‘golden rule’ that documents must first and foremost be interpreted literally according to what the words state. The PL talking about ‘the original intention’ of the rule is just guff.Yes, I think the point is that the "spirit of the rules" has died a death. The rules are the rules as written. If someone does something not against the actual written rules, it doesn't matter what the "spirit" is. The wording of any contract, any rule is important.
lancs blue
Well-Known Member
They're halfway there, quantum is a Latin word.it’s actually comical they are asking him to comment on this. They might as well ask him to explain quantum mechanics in Latin.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,943
Yeah I was thinking you go back to the vote where they were adopted.
Maybe. That's possible, I suppose.
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 12,927
Maybe. That's possible, I suppose.
I’m up for the ceo role & showing my suitability for making decisions on the hop.
Well, he may have done but was ignored. Masters is quite capable of that. I bet he has warned them of the deficiencies of the 115 case.i know they do , it was tongue in cheek but you have to question the veracity of the kc based on the pls case with leicester and the fact he didnt advise the pl that the language in the rules was shaky at best.
which brings me back round to the original point lolWell, he may have done but was ignored. Masters is quite capable of that.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,943
i know they do , it was tongue in cheek but you have to question the veracity of the kc based on the pls case with leicester and the fact he didnt advise the pl that the language in the rules was shaky at best.
Maybe he did, just the PL decided to go ahead anyway.
Anyway, one thing this shows is that if anything goes against the club with the PL's allegations, it will be appealed with a good chance of being overturned.
Iirc, Everton's appeal was (partly) successful due to two wrong legal interpretations, Leicester's has just been. It's not a very good success rate for getting things right the first time, tbh .....
Edit: Damn, I was too slow. Apologies.
I know i was being tongue in cheek about masters as i know his legal understanding is about the same as his football understanding and much smarter people than him will be contesting this, it doesnt seem he is taking notice of them tho.Maybe he did, just the PL decided to go ahead anyway.
Anyway, one thing this shows is that if anything goes against the club with the PL's allegations, it will be appealed with a good chance of being overturned.
Iirc, Everton's appeal was (partly) successful due to two wrong legal interpretations, Leicester's has just been. It's not a very good success rate for getting things right the first time, tbh .....
Edit: Damn, I was too slow. Apologies.
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 12,927
Maybe he did, just the PL decided to go ahead anyway.
Anyway, one thing this shows is that if anything goes against the club with the PL's allegations, it will be appealed with a good chance of being overturned.
Iirc, Everton's appeal was (partly) successful due to two wrong legal interpretations, Leicester's has just been. It's not a very good success rate for getting things right the first time, tbh .....
Edit: Damn, I was too slow. Apologies.
When you consider how UEFA ignored their own rules & we get criticised for refusing to cooperate in their corrupt show trials. I can’t wait to see the email discovery with Masters.
Last edited:
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,943
When you consider how UEFA ignored their own rules & we get criticised for refusing to cooperate in their corrupt show trials. I can’t wait to see the email discovery with Masters.
Yes. I wonder how many of the PL's communications will be plastered all over the reasons for the world to see :)
When you read the response what the premier released about one of there members it's like its from a red cartel bias thinking!
When the premier thought it was fine to believe the rags documentation on how Covid had cost them 40m! agreed and let them add that to there accounts to spare them PSR failure, you see the total bias by them!
When the premier thought it was fine to believe the rags documentation on how Covid had cost them 40m! agreed and let them add that to there accounts to spare them PSR failure, you see the total bias by them!
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 12,927
Yes. I wonder how many of the PL's communications will be plastered all over the reasons for the world to see :)
Imagine if their KC has advised that the regulations don’t say what we’ve been charged with & he says go ahead anyway.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,943
I know i was being tongue in cheek about masters as i know his legal understanding is about the same as his football understanding and much smarter people than him will be contesting this, it doesnt seem he is taking notice of them tho.
:) It's interesting how many disciplinary appeals are successful.
I mean, I know panels have several members to prevent verdicts from being influenced incorrectly, and the appeal process is a sort of backstop in the case that the former still happens. But, surely, appeals should only be successful rarely if the original panel does its job properly?
It's almost as if the first panel is "daring" the respondent to appeal and get a proper hearing ......