PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[jimharri]

Elton said it’s true…..

So does Daniel at Spurs.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

When we emerge victorious from this hearing . . . . . . . .

We might be found less than innocent for the equivalent of stealing a slice of bread off the PL table. The punishment will be identical to the Middle Ages treatment and that would be a summary hanging.

 

[Jesus H Gabz]

Someone I was talking to put up this scenario: If we are cleared of all charges, United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs will breakaway from the PL and join a European Superleague which we will be asked by the other European Clubs involved to join. If we are found guilty then we will breakaway and form a European Superleague. The red shirt cartel will be asked to join by the other European Clubs involved to join.

Could this be a false flag war to enable this European Superleague to finally happen. Money talks and this could be the perfect excuse for Clubs breaking away from their respective league.

It would certainly tie in with the way football clubs have exploited their local support since covid, not my opinion or view but some feel they’re merely place holders these days, while the fan from a far away land is fluffed into parting with a lot more money than a so called legacy fan, clubs can’t lose (short to mid term) really

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Without wanting to getting in to the whole

This is what I'm intrigued by too.
Without going down the "obviously United can do whatever they want, dur, dur, dur" route, did United have to report the finances of the dealings Ferguson did with the owners of the club outside of United? So did they have to report all the goings on with the racehorses and whatever else?
Surely, that's a similar business transaction as Mancini working for the Abu Dhabi club and as long as everyone has paid tax in the correct way depending on the country the business has been conducted in then what business is it of the Premier League?
When does a working business relationship outside of a football club become disguised owner funding?
Does City have to give the Premier League access to the finances of the restaurant in town owned by Pep, Txiki and Soriano? Do they have to prove that they own the restaurant and not Sheikh Mansour?
This is where I don't understand where the whole 'if City are guilty then people will go to jail' stuff comes from, if tax has been paid and all the accounts are in order and show where money came from and went to then why would HMRC or the Fraud Squad get involved?
Surely the only issue would be whether the Premier League think that Mancini being paid by a club in Abu Dhabi was actually disguised remuneration for the City job? That would be a Premier League issue rather than an legal issue.
Like a lot of things with them, it feels like the Premier League have put all these half-arsed rules in place that don't stand up to scrutiny and don't work particularly well in the real world.

I was thinking about the point Berkshire blue made regarding the "in good faith" argument up for consideration if the IC accept that the Al Jazira Mancini contract was outside reporting requirements in the rule book at the time.
I may be mistaken here as I don't have a copy of the PL handbook for 2010/11 to refer to, perhaps someone can confirm or put me right!
Surely the good faith argument can only be applied to the rules present as written? (Post Leicester) How can one display good faith in relation to something that wasn't present at the time? Is there a separate alleged rule breach that requires the good faith element separately? i.e. in relation to all matters at all times.
I'm not insinuating we didn't act in good faith, only that in the case of this rule, at the time, there was no requirement to.

 

[slbsn]

I was thinking about the point Berkshire blue made regarding the "in good faith" argument up for consideration if the IC accept that the Al Jazira Mancini contract was outside reporting requirements in the rule book at the time.
I may be mistaken here as I don't have a copy of the PL handbook for 2010/11 to refer to, perhaps someone can confirm or put me right!
Surely the good faith argument can only be applied to the rules present as written? (Post Leicester) How can one display good faith in relation to something that wasn't present at the time? Is there a separate alleged rule breach that requires the good faith element separately? i.e. in relation to all matters at all times.
I'm not insinuating we didn't act in good faith, only that in the case of this rule, at the time, there was no requirement to.

Even if they could run a fall back bad faith claim, it’d likely be time barred

 

[Lord Blue]

Whilst the theory is interesting. Do you think perhaps the red cartel will push to reform the Premier League? Not as drastic as to what happened back in 1992, when we saw the creation of the Premier League.
When we do come out of this and clear our name, the cartel will want action of some sort. These clubs are more powerful and influential now than when they were back in 1992, by which I mean financially and with their global reach with social media.
As far as I'm aware the FA are yet to comment on anything to do with us (which I understand as they are the governing body and need to remain impartial) but again once we have cleared our name, they may need to step in and do something with the Premier League.
After all the Premier League will be at it's weakest. Investors, sponsors, broadcasters etc. will want answers and heads will roll.
It's all a big game of chess with everyone and when this goes our way I just have this gut feeling it'll be a win win for not just us as fans and a club but for a lot of others too.

It would be interesting to see how the Independent Regulator would view the cartel attempting to Reform the Premier League. Should such a thing come to pass.

 

[BamberBridgeBlue]

Someone I was talking to put up this scenario: If we are cleared of all charges, United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs will breakaway from the PL and join a European Superleague which we will be asked by the other European Clubs involved to join. If we are found guilty then we will breakaway and form a European Superleague. The red shirt cartel will be asked to join by the other European Clubs involved to join.

Could this be a false flag war to enable this European Superleague to finally happen. Money talks and this could be the perfect excuse for Clubs breaking away from their respective league.


It would certainly tie in with the way football clubs have exploited their local support since covid, not my opinion or view but some feel they’re merely place holders these days, while the fan from a far away land is fluffed into parting with a lot more money than a so called legacy fan, clubs can’t lose (short to mid term) really

My thoughts exactly.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I was thinking about the point Berkshire blue made regarding the "in good faith" argument up for consideration if the IC accept that the Al Jazira Mancini contract was outside reporting requirements in the rule book at the time.
I may be mistaken here as I don't have a copy of the PL handbook for 2010/11 to refer to, perhaps someone can confirm or put me right!
Surely the good faith argument can only be applied to the rules present as written? (Post Leicester) How can one display good faith in relation to something that wasn't present at the time? Is there a separate alleged rule breach that requires the good faith element separately? i.e. in relation to all matters at all times.
I'm not insinuating we didn't act in good faith, only that in the case of this rule, at the time, there was no requirement to.

The "good faith" breach only applies to the filing incorrect accounts allegations (also to non-cooperation after 2018). So I think what they are trying to say is that Mancini's consultancy agreement was clearly part of Mancini's salary and should have been included in the club's accounts. Because it wasn't, the accounts were wrong. It's pretty hard to prove that, I think, for a whole host of reasons and, in that case, the whole thing will probably be time limited anyway.

The breaches in respect of the manager remuneration rules (or the player remuneration rules for that matter) don't refer to the "good faith" breach so will probably just be a procedural issue with the PL. Did we comply with the rules as written? And I think the answer to that is clearly yes, especially after the Leicester judgment.

I think that's the situation, although it could all be bollocks :)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Whilst the theory is interesting. Do you think perhaps the red cartel will push to reform the Premier League? Not as drastic as to what happened back in 1992, when we saw the creation of the Premier League.
When we do come out of this and clear our name, the cartel will want action of some sort. These clubs are more powerful and influential now than when they were back in 1992, by which I mean financially and with their global reach with social media.
As far as I'm aware the FA are yet to comment on anything to do with us (which I understand as they are the governing body and need to remain impartial) but again once we have cleared our name, they may need to step in and do something with the Premier League.
After all the Premier League will be at it's weakest. Investors, sponsors, broadcasters etc. will want answers and heads will roll.
It's all a big game of chess with everyone and when this goes our way I just have this gut feeling it'll be a win win for not just us as fans and a club but for a lot of others too.

Be interesting to see if anything comes out of this about influence or pressure put on the PL by the red cartel, but I'd imagine (assuming there was pressure) they used the age-old threat of a breakaway to push their cause. They did that to end the ticket money sharing agreement, establish the PL, get changes to the CL format, etc.

That's probably why that (assuming it happened) we asked for Masters' emails and WhatsApp messages.

 

[Wayneclarkemunchescarrots]

No, this is a fight between the worlds most expensive lawyers against homeless children from the streets of Trafford, Merseyside and North London whom the Premier League are using as volunteers.

All fed on rashford fish fingers

 

[salfordbluetrue]

Someone I was talking to put up this scenario: If we are cleared of all charges, United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs will breakaway from the PL and join a European Superleague which we will be asked by the other European Clubs involved to join. If we are found guilty then we will breakaway and form a European Superleague. The red shirt cartel will be asked to join by the other European Clubs involved to join.

Could this be a false flag war to enable this European Superleague to finally happen. Money talks and this could be the perfect excuse for Clubs breaking away from their respective league.


It would certainly tie in with the way football clubs have exploited their local support since covid, not my opinion or view but some feel they’re merely place holders these days, while the fan from a far away land is fluffed into parting with a lot more money than a so called legacy fan, clubs can’t lose (short to mid term) really

I have always believed that given the chance the PL would have dropped this when UEFA failed, but the G14/Cartel would not allow that, and the change of PL investigation team, changed the way they went after City. My belief is while they would like to damage City, breaking the PL, so they could walk away blaming City, had a far higher priority

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

A mate of mine is currently down the rabbit hole about Andy Burnham, claiming he’s knee deep in corruption. He keeps sharing social media posts on our WhatsApp group from what are usually far right accounts. I’ve told him to post his shitty conspiracy theories elsewhere. I think he’s getting a lot of it off Nick Buckley who he claims to be mates with. Now I’m no massive fan of Burnham myself but unless people can prove he’s up to something dodgy then they should shut the fuck up.

Burnham is not smart enough to be corrupt.

 

[Champions again in 2012]

Every time the case is discussed in the media there is a reference to our expensive lawyers. Are the PL not spending anything on legal fees?

I heard that the PL legal team have taken the case 'pro bono' which, i believe means they can avoid some corporation tax

 

[Bluesince1979]

I was pointing out how stupid it was that we'd bribe the IC. If the rag genuinely believes that's the avenue we'd go down then why not bribe the PL, obviously he doesn't know how to use cognitive reasoning.
Has George Graham got that bag of used fivers

We are in agreement of how stupid the notion of bribery is full stop

 

[TheGhost]

Do you care whether City actually broke the rules or that we just get cleared of the charges?
For me it’s prove them or do one.
In some ways I’d rather we were guilty but got away with it.

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Even if they could run a fall back bad faith claim, it’d likely be time barred

The "good faith" breach only applies to the filing incorrect accounts allegations (also to non-cooperation after 2018). So I think what they are trying to say is that Mancini's consultancy agreement was clearly part of Mancini's salary and should have been included in the club's accounts. Because it wasn't, the accounts were wrong. It's pretty hard to prove that, I think, for a whole host of reasons and, in that case, the whole thing will probably be time limited anyway.

The breaches in respect of the manager remuneration rules (or the player remuneration rules for that matter) don't refer to the "good faith" breach so will probably just be a procedural issue with the PL. Did we comply with the rules as written? And I think the answer to that is clearly yes, especially after the Leicester judgment.

I think that's the situation, although it could all be bollocks :)

Thanks fellas, ive long been of the opinion the matter will be time barred as long as City can provide evidence the contract was satisfactorily performed by both parties. I wouldn't have thought that was necessary under normal circumstances as City were not a direct party to the contract however did we not facilitate payment as a third party?

I was only pondering the thoughts of berkshire blue down the rabbit hole of "good faith".

 

[Silva2021]

I think the main issue here is not what the rags did it’s whether the rest of the clubs were made aware by the PL that they could also do the same? Or did they only tell the rags?

It seems pretty obvious to me that had the other clubs known they could, they would have. Why wouldn’t they?

Looks like preferential treatment to me.

Really wished (no offence to any of their fans) that Everton had relegated due to the points deduction.

This would have really ramped up if they could have given United this.

As they stayed up Everton may well get to use it to their advantage now, but if they had gone down this could have been huge.

 

[paulchapo]

Do you care whether City actually broke the rules or there’s we just get cleared of the charges?
For me it’s prove them or do one.
In some ways I’d rather we were guilty but got away with it.

As I don't agree with the rules I couldn't give a fuck as they were only created to stop our progress. I actually don't think they're legal anyway but unfortunately nobody challenged them in the same way Bosman did players contracts.

 

[Silva2021]

They also get around 30 million per year deductible costs like infrastructure, women's football, community and youth.

The bigger question is why the Ratcliffe acquisition costs were deductible. I am not sure if there has ever been an instance of costs being deducted except for those four categories. Maybe there has been?

I’m not sure if it has before and if not that is clearly wrong.

However if it has I do think that is the correct position to take.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Thanks fellas, ive long been of the opinion the matter will be time barred as long as City can provide evidence the contract was satisfactorily performed by both parties. I wouldn't have thought that was necessary under normal circumstances as City were not a direct party to the contract however did we not facilitate payment as a third party?

I was only pondering the thoughts of berkshire blue down the rabbit hole of "good faith".

Yes, we don't know much about the payments of the contract out of the club's bank account. But payments themselves mean nothing. It's the accounting of them that is important. Credit went to the bank account. But where did the debit go? Only one of two places realistically. Balance sheet as a receivable from AJ, or profit and loss as an expense. If the latter, what is the PL's problem? If the former, the payments mean nothing.

Anyway it doesn't matter, I don't think. It's the intent behind the AJ contract the PL is challenging. And good luck with that :)