PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Kippax77]

Would make sense.

However, I see this as something we have an issue with because it is United, as opposed to a real world view on it.

I see it as non-football related costs and that if paid for, why should it be included in PSR etc.

The Covid allowance is the big one, as whichever club it who got £40 million whilst the rest got £1 million, I think our real world view would be why have they been allowed that.

Seems they've been really forgiven for trying to elope to the Super League, whilst others obviously haven't

 

[Eccles Blue]

the Mancini charges aren't a problem anyway all the rule states is "the terms of the Manager’s employment have been evidenced in a written contract of employment between the Club and the Manager" and "the Manager’s contract of employment has been registered with the Secretary". Also " Contracts of employment between a Club and a Manager shall include the standard clauses and clearly set out the circumstances in which the contract of employment may be determined by either party".

That's what we're charged with, which are just factual things we either did or didn't do these basic admin things. It doesn't mention not having second contracts with related/associated parties or any financial constraints in the rules whatsoever. So as far as a solicitor would see, these rules would only be broken if we didn't have a written contract that fulfilled standard terms and the termination agreements between Mancini and club, something I expect City to have. So these manager charges will drop very quickly and the PL can go and fuck themselves

They're too busy doing that to the cartel and keeping in their good books so that the poor little darlings don't get upset. ;-)

 

[Stoned Rose]

I very much care if they did with two exceptions, the non-cooperation charges given the PL are acting on others behalf and anything with "in good faith" appended as that's purely subjective rather than objective and can mean anything they like (or are told to like).

I raised a similar point earlier.

“Bad faith” seems such an abstract concept how would you prove what someone’s intentions were?

And how would you even measure it?

 

[hello]

My seemingly sensible brother in law (rag) is convinced if we “get let off” its because we bribed “The FA”.

This is what we are up against.
I asked him what the fuck its got to do with the FA anyway and how any bribe would go down.

He just said “money talks”

:))

Tell your sister/brother to make sure they take full fiscal responsibility for their household finances as he's a fucking idiot if he thinks bribing a totally different organisation would make any difference.

 

[Ducado]

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.

It's a rabbit hole once they are in it they find it very difficult to get out, it's the same with "They must be guilty" crowd, they are rival fans and they see it as some sort of game where it's just a bit of banter rather than what is really going on

 

[ComfySeats]

I'm sure this has been said a million times in this particular thread. But it hilarious how much fans of other clubs, even clubs that aren't in the top 6 are desperate for likkle old citeh to get relegated to the 2nd division.

And we all know when we come out of this on top our name won't be cleared but jjust more acquisitions of underhanded payments to get out of it.

 

[ufo]

My seemingly sensible brother in law (rag) is convinced if we “get let off” its because we bribed “The FA”.

This is what we are up against.
I asked him what the fuck its got to do with the FA anyway and how any bribe would go down.

He just said “money talks”

:))

You should’ve said” can city bribe you for an hour? money talks “

 

[ufo]

I very much care if they did with two exceptions, the non-cooperation charges given the PL are acting on others behalf and anything with "in good faith" appended as that's purely subjective rather than objective and can mean anything they like (or are told to like).

More like “Blind faith “ the manner pl and red shirts have ganged up against city .

 

[train man]

No I have seen a few media outlets actually break down all the charges. All it takes is a bit of effort to search for them. I doubt anybody here is going to take the time to keep posting them to everybody who asks.

Right pc, but this guy who messaged you could maybe have been asking what it is actually all about?
I'll be surprised if you have seen the real breakdown of charges in the press, beyond 35 counts of non-cooperation, 45 counts of failure to submit accurate accounts etc etc - I've not once seen any media mention of the real issues as presented here - etihad, etisalat, mancini et al... they are just not interested to look beyond the '115' and insist we must be guilty

 

[thismeansfour]

2

Did anybody get 6? I can picture something along the lines of the closest to United was someone with 6, I thought it was Arsenal, apologies.

 

[halfcenturyup]

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.

I'm not even sure what those costs were doing in the club's accounts in the first place. They should have been Glazers' costs as they made the money, so I don't really have a problem with taking them back out again. Except that post-Leicester, the written rules are the rules and, as far as I know, there is no rule saying those costs could be deducted. Someone should challenge it :)

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

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.

The other consideration re Mancini is contract fulfilment, so I absolutely remember him spending time in Abu Dhabi ie tons of photos/videos of him training the mens team. Wether he did the consultancy work then or during the PL close season, who knows. re Ol bacon chops, don't forget for many years he had his brother and his son on the rag payroll as 'agents' and 'scouts' even though they barely had any professional football experience. Back then it was all considered cushty because the all powerful GPC could do whatever he wanted. When the BBC queried him about it he banned them from the swamp ! FFS the national broadcaster. It's because of him PL contracts include media engagement by managers as a must do.

 

[cheekybids]

I'm not even sure what those costs were doing in the club's accounts in the first place. They should have been Glazers' costs as they made the money, so I don't really have a problem with taking them back out again.

Except that post-Leicester, the written rules are the rules and, as far as I know, there is no rule saying those costs could be deducted. Someone should challenge it :)

Loophole ;)

 

[cheekybids]

The other consideration re Mancini is contract fulfilment, so I absolutely remember him spending time in Abu Dhabi ie tons of photos/videos of him training the mens team. Wether he did the consultancy work then or during the PL close season, who knows. re Ol bacon chops, don't forget for many years he had his brother and his son on the rag payroll as 'agents' and 'scouts' even though they barely had any professional football experience. Back then it was all considered cushty because the all powerful GPC could do whatever he wanted. When the BBC queried him about it he banned them from the swamp ! FFS the national broadcaster. It's because of him PL contracts include media engagement by managers as a must do.

He also got given a horse by major shareholders.

 

[slbsn]

Did anybody get 6? I can picture something along the lines of the closest to United was someone with 6, I thought it was Arsenal, apologies.

Everton £8m

 

[Protein Junkie]

I raised a similar point earlier.

“Bad faith” seems such an abstract concept how would you prove what someone’s intentions were?

And how would you even measure it?

Absolutely this.
“Bad Faith” is a totally subjective phrase on its own.
Imho you need a defined and complete set of circumstances under which “Bad Faith” resides.
Subjectivity can be used as a catch all but doesn’t need expensive lawyers to see it for what it is in this instance.

 

[Champions again in 2012]

I'm not even sure what those costs were doing in the club's accounts in the first place. They should have been Glazers' costs as they made the money, so I don't really have a problem with taking them back out again.

Except that post-Leicester, the written rules are the rules and, as far as I know, there is no rule saying those costs could be deducted. Someone should challenge it :)

Conversely, I assume that there is no rule saying that they cannot be deducted

 

[paulchapo]

Right pc, but this guy who messaged you could maybe have been asking what it is actually all about?
I'll be surprised if you have seen the real breakdown of charges in the press, beyond 35 counts of non-cooperation, 45 counts of failure to submit accurate accounts etc etc - I've not once seen any media mention of the real issues as presented here - etihad, etisalat, mancini et al... they are just not interested to look beyond the '115' and insist we must be guilty

I'd quote Pep..."I'm not a lawyer, Erling is not a lawyer." Neither am I.
I'm not even sure the premier league know all the charges.

 

[cheekybids]

Absolutely this.
“Bad Faith” is a totally subjective phrase on its own.
Imho you need a defined and complete set of circumstances under which “Bad Faith” resides.
Subjectivity can be used as a catch all but doesn’t need expensive lawyers to see it for what it is in this instance.

The whole introduction of FFP was done in bad faith. They dishonestly said it was to prevent clubs from going bust when the reality was it was to stop City.

 

[halfcenturyup]

the Mancini charges aren't a problem anyway all the rule states is "the terms of the Manager’s employment have been evidenced in a written contract of employment between the Club and the Manager" and "the Manager’s contract of employment has been registered with the Secretary". Also " Contracts of employment between a Club and a Manager shall include the standard clauses and clearly set out the circumstances in which the contract of employment may be determined by either party".

That's what we're charged with, which are just factual things we either did or didn't do these basic admin things. It doesn't mention not having second contracts with related/associated parties or any financial constraints in the rules whatsoever. So as far as a solicitor would see, these rules would only be broken if we didn't have a written contract that fulfilled standard terms and the termination agreements between Mancini and club, something I expect City to have. So these manager charges will drop very quickly and the PL can go and fuck themselves

You have to make a distinction between the manager remuneration breaches and the incorrect accounting breaches, I think.

Yes, the club should have easily complied with the P7 and P8 rules, but I think the PL is saying that, in good faith, the monies paid to Mancini should have been recorded in the club's accounts as part of his club remuneration. So, in their view, the accounts were wrong.

I don't think they can prove that, but the club's defence won't just be looking at the P7 and P8 wording. They will have to show why the services were separate, fulfilled and perfectly normal from a personal and professional point of view. I am sure they can.

Anyway, as we keep saying, it's not material to the accounts and very probably time limited anyway.