PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[BerkshireBlue]

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.

you have to follow wording as the premier league just found out with Leicester's win. The accounts were audited so were deemed correct even with any extra payments or whatever so that doesn't matter either. The key bit is was there a contract between Mancini and the club, yes or no, if yes then we haven't broken any of the rules they state we've broken

 

[Fred_Quimby]

Sorry if this rehashes old stuff but please bare with me. We have 3 teams in this arbitration I think. Ours is Panick esq, but who are in the other 2? The PL and the arbitration team. Thanks.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

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.

reading this again I think you're thinking that the manager has a renumeration rule.
This isn't the case only the players do

"Full details of a Player’s remuneration including all benefits to which he is entitled whether in cash or in kind shall be set out in his contract."

 

[BerkshireBlue]

reading this again I think you're think that the manager has a renumeration rule.
This isn't the case only the players do

"Full details of a Player’s remuneration including all benefits to which he is entitled whether in cash or in kind shall be set out in his contract."

Note there was no mention of Yaya's birthday cake in his contract so didn't get one

 

[Sofiablu]

Those of you interested in the legal definition of “acting in good faith” may be interested in this article I found via Google.

Meaning of “Good Faith” Under English Law: Latest Clarification

The Court of Appeal reiterates the importance of the specific context in interpreting contractual good-faith duties. By Oliver E. Browne and Alex Cox

www.latham.london

Some of the main points are-

• the “core” requirement of the good-faith duty is that a party behaves honestly;
• depending on the contractual context, this duty may be breached by conduct taken in bad faith, which could include conduct which would be regarded as “commercially unacceptable by reasonable and honest people”; and
• any further requirements of an express duty of good faith must be capable of being derived as a matter of interpretation or implication from the other terms of the contract.

I’m not smart enough to know how this impacts our case but it seems to me it’s massively open to interpretation. I’ve got a feeling the whole case may rest on the interpretation of this.

 

[halfcenturyup]

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

There are strictly defined costs that can be deducted in the rules. Legal fees isn't one of them.

There is a possibility on Form 3a to explain how the numbers provided haven't been prepared in accordance with the rules, but that sounds like a breach to me ;)

 

[give it to gordon]

Those of you interested in the legal definition of “acting in good faith” may be interested in this article I found via Google.

Meaning of “Good Faith” Under English Law: Latest Clarification

The Court of Appeal reiterates the importance of the specific context in interpreting contractual good-faith duties. By Oliver E. Browne and Alex Cox

www.latham.london

Some of the main points are-

• the “core” requirement of the good-faith duty is that a party behaves honestly;
• depending on the contractual context, this duty may be breached by conduct taken in bad faith, which could include conduct which would be regarded as “commercially unacceptable by reasonable and honest people”; and
• any further requirements of an express duty of good faith must be capable of being derived as a matter of interpretation or implication from the other terms of the contract.

I’m not smart enough to know how this impacts our case but it seems to me it’s massively open to interpretation. I’ve got a feeling the whole case may rest on the interpretation of this.

Well the dippers didn't get charged 'with acting in good faith' when hacking our emails.
The hateful 8 didn't get charged with 'acting in good faith' by sending that letter.
City should be fine going by the previous cases.

 

[remember arthur mann]

Note there was no mention of Yaya's birthday cake in his contract so didn't get one

This could be our achilles heel.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

Those of you interested in the legal definition of “acting in good faith” may be interested in this article I found via Google.

Meaning of “Good Faith” Under English Law: Latest Clarification

The Court of Appeal reiterates the importance of the specific context in interpreting contractual good-faith duties. By Oliver E. Browne and Alex Cox

www.latham.london

Some of the main points are-

• the “core” requirement of the good-faith duty is that a party behaves honestly;
• depending on the contractual context, this duty may be breached by conduct taken in bad faith, which could include conduct which would be regarded as “commercially unacceptable by reasonable and honest people”; and
• any further requirements of an express duty of good faith must be capable of being derived as a matter of interpretation or implication from the other terms of the contract.

I’m not smart enough to know how this impacts our case but it seems to me it’s massively open to interpretation. I’ve got a feeling the whole case may rest on the interpretation of this.

Possibly, but unless I'm mistaken (which may well be the case!) bad faith doesn't mean fraud so 'bad faith' stuff will still be subject of time barring limits under English law unless fraud can be proved first? A good few folks on here will be able to confirm that or set me straight?

 

[Dannyblue52]

Setting a precedent its something that we can use in our defence

My first question to Masters would be Why have you charged Manchester City for things that allegedly happened 12 years ago when you didn't charge Liverpool for Hacking City's database as " It was too long ago" By the way, you have charged Manchester City for breaking EUFA FFP. Man United were found guilty by EUFA and fined for breaking FFP but not charged. Why not?

 

[halfcenturyup]

reading this again I think you're thinking that the manager has a renumeration rule.
This isn't the case only the players do

"Full details of a Player’s remuneration including all benefits to which he is entitled whether in cash or in kind shall be set out in his contract."

That is the P7 rule, yes. I am saying the PL are looking beyond the form of his contract with the club (which probably complied with rules P7 and P8 as written, especially post-Leicester) to the substance of his employment by the club for the purposes of the accounts. It's two separate things in my book. There are many problems with that approach in terms of proof, but it's (to me at least) the only one that makes sense. Unless you think the PL and it's lawyers have just got it all wrong.

We have probably bored everyone for long enough with this. Happy to discuss in PM if you want :)

 

[thismeansfour]

Everton £8m

Thanks, I knew it wasn't 1m many in here have quoted. Wat it tells me is that the teams struggling to comply are the ones stretching them figures as much as possible.....

 

[halfcenturyup]

Possibly, but unless I'm mistaken (which may well be the case!) bad faith doesn't mean fraud so 'bad faith' stuff will still be subject of time barring limits under English law unless fraud can be proved first? A good few folks on here will be able to confirm that or set me straight?

I would imagine acting in bad faith is a key part of the PL's conspiracy case. Without it, I am not sure they can even talk of a conspiracy case.

But what do I know? :)

 

[Stoned Rose]

Those of you interested in the legal definition of “acting in good faith” may be interested in this article I found via Google.

Meaning of “Good Faith” Under English Law: Latest Clarification

The Court of Appeal reiterates the importance of the specific context in interpreting contractual good-faith duties. By Oliver E. Browne and Alex Cox

www.latham.london

Some of the main points are-

• the “core” requirement of the good-faith duty is that a party behaves honestly;
• depending on the contractual context, this duty may be breached by conduct taken in bad faith, which could include conduct which would be regarded as “commercially unacceptable by reasonable and honest people”; and
• any further requirements of an express duty of good faith must be capable of being derived as a matter of interpretation or implication from the other terms of the contract.

I’m not smart enough to know how this impacts our case but it seems to me it’s massively open to interpretation. I’ve got a feeling the whole case may rest on the interpretation of this.

Abstract as fuck. Probably purposely so.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Note there was no mention of Yaya's birthday cake in his contract so didn't get one

Seluk got it, paid by ADUG :)

 

[Dannyblue52]

Oh I agree with you, the Premier Lesgue has said they didn't do anything wrong and it was quoted as saying they were given exceptional Covid and Share dealing losses.

If Everton had been given the same 40m Covid allowance they wouldn't have failed (plus the hit caused by the Ukrainian war as another poster mentioned) I'm sure Everton just didn't seek advice from the red shirts at the PL, the Rags influence is so strong you can bet they were back and forth asking what was the best way to fiddle the PSR, it's scandalous really.

Why should share dealing losses be allowable expenses? Theres nothing specific in the rules about this. If I sell my car I can't claim the advertising cost for tax purposes!

 

[Dannyblue52]

Stefan said Arsenal got 6

That's because they play in red.

 

[trueblue189465]

What I find hilarious is that all these bitter rags stinking the place out used to want to talk football to us city fans 20 odd years ago when we was shit and they was riding high, you couldn't shut the fuckers up telling us what cup or trophy they'd won and how we haven't won anything for years.

Now they can't bear to talk about football with us, that's secondary, their default switch with city fans now is cheating and 115 charges.

It's absolutely hilarious how we've turned these cocky shitbags into babbling mardarses.

Cocky or Cockneee

 

[halfcenturyup]

you have to follow wording as the premier league just found out with Leicester's win. The accounts were audited so were deemed correct even with any extra payments or whatever so that doesn't matter either. The key bit is was there a contract between Mancini and the club, yes or no, if yes then we haven't broken any of the rules they state we've broken

Ah, this is where we are disagreeing.

I agree with you that the club has very probably complied with a literal reading of P7 and P8 which I suppose is the benchmark now, so those two rules shouldn't be a problem.

But I think you can't read the "filing incorrect accounts" rules literally, for the very reason they have also thrown "bad faith" in there. Yes, the club filed accounts. Yes, they had a clean audit opinion. Yes, the club filed future financial information. All good. Until you take bad faith into account. The PL is saying the directors filed accounts in bad faith because they knew they were wrong, deceived the auditors in bad faith into giving a clean opinion and then deliberately concealed all that in bad faith from the PL.

If you don't take the bad faith allegation into account, it's basically saying these aren't effectively allegations of fraud and that argument has been done to death since day one.

Anyway, I could be completely wrong, but I think all that applies to Mancini and Fordham and/ or Toure as much as sponsorship, no matter what the individual rules for manager and player remuneration say.

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

This thread is moving along at a cracking pace considering that all that is new is that the hearing is finally underway. There is another nine and a half weeks of the hearing continuing without any other information coming out before we have an unknown number of months before we know the outcome.

My advice to posters is pace yourself as it's a marathon and not a sprint.