I agree entirely with what you have said. The rules only cover his contract with the club. So why the fuck have they charged us ? Surely if we broke the actual rules at that time we should have been charged then. It stinks of "charge them with everything we can think of and hope something sticks".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
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? :)
Seluk got it, paid byADUG :)Javar Mohammed
The Mancini charge will almost certainly be time barred from what I've been led to understandI agree entirely with what you have said. The rules only cover his contract with the club. So why the fuck have they charged us ? Surely if we broke the actual rules at that time we should have been charged then. It stinks of "charge them with everything we can think of and hope something sticks".
Exactly, it's a fiddle.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!
Yes we conspired to break FFP rules before it was invented.
Ahh, that's who that was, Alison Brittain. I'd love to know Master's thoughts when he saw her enjoying herself so much at The Etihad.She is the chairman, so it would be a step down but I take your point. The club along with our new friend Alison can make sure Masters' replacement is a good one.
One hundred percent. Arsenal all that’s good, City all that’s wrong etc etcWhat’s the odds one of the giddy media will release some made up bollocks about the hearing on the Sunday before we play Arsenal..
said that all alongThere's a fundamental flaw in the 'we will have bribed them to get off' slur.
Surely we would have bribed them in the first instance not to allege the breaches and no one is the wiser.
I’d suggest hacking another club’s scouting database would quite clearly be classed as “bad faith”, but clearly the PL deem that normal practice, dependent only on who hacked and who got hacked.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?
Doesn't the entire time Mancini was at City predate the rules the PL have charged us with?The Mancini charge will almost certainly be time barred from what I've been led to understand
Yeah something as well like for the good of football we need an arsenal win ..One hundred percent. Arsenal all that’s good, City all that’s wrong etc etc
That’s what I thought as well..Doesn't the entire time Mancini was at City predate the rules the PL have charged us with?
It does but that’s not the objective. The idea is to give the impression everything we have done or achieved in the last decade and a half was through cheating. It’s been a very successful smear campaign.Doesn't the entire time Mancini was at City predate the rules the PL have charged us with?
In the absence of the specific carve outs to the statute of limitations points, bad faith in isolation would not break the SoL. And it can be distinguished from fraud. Clearly, if fraud then it is also bad faith but not vice versa necessarily (I would argue).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? :)
I’d suggest hacking another club’s scouting database would quite clearly be classed as “bad faith”, but clearly the PL deem that normal practice, dependent only on who hacked and who got hacked.
It is subjective to be sure, there are definite bad faith actions, and definite not bad faith actions, but the borderland between them is very fuzzy. I guess that’s what judges are for - to make that call.
Different question, but as you're 'around'...In the absence of the specific carve outs to the statute of limitations points, bad faith in isolation would not break the SoL. And it can be distinguished from fraud. Clearly, if fraud then it is also bad faith but not vice versa necessarily (I would argue).
Thanks for that makes interesting reading. I'm sure they will close the loophole, sorry, clarify the rules before anybody else decides to use them. They may delay taking such action of course if the red dippers or arse need to avail themselves of the current wording :-)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 ;)
View attachment 132153
View attachment 132154