The Mancini contract allegation doesn't include a breach for not acting in good faith (good faith was only referred to in the tranche of allegations relating to the accounts and in the non-cooperation allegations) so they seem to be relying on the wording of the manager contract rules at the time which didn't include any requirement to report secondary contracts. New rules, implemented later did refer to secondary contracts but these can't be applied retrospectively afaik, so I am not sure why they included Mancini as a breach of those rules, tbh, other than as some attempt to apply the new rules to Mancini, which won't work especially post-Leicester.
There is a second point on the Mancini contract, though, which needs addressing imho and that is the effect on the accounts. They may be saying the Mancini AJ contract is a sham intended to reduce costs in MCFC and so include it in their assessment of whether the accounts filed were incorrect (this tranche of allegations does refer to good faith). That tranche specifically refers to understatement of expenses in the accounts and that may be due to Mancini, Toure or Fordham, or all three. I struggle to see how it could be material (I suppose it could be accumulated with other allegations) or how they could prove the contract was a sham but that is their job, not mine.
Just my twopenneth's worth on Mancini.
Nowt to do with City.The Mancini contract can only been shown to be a sham - IF the PL can prove on the balance of probabilities that Mancini didn’t fulfil his contractual obligations- which I think they will find impossible. If Mancini says he did how can they disprove him?
The Mancini contract can only been shown to be a sham - IF the PL can prove on the balance of probabilities that Mancini didn’t fulfil his contractual obligations- which I think they will find impossible. If Mancini says he did how can they disprove him?
The Mancini contract can only been shown to be a sham - IF the PL can prove on the balance of probabilities that Mancini didn’t fulfil his contractual obligations- which I think they will find impossible. If Mancini says he did how can they disprove him?
The Mancini contract can only been shown to be a sham - IF the PL can prove on the balance of probabilities that Mancini didn’t fulfil his contractual obligations- which I think they will find impossible. If Mancini says he did how can they disprove him?
Ted Rogers likes this postMe too, none the wiser what he means but found this reference re his clue
The line "I sense a disturbance in the Force" (or variations of it) is often attributed to Jedi in the Star Wars franchise, but it is most closely associated with Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope.
In that film, Obi-Wan says something similar:
"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced."
This happens when the Death Star destroys Alderaan.
While the exact phrase "I sense a disturbance in the Force" is not directly spoken in the movies, it has become a widely recognized paraphrasing of the concept, especially in Star Wars fandom and extended media.
Do us a favour Tolm, knock it on the head, pls.
Me too, none the wiser what he means but found this reference re his clue
The line "I sense a disturbance in the Force" (or variations of it) is often attributed to Jedi in the Star Wars franchise, but it is most closely associated with Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope.
In that film, Obi-Wan says something similar:
"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced."
This happens when the Death Star destroys Alderaan.
While the exact phrase "I sense a disturbance in the Force" is not directly spoken in the movies, it has become a widely recognized paraphrasing of the concept, especially in Star Wars fandom and extended media.
Do us a favour Tolm, knock it on the head, pls.
You must be very young if you had to look that up?
Anyway, what's this Episode IV bullshit? It was just Star Wars when I watched Alec Guinness in it in 1977 :P
Sounds ominous, but I’m a glass half empty personThis is interesting:
"Sources have told Football Insider the Premier League could now propose new rules are brought in [after the 115 case] to ensure the majority of its legal fees are paid for by a club if they are proven to have committed a financial breach."
Maybe they could better put themselves in a position that they don't have to keep charging clubs with "financial" offences .....
from the timing of his post i think it coincided with the tweet city put out and i think he was hoping it was a pep contract extension announcement it wasnt it was the full length 4 in a row filmThere is absolutely fuck all to be gleaned from Tolmie's post. It is meaningless.
I doubt it's true, but if it is, who apart from the cartel would vote for it? The last few years have shown that no-one outside the cartel is safe from breachingThis is interesting:
"Sources have told Football Insider the Premier League could now propose new rules are brought in [after the 115 case] to ensure the majority of its legal fees are paid for by a club if they are proven to have committed a financial breach."
Maybe they could better put themselves in a position that they don't have to keep charging clubs with "financial" offences .....
Very good and with all these compensation nonsense, how far back do we go. Can Newcastle and others seek compensation for the Rags “Mike Riley” title winning period where they effectively were given titles."Have City cost you a title, have they taken money you believe to be rightfully yours" ?
Call 115 115 to make a quick no win, no fee claim.
CALL NOW, it's never too late!
** claims from Liverpool area will have to make a cash deposit before claim accepted. We just don't trust you**
I really hate this cryptic posts from Tolmie when The outcome of 115 is still up in the air. It is ok with cryptic post when it comes to transfers, but not now. If you know Star Wars with a good luck emoj, this is bad news. Hope I am wrong.Nah, the PL is the Empire, and it's crumbling.
Does that mean if City are cleared of 114 charges but guilty on the Mancini allegation we would still pick up the tab for all the fees? Sounds like another nonsensical and unfair (unlawful) suggestion by the morons running the PL. The decision on who pays which costs is always decided by the Judge for very sound reasons. Why should City pay for the costs incurred by the PL during a malicious witchunt going back 17 years?This is interesting:
"Sources have told Football Insider the Premier League could now propose new rules are brought in [after the 115 case] to ensure the majority of its legal fees are paid for by a club if they are proven to have committed a financial breach."
Maybe they could better put themselves in a position that they don't have to keep charging clubs with "financial" offences .....
when hughes was sacked it was well reported that City were looking to bring mancini in as he was already working for ADUG in a consultancy role therefore already under contract to themThis is only from memory but wasn't Bobby Manc placed on a consultation contract for Abu Dhabi prior to joining us?
I thought he'd been sacked by Inter and City were going to appoint him the following summer to replace Mark Hughes, he was given the consultation work to stop him joining another club. Hughes was sacked earlier than expected and Bobby was appointed, I think his contract was then renegotiated and the Consultant aspect either included or paid separately for the remaining of the season.
If what I remember is correct I can't see any rhyme or reason of how it could be unlawful, he was being paid for two roles and as someone else posted he didn't physically have to be in Abu Dhabi himself, he'd have filed his tax return in the UK or Italy for the necessary financial year (I think).
This is interesting:
"Sources have told Football Insider the Premier League could now propose new rules are brought in [after the 115 case] to ensure the majority of its legal fees are paid for by a club if they are proven to have committed a financial breach."
Maybe they could better put themselves in a position that they don't have to keep charging clubs with "financial" offences .....