PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
Just out of interest, which rule requires Mansour to comply with PL investigations?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that Mansor is by virtue of being “ a person having control over the club” is classified under the PL rules to be a director and as such in accordance with with W1.1 is subject to PL rules around disciplinary matters.
 
terraloon said:
My understanding is that Mansor is by virtue of being “ a person having control over the club” is classified under the PL rules to be a director and as such in accordance with with W1.1 is subject to PL rules around disciplinary matters.
Click to expand...
He's the major shareholder, not a director. He has no executive or even non-executive function within CFG or City. And Rule W.1.1 only refers to "Officials". So they can't force him to give evidence, but he may voluntarily choose to do so.
 
Last edited:
Lord Blue said:
what is your view on the fact chelsea cheated on 75 counts?

i'm not asking for your view on any mitigation you think you have for owning up (although as i understand it you had been rumbled anyway).

i'm asking if you accept wrongdoing by chelsea.
Click to expand...
We haven’t yet had a ruling on the 74 FA Charges that matter is still on going. Looks almost certain that there will be other sanctions in coming.
It would be churlish to try and suggest we didn’t break the rules and if you look back at my previous posts on here you will see that I believe we got away lightly.
Time line wise it seems that the new owners self reported matters before the press published details. Likely to be the same matters.
It’s worth noting that we haven’t yet agreed already with two bodies namely the PL and UEFA who allow sanctions agreements the FA as I understand it dont
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
He's the major shareholder, not a director. He has no executive or even non-executive function within CFG or City. And Rule W.1.1 only refers to "Officials". So they can't force him to give evidence, but he may voluntarily choose to do so.
Click to expand...
Mate why you bothering explaining something to someone who knows it all.
I wouldn't give him the time of day.
 
terraloon said:
Here’s the PL definition
Click to expand...
Rule A.1.183 requires an "Official" to spend at least 50% of their time working for the club. Sheikh Mansour is therefore not an Official.

I'd also point out that CFG is actually the major shareholder in 'the Club' (i.e. Manchester City) so I suspect that's as far as the PL's remit extends. Newton Investments is the majority shareholder in CFG, which in turn is 100% owned by Sheikh Mansour.

IIRC he supplied written evidence to the CAS hearing and I'm sure will have done something similar for the PL if required.
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
Rule A.1.183 requires an "Official" to spend at least 50% of their time working for the club. Sheikh Mansour is therefore not an Official.
Click to expand...
Do you accept that under the PL definition he falls under the rules contained under the owners and directors rules ?
 
SM is a director under the definition. A director is an official under the definition.

The 50% only applies to employees of associated undertakings as an "or" to being a director.

Terra is reading it correctly
 
terraloon said:
Do you accept that under the PL definition he falls under the rules contained under the owners and directors rules ?
Click to expand...

Corky said:
SM is a director under the definition. A director is an official under the definition.

The 50% only applies to employees of associated undertakings as an "or" to being a director.

Terra is reading it correctly
Click to expand...
Fine, but if his evidence was required then I'm sure he'll have provided it, whether voluntarily or under his requirement according to PL rules. The point is entirely moot.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Fine, but if his evidence was required then I'm sure he'll have provided it, whether voluntarily or under his requirement according to PL rules. The point is entirely moot.
Click to expand...
It is a could and surely would have happened by now, or sent a suitable representative.

It is more aimed at Jack Walker types who call all the shots without being "officials" in a company law sense.
 
Corky said:
It is a could and surely would have happened by now, or sent a suitable representative.

It is more aimed at Jack Walker types who call all the shots without being "officials" in a company law sense.
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised if it didn't happen. I recall he submitted a written document to CAS as well as allowing forensic accountants to check all cash payments from ADUG over £250k. No relevant payments relating to disguised equity via sponsorship were found of course.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Fine, but if his evidence was required then I'm sure he'll have provided it, whether voluntarily or under his requirement according to PL rules. The point is entirely moot.
Click to expand...
Very little evidence is ‘required’ in civil proceedings. There are exceptions of course but in terms of evidence each party brings to the table what they seek to rely upon. If they don’t call someone of significance then inferences may be drawn, but the decision on which witnesses to tender for evidence is a matter for each party to the proceedings.

He could have given a hearsay statement and not given live evidence btw. Obviously that would have a bearing on the weight to be attached to that statement. But that is perfectly plausible, if not likely.

Can’t see SM subjecting himself to cross examination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top