Sam Freedman’s always a good read on this topic.
https://www.newstatesman.com/thestaggers/2022/11/daily-mail-private-schools-education-class-labour
This one’s really good but behind a paywall -
https://samf.substack.com/p/the-politics-of-envy
Not quite. I’m saying if you have city director able to negotiate a contract on behalf of another entity including financial arrangements and that entity also has the same owner, and subsequently transactions happened between those entities, it’d be a tough sell to say that they aren’t related...
Nothing, like I said I only really think this one is an issue. I think the club will have a valid defence, the reason I think this one is potentially an issue is because they haven’t said what their defence is and I haven’t seen anything put forward that would work.
Not in itself, no, I never said it did. It does if decision making at one entity is influenced by the other though and it can if there’s negotiation done by one on behalf of the other, that’s what would be hard to argue.
It is if you couple those points together. If you have the same principle owner of both and a director of one entity with the ability to negotiate contracts on behalf of the other, I’d argue that’d be a tough sell to say they aren’t related parties.
Yeah I agree. Like I said even if they do pull us up on it and we don’t have a valid defence it really should be just a slap on the wrists.
I do think it’s only small fry what the PL potentially actually has on us though.
That’s exactly the potential issue though as your scenario is all within the same group. If Al Jazira was part of the CFG and his contract was negotiated by them on behalf of City and Al Jazira then that would have been fine (as long as the City side of it wasn’t deliberately undervalued).
If we were negotiating the contract on behalf of Al Jazira with him and there were transactions or agreements between the two it’d be pretty hard to argue they shouldn’t have been considered a related party.
I think the main argument the PL will have and we’ll have to justify is the...
I’ve no idea if it was low or not tbh, I don’t know what the wage for managers was like back then. It was definitely loaded with bonuses though.
Ultimately, the motive doesn’t really matter, not to the PL, in terms of it being a valid excuse at least. If we say we did it for Mancinis tax...
I dont, I think that and the Fordham one are our two main problems as they’re the only two for which there’s no defence already out there, so we’re hypothesising. I just disagree with who discussed or negotiated what isn’t important, I think that’s the main crux of the whole issue.
Yes. I meant that more as in the renumeration. If we were paying Mancini an acceptable amount at the time just from us, then unless we were also paying Al Jaziras wage to him too, I’d argue there’s nothing wrong with it, it’s got sod all to do with the PL.
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.