PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Dribble]

By way of a diversion, here's my favourite bit of UEFA bullshit from CAS2020. After accusing just about everybody associated with City, the owner, execs, sponsors, accountants, auditors of a criminal consiparcy to commit fraud with NO evidence, they spouted this shite...
View attachment 111776

Just trying to cover their arse for the inevitable accusations of heading a witchhunt against us.

They're not even any good at spinning bullshit...

 

[cheekybids]

Thing is, why would 2009 City be arsed about keeping an extra couple of million off the books for Mancini's wage? There was no FFP and we were throwing huge sums of money around and incurring heavy losses. That they're even bringing this up just shows how desperate they are.

It makes as much sense that they believe that City must be state owned & Sheik Mansour is just a figure head but he’s paying the sponsorship for state owned Etihad…….

Mental gymnastics

 

[halfcenturyup]

A contract with a manager is not anything to do with related parties or am I missing something?

Correct imho. I think his point is that it looks suspicious for City directors/employees to be involved in negotiations/discussions with any company with which a senior employee has a second contract. I just don't see it. I think the opposite. It would be negligent not to be involved to ensure the club isn't at any fiscal or legal risk from a second contract.

The related party argument is a red herring. If Mancini had taken a part-time job to manage England in the international breaks I would equally expect the leading club to be involved in negotiations/discussions for the same reasons.

 

[halfcenturyup]

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).

I really don't see that it matters who discusses or negotiates what. The only important things are the signed contracts, who signed them, whether the amounts in each can be justified fiscally and whether the contracted services were provided or not. The rest is just noise, imho, released to make the club look guilty of something.

Put it this way, Pearce and the club executives can be asked by ADUG to discuss how much of Mancini's contracts should be paid by the club and how much should be paid by AJ, but it's AJ that have to sign the contract. If they don't like it. They don't sign. The emails mean nothing.

[ There may be some explaining necessary as to why, apparently, some payments were made to cover Mancini's AJ salary, but, once again, that doesn't concern me. I am sure there are business reasons for that. The fact I just don't know what they are doesn't make me uncomfortable. It just makes me ignorant :) ]

And as we all agree it is peanuts, it doesn't affect the true and fair view given by the accounts, it isn't fraudulent, there was no FFP at the time and no requirement to report manager's remuneration other than with the club, I really don't see any issue with any of this.

 

[halfcenturyup]

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.

I find the idea that the club doesn't have a valid defence extraordinary, I have to say.

What is it about the other allegations that worries you?

 

[WRicko]

I am not saying there are related party transactions or off the book payments. It's a split salary under two separate contracts. I don't see any problem with that as long as the amounts involved can be justified under both contracts. I would imagine that the club got legal and tax clearance before signing anyway.

It's apparent from the emails that the club was involved in negotiating the contracts and, it seems, in some payments. We can't pretend the implications of the emails don't exist. They have to be covered by the defence. But none of that bothers me particularly.

When I was getting a split salary, I wasn't negotiating separately with the three group companies. I negotiated with one, the lead company, and they handled the rest with the other companies. It's all normal to me.

All imho, of course. Feel free to disagree.

Surely they must be related party then or should be that’s what worries me your effectively saying they where group negations like being employed by City and CFG and CFG doing the contract for both

 

[halfcenturyup]

KSurely they must be related party then or should be that’s what worries me your effectively saying they where group negations like being employed by City and CFG and CFG doing the contract for both

I am not saying they are or aren't related parties. I am saying, prima facie, there are no related party transactions (a simple movement of cash isn't a related party transaction although it may give rise to a related party receivable/ payable).

Anyway, we are discussing whether Pearce or anyone else from the club being involved in negotiating the terms of a split salary is a problem. I don't see any problem at all. Other people seemingly do. I can live with that.

And, quite frankly, I would like to move on. A whole day discussing something I don't see as an issue is driving me nuts. :)

 

[Maly]

I am not saying they are or aren't related parties. I am saying, prima facie, there are no related party transactions (a simple movement of cash isn't a related party transaction although it may give rise to a related party receivable/ payable).

Anyway, we are discussing whether Pearce or anyone else from the club being involved in negotiating the terms of a split salary is a problem. I don't see any problem at all. Other people seemingly do. I can live with that.

And, quite frankly, I would like to move on. A whole day discussing something I don't see as an issue is driving me nuts. :)

Steering wheel shaped penis?

 

[halfcenturyup]

My point to the other poster was that he said he thought we had settled with Fordham in 2014; if that inferred there was a problem that was put right in 2014 and the premier league cunts were going back earlier than 2014 then might we have an issue with it?

Well yes, I don't think there is anything to stop the PL revisiting things that were settled with UEFA in 2014, other than time limitation which may apply to Fordham.

Iirc, CAS concluded UEFA could revisit some of them in 2019 (as they did on the sponsorships) although they don't seem to have pushed anything too contentious like related parties and fair values. To be expeditious, maybe.

 

[Zubrman]

Steering wheel shaped penis?

A Reliant Cock Robin?