115 Charges - FAQs

[meltonblue]

Have you got a link to an article when the news of that first broke?

The article where they included all the docs for the first time was this one -

Manchester City's Cozy Ties to Abu Dhabi: Sponsorship Money – Paid for by the State

Since the sanctions imposed on Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich, links between English football clubs and authoritarian states have been in the spotlight. Internal documents show that Manchester City has received funding from a government agency in Abu Dhabi.

www.spiegel.de

 

[Berts Neck]

Would you mind re posting this in the main thread? Happy to answer, but just want to keep as much of the discussion as possible in the one thread

Have done so, but please clarify what you wish posters to discuss on this thread as clearly there is some crossover.

 

[M18CTID]

The article where they included all the docs for the first time was this one -

Manchester City's Cozy Ties to Abu Dhabi: Sponsorship Money – Paid for by the State

Since the sanctions imposed on Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich, links between English football clubs and authoritarian states have been in the spotlight. Internal documents show that Manchester City has received funding from a government agency in Abu Dhabi.

www.spiegel.de

Thanks. Is that the first time the Mancini allegations surfaced though? Could've sworn DS mentioned that before 2022.

In any case, the article itself smacks of a hatchet job and is full of innuendo, just like their original "revelations". I should've stopped reading at this:

"Manchester City, represented by almost a dozen top lawyers, appealed the ruling at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). UEFA lost the case, despite the existence of clear evidence for the questionable business practices employed by Manchester City." That bolded bit is nothing short of a disgrace and totally ignores the CAS findings
Then there is this when talking about the PL investigation:

"According to information obtained by DER SPIEGEL, that investigation is focusing on three primary allegations.

1. Underage players were allegedly pressured to sign contracts with Manchester City through monetary payments, in violation of the rules.
2. Club sponsors in Abu Dhabi are suspected of having provided only a portion of their payments to the club themselves, with the majority apparently coming from Sheikh Mansour himself.
3. Roberto Mancini, who is currently the trainer for the Italian national team but who spent the years from 2009 to 2013 as the trainer for ManCity, is thought to have received a significant portion of his compensation secretly by way of a fictitious consultancy contract."

Now I could be wrong but I'm sure the first one isn't a part of the PL investigation, yet DS reckons it is and is implying that they've been told this. Either they're lying or someone is leaking details of the investigation to DS. Not totally beyond the realms of possibility but I'm calling bullshit on that.

 

[meltonblue]

Thanks. Is that the first time the Mancini allegations surfaced though? Could've sworn DS mentioned that before 2022.

In any case, the article itself smacks of a hatchet job and is full of innuendo, just like their original "revelations". I should've stopped reading at this:

"Manchester City, represented by almost a dozen top lawyers, appealed the ruling at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). UEFA lost the case, despite the existence of clear evidence for the questionable business practices employed by Manchester City." That bolded bit is nothing short of a disgrace and totally ignores the CAS findings
Then there is this when talking about the PL investigation:

"According to information obtained by DER SPIEGEL, that investigation is focusing on three primary allegations.

1. Underage players were allegedly pressured to sign contracts with Manchester City through monetary payments, in violation of the rules.
2. Club sponsors in Abu Dhabi are suspected of having provided only a portion of their payments to the club themselves, with the majority apparently coming from Sheikh Mansour himself.
3. Roberto Mancini, who is currently the trainer for the Italian national team but who spent the years from 2009 to 2013 as the trainer for ManCity, is thought to have received a significant portion of his compensation secretly by way of a fictitious consultancy contract."

Now I could be wrong but I'm sure the first one isn't a part of the PL investigation, yet DS reckons it is and is implying that they've been told this. Either they're lying or someone is leaking details of the investigation to DS. Not totally beyond the realms of possibility but I'm calling bullshit on that.

No, like I said, the allegation had been there since 2018.

It’s the linked documents rather than the article itself, I didn’t even bother reading the article tbh or what Der Spiegels thoughts on it are themselves. Couldn’t care less!

 

[M18CTID]

No, like I said, the allegation had been there since 2018.

It’s the linked documents rather than the article itself, I didn’t even bother reading the article tbh or what Der Spiegels thoughts on it are themselves. Couldn’t care less!

Thanks, and that's what I thought!

For me, the documents relating to Mancini don't prove anything. Like the leaked e-mails, of course things can be read into them but on the flip side, plausible explanations can be read into them too.

My own theory regarding the Mancini contract is that, if anything, it wasn't done for our benefit but for his in terms of paying less tax (perfectly legal I think if it can be showed that he did the requisite work for Al Jazira). There was no real upside for City as we were posting record losses at the time, so a couple of million quid a year off the books doesn't even scratch the surface of those losses, and of course FFP didn't even exist when the contracts were signed in 2009 so there was absolutely no need for us to enter into such an arrangement - well, certainly not for the purposes of deceiving the Premier League.

 

[meltonblue]

Thanks, and that's what I thought!

For me, the documents relating to Mancini don't prove anything. Like the leaked e-mails, of course things can be read into them but on the flip side, plausible explanations can be read into them too.

My own theory regarding the Mancini contract is that, if anything, it wasn't done for our benefit but for his in terms of paying less tax (perfectly legal I think if it can be showed that he did the requisite work for Al Jazira). There was no real upside for City as we were posting record losses at the time, so a couple of million quid a year off the books doesn't even scratch the surface of those losses, and of course FFP didn't even exist when the contracts were signed in 2009 so there was absolutely no need for us to enter into the arrangement to deceive the Premier League.

Agreed. The issue is more who was negotiating and paying it though. If it was completely separate then there’s no issue at all.

I don’t think any of it’s not explainable, just that it needs explaining where it didn’t before.

 

[The Lightbowne Cowboy]

Just read this. Very good post and informative to us know nowts like me who dont know how this legal stuff works. Well done Chris.

 

[Pontypool Blue]

It all depends if it is a Manchester United company car with 4 employees of the club inside and no-one can recall who was driving at that particular time....

That's easy - it would be the one who is having a shit on the hard shoulder!

 

[terraloon]

Thanks. Is that the first time the Mancini allegations surfaced though? Could've sworn DS mentioned that before 2022.

In any case, the article itself smacks of a hatchet job and is full of innuendo, just like their original "revelations". I should've stopped reading at this:

"Manchester City, represented by almost a dozen top lawyers, appealed the ruling at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). UEFA lost the case, despite the existence of clear evidence for the questionable business practices employed by Manchester City." That bolded bit is nothing short of a disgrace and totally ignores the CAS findings
Then there is this when talking about the PL investigation:

"According to information obtained by DER SPIEGEL, that investigation is focusing on three primary allegations.

1. Underage players were allegedly pressured to sign contracts with Manchester City through monetary payments, in violation of the rules.
2. Club sponsors in Abu Dhabi are suspected of having provided only a portion of their payments to the club themselves, with the majority apparently coming from Sheikh Mansour himself.
3. Roberto Mancini, who is currently the trainer for the Italian national team but who spent the years from 2009 to 2013 as the trainer for ManCity, is thought to have received a significant portion of his compensation secretly by way of a fictitious consultancy contract."

Now I could be wrong but I'm sure the first one isn't a part of the PL investigation, yet DS reckons it is and is implying that they've been told this. Either they're lying or someone is leaking details of the investigation to DS. Not totally beyond the realms of possibility but I'm calling bullshit on that.

The first “ one” wouldn’t fall under the jurisdiction of either the PL or come that the FA it would be something that FIFA would have to take forward

 

[terraloon]

Thanks, and that's what I thought!

For me, the documents relating to Mancini don't prove anything. Like the leaked e-mails, of course things can be read into them but on the flip side, plausible explanations can be read into them too.

My own theory regarding the Mancini contract is that, if anything, it wasn't done for our benefit but for his in terms of paying less tax (perfectly legal I think if it can be showed that he did the requisite work for Al Jazira). There was no real upside for City as we were posting record losses at the time, so a couple of million quid a year off the books doesn't even scratch the surface of those losses, and of course FFP didn't even exist when the contracts were signed in 2009 so there was absolutely no need for us to enter into such an arrangement - well, certainly not for the purposes of deceiving the Premier League.

Football has a littered history of payments made off the books HMRC has been all over this for years.

There rarely is any benefit to the clubs save NIC , but creative ways in which players/ managers can avoid paying IT and of course employees NIC is an attractive route for the employee.

This isn’t an FFP charge it’s all do do with the requirement in UK football, a long standing one at that, that all remuneration for players /coaches/ managers is paid through the clubs Payroll .