Chelsea hit with 74 FA charges for alleged rule breaches

[wolviedinho]

You've only just now decided they were dodgy under the Russian???

Yep I was totally in the dark.

All those years cheering on drogba and lamps…gutted I have been lied to about it all. -:)

 

[terraloon]

No, Mancini had a contract with a third party for services which he is entitled to do IIRC City did have a "foot note" to the effect but not the full details of the contract the PL have charged City for not having the full details, again IIRC someone pointed out that the rule regarding "full detail" was post the Mancini contract

Think it’s far more complicated than that.

Also here’s the full comment I made on that point

“If for instance the PLs claim around say Mancini is proven then funding of his contract came from a 3rd party which as you say is the FAs area”

 

[Gordyola]

Think it’s far more complicated than that.

Also here’s the full comment I made on that point

“If for instance the PLs claim around say Mancini is proven then funding of his contract came from a 3rd party which as you say is the FAs area”

Show me where the PL claim that the funding of his contract came from a third party?

I never mentioned the FA City haven't been charged by the FA unlike Chelsea

• 14x Failure to provide accurate details for player and manager payments from 2009-10 to 2017-18.

 

[terraloon]

Show me where the PL claim that the funding of his contract came from a third party?

I never mentioned the FA City haven't been charged by the FA unlike Chelsea

• 14x Failure to provide accurate details for player and manager payments from 2009-10 to 2017-18.

Think you are missing the point.

At this time no one has ruled on the question or if you like allegations around Mancini contract/s.

You point to the PL charges but they, the PL, don’t have jurisdiction to make the charges around third party payments etc nor would it make any sense whatsoever for the FA to take any actions, if indeed they do, until the IC appointed by the PL come to a conclusion around the two contracts.

The difference at this point is that Chelsea have it seems admitted to illegal payments and by default that leads to an acknowledgment that a third party funded payments.

The point surely is if and as I keep saying a big if it’s concluded that the second Mancini contract( which if as reported was funded by a third party )but was in effect a sham then the question will surely be asked by the FA around illegal third party payments etc .


Chelsea’s problem doesn’t end with the FA charges the PL will, you would imagine, follow up with either sanctions agreement or a charge for areas where they do indeed have jurisdiction such as submission of accurate PSR/ FFP information etc.

 

[Gordyola]

How will it be proven as a “sham” he had a contract declared by City upfront, at the time, accepted, at the time by PL, confirmed by auditors. Mancini has confirmed that he’s never been asked about it and that he paid his taxes The payment wasn’t illegal in any sense of the term The question is did City meet the requirements of the PL for reporting football contracts? As I stated there is an opinion from a good source that the only requirement, at the time, was to report the contract and not the full details, this was a requirement at a later date.

 

[malg]

Only just seen this. Are our football authorities deliberately trying to sabotage the game?

 

[terraloon]

How will it be proven as a “sham” he had a contract declared by City upfront, at the time, accepted, at the time by PL, confirmed by auditors. Mancini has confirmed that he’s never been asked about it and that he paid his taxes The payment wasn’t illegal in any sense of the term The question is did City meet the requirements of the PL for reporting football contracts? As I stated there is an opinion from a good source that the only requirement, at the time, was to report the contract and not the full details, this was a requirement at a later date.

Mancini said in 2023, that he hadn’t been approached. Has he commented since that statement?

Have the Chelsea players or indeed beneficiaries of money paid via RAs companies been approached? I have no idea but I would imagine if they were most would play a straight bat even to the point of denying

These were the reported issues re Mancini.

“According to a report in Der Spiegel, the German magazine leading a consortium of publications reporting on the Football Leaks information, Mancini was offered separate arrangements by the City hierarchy which would help the club get around Uefa’s financial fair play (FFP) regulations. Mancini agreed a £1.45m annual salary with City when he joined in 2009, plus bonuses and incentives, but also allegedly a £1.75m salary with Al Jazira.

According to Der Spiegel, citing documents the Guardian has not seen or been able to verify, City executives agreed a deal whereby the holding company that controlled City, the Abu Dhabi United Group, would circulate funds to Al Jazira which would then be paid back to Mancini via an offshore company in Mauritius named Sparkleglow Holdings.

As for Auditors back to the Chelsea illegal payments all out accounts for the period passed audit