PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Chris in London said:
The purpose of the contract was probably to ensure that RM didn't take a job elsewhere in the meantime.

That however is irrelevant. If the agreed services were rendered by RM and paid for by Al Jazeerah, that's an end of it.
Click to expand...
They didn't even have to be supplied by RM personally, but by his company. That's who the contract was with.
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
Link to the 50+ page PDF here:


The first 2 payments were paid from a MCFC account "MCFC Stadium Oper..." to "Roberto Mancini Sparklegrow" via an Italian bank. See pDF pages 19 and 22.
Click to expand...
Pablo

Sorry if I appear dumb on this - you may know a lot more than me on this topic which is very likely as it’s the first time I’ve seen the docs you posted.

You point to payments detailed on pages 19 and 22. The docs on these pages are dated Spring 2011 which is prior to the introduction of FFP which became effective from season 11/12 (and of course pre dates the the Prem version).

It also seems that tax was paid in rounded up sums in which case the burden for reporting and settling said tax would lie with the recipient (I think).

Personally can’t see what the big ya hoo is about this aspect of the charges and…. even if we did something which stretched the rules the sums involved are paltry and fairly immaterial against the overall club turnover. Even if found ‘guilty’ these lines on the 115 charge sheet shouldn’t lead a substantial penalty…. which of course we were given when we took the massive ‘pinch.’
 
Let's face it these charges where only brought about by pressure from the Rags , Goons & Dippers , they can't beat us on the pitch so they are doing everything possible to stop us in our tracks , the Premier league couldnt wait to announce their disciplinary action to the media to placate the red 'istree clubs.
Richard Masters and the other whippng boys at the Premier league must be in turmoil now because they actually have to gather some hard evidence that will stand up in any hearing , they were quick enough to announce the charges but appear to be dragging their feet producing any evidence.Maybe they have bitten off more than they can chew ,they have chosen the wrong club to mess with Khaldoon & Soriano are not going to stand by and let over a decade of graft and investment to go down the drain , we wil have the best legal minds in the business fighting our corner and i would be very surprised if we take a "pinch" this time.
 
Bring up the Mancini contract is like arguing over a £1 when buying a ferrari. Doesn't matter really does it. It doesn't effect to true and fair reflection of our accounts at all
 
BerkshireBlue said:
Bring up the Mancini contract is like arguing over a £1 when buying a ferrari. Doesn't matter really does it. It doesn't effect to true and fair reflection of our accounts at all
Click to expand...

Weren’t the club posting record breaking losses around that one of £150 million in 2012? Mancini being paid by the club or elsewhere was hardly going to make a dent in that deficit. It’s a red herring that issue and will be one of the first things to fall by the wayside when this gets to a hearing.
 
This thread is turning to shit and boredom. It seems a few of the more legal minded posters are leaving it alone for the moment as it's becoming a fucking merry go round with the same questions over and over and over........... zzzzzzzz.

Let's just see who sticks their head above the parapet first and we'll go from there..... ....................................................and sleep!
 
Last edited:
ZanteWeatherman said:
This thread is turning to shit and boredom. It seems very few of the more legal minded posters are leaving it alone as it's becoming a fucking merry go round with the same questions over and over and over........... zzzzzzzz.

Let's just see who sticks their head above the parapet first and we'll go from there..... ....................................................and sleep!
Click to expand...
You'll get more sleep than Sleeping Beauty at this rate.
 
Chris in London said:
The purpose of the contract was probably to ensure that RM didn't take a job elsewhere in the meantime.

That however is irrelevant. If the agreed services were rendered by RM and paid for by Al Jazeerah, that's an end of it.
Click to expand...
But City paid the first two instalments, so they will have to show re-embursement from Al J. Alternatively, it depends on whether we added a note to the return for Bobby’s salary.
 
KS55 said:
But City paid the first two instalments, so they will have to show re-embursement from Al J. Alternatively, it depends on whether we added a note to the return for Bobby’s salary.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily reimbursement, but if not that it would have to be explained why we have paid another club's liability
 
BeerIsTheBest said:
Pablo

Sorry if I appear dumb on this - you may know a lot more than me on this topic which is very likely as it’s the first time I’ve seen the docs you posted.

You point to payments detailed on pages 19 and 22. The docs on these pages are dated Spring 2011 which is prior to the introduction of FFP which became effective from season 11/12 (and of course pre dates the the Prem version).

It also seems that tax was paid in rounded up sums in which case the burden for reporting and settling said tax would lie with the recipient (I think).

Personally can’t see what the big ya hoo is about this aspect of the charges and…. even if we did something which stretched the rules the sums involved are paltry and fairly immaterial against the overall club turnover. Even if found ‘guilty’ these lines on the 115 charge sheet shouldn’t lead a substantial penalty…. which of course we were given when we took the massive ‘pinch.’
Click to expand...
I think because of the way it's been reported people think we have failed FFP again. From reading the regs a while ago (if I remember right) the charges related to Mancini's contract not being registered with the PL. Rules in later regulations state that all payments need to included which I guess they are alleging we didn't do in this case.

There was also some rumour that the PL were retroactively applying current rules to these old breaches
 
mrbelfry said:
I think because of the way it's been reported people think we have failed FFP again. From reading the regs a while ago (if I remember right) the charges related to Mancini's contract not being registered with the PL. Rules in later regulations state that all payments need to included which I guess they are alleging we didn't do in this case.

There was also some rumour that the PL were retroactively applying current rules to these old breaches
Click to expand...
I thought the argument was we are keeping his contract if the books and saving money rather than not registering it
 
Out of interest why are there no charges relating to more recent times ? I get we earn more now and would pass FFP. But we did anyway before. I get they probably only have the emails but the email are rubbish anyway. Seems to me if we was doing what is claimed we would still be doing it. Do the premier league not have power to look at current stuff other documents etc.
 
WRicko said:
I thought the argument was we are keeping his contract if the books and saving money rather than not registering it
Click to expand...
I may be wrong because ive not looked at the regulations for a bit but for the first year of Mancini's contract the two rules we breached were something like

1) Managers need a contract
2) That contract needs to be given to the PL secretary.

I assume he had a contract and if we hadn't given a copy to the PL it wouldn't have taken over 10 years to notice. So can only assume they are either alleging the contract wasn't accurate or they are retroactively applying subsequent rules - I think it became a rule that contracts had to include all payments the year or two after and I think we've complained they were applying later rules to earlier breaches.

We didn't need to pay him off book because there was no EPL requirement to break even. I think other people have argued that disguising the payment would have meant we overpaid tax or that Mancini was underpaying tax or something so it makes no sense that we were trying to hide payments and even if we did for the purposes of FFP it was a saving of £1.5m after we lost over a £100m deficit or something (remember City argued that deficit had some FFP exemptions in it and that we didn't fail FFP).

It's important to remember that the Premier League rules are different from UEFA's and the arguement is we didn't need to hide payments made to Mancini from the PL so why would we?

Also remember I'm an idiot and most of the above could be wrong. And also remember the PL just listed the rules and no detail into how we broke them so some assumptions have to be made. So in respect of the rule breach that we didn't register Mancini's contract with the PL secretary logically I can only think of two possible ways we breach that rule:
1) we literally didn't send a copy of the contract to the PL secretary
2) the PL are alleging the contract we sent wasn't the one under which Mancini was working.

If it's explanation 1 then surely it would have been noticed much earlier and was easily rectifiable so it must be explanation 2. However we had no reason to disguise payments so no reason to send in a fraudulent contract. None of it makes much sense
 
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