PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[petrusha]

However that contract was in place, as I understand it prior to him even interviewing for the City job. Makes a mockery of your theory if I am Correct… which I usually am.

Der Spiegel alleges that Mancini signed contracts with City and Al Jazira on the same date. I certainly recall that, when he joined City, he was reported as already having a consultancy with Al Jazira, as this was suggested to have amounted to a way City could in effect pay him not to take another job until ours became vacant.

It was also reported at the time, however, that City spoke to Jose Mourinho and Guus Hiddink before lining up Mancini. We supposedly discontinued talks with the former because he made clear viewed City as a stepping stone, while the latter at the time preferred the relatively easy life of international management. If true, this gives the lie to the idea that Mancini's Al Jazira arrangement origianted purely with a view to eventually bringing him to City.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Der Spiegel alleges that Mancini signed contracts with City and Al Jazira on the same date. I certainly recall that, when he joined City, he was reported as already having a consultancy with Al Jazira, as this was suggested to have amounted to a way City could in effect pay him not to take another job until ours became vacant.

It was also reported at the time, however, that City spoke to Jose Mourinho and Guus Hiddink before lining up Mancini. We supposedly discontinued talks with the former because he made clear viewed City as a stepping stone, while the latter at the time preferred the relatively easy life of international management. If true, this gives the lie to the idea that Mancini's Al Jazira arrangement origianted purely with a view to eventually bringing him to City.

I remembered that as well, but having a contract in place pre-City doesn't stop them re-negotiating at the same time he signs with City, I suppose.

Btw, do you know much about Mancini's contract? The DS documents seem to show pretty clearly that his AJ contract was being paid by MCFC through ADUG, so presumably the cost must have ended up in the MCFC accounts. So do you have an idea what the PL's problem with Mancini's contract actually is? Is it just a PL disclosure issue?

 

[terraloon]

However that contract was in place, as I understand it prior to him even interviewing for the City job. Makes a mockery of your theory if I am Correct… which I usually am.

If and of a course a big if the leaked documents are genuine it would seem

1) The heads of agreements for both contracts were signed on the same day19/12/2009 ( contracts were indeed signed on different dates )
2) There was considerable involvement in both contracts from very senior employees at City.
3) The invoices from Mancinis company were sent to Man City direct and payment of those invoices we’re actually routed via a Man City Bank account

 

[Bandofblues]

I bumped into an old buddy in town today, he's an Evertonian, we went for a coffee and he told me the following, strictly on the QT...
The week before the charges were announced four clubs demanded a video conference with PL Chief Exec Richard Masters. One of the clubs execs led the meeting let's say "TH". He requested the latest status of the PL investigation into MCFC. He was told it was effectively stalled with no progress. Then on behalf of all four clubs TH demanded the PL proceed with all possible charges irrespective of the prospects of winning. After a series of threats were made by TH, Masters capitulated and agreed to rush the charges through before the announcement of the White Paper. That's why there were so many errors in the published charges requiring numerous corrections.The club are confident this is a golden opportunity to resolve these issues once and for all.

Obviously you aren't going to name your old buddy but what does he do, why would he know ?

 

[terraloon]

I remembered that as well, but having a contract in place pre-City doesn't stop them re-negotiating at the same time he signs with City, I suppose.

Btw, do you know much about Mancini's contract? The DS documents seem to show pretty clearly that his AJ contract was being paid by MCFC through ADUG, so presumably the cost must have ended up in the MCFC accounts. So do you have an idea what the PL's problem with Mancini's contract actually is? Is it just a PL disclosure issue?

The PLs issue is that individuals have contracts elsewhere they have a rule that all any money paid by a club to a manager / a player has to be paid through the clubs payroll in line with the contract.
The charge therefore is that part of his City pay package was routed through another club. In a way it’s the same charge re the Image rights issue.
Irrespective if that was the case or not, and assuming it wasn’t, it was naive for City senior staff to be anywhere near this and as for it being paid via a city bank account that was sloppy

 

[East Level 2]

Well their name does have a lot of syllables in it.

And that's about it.

All jokes apart, why and how have spurs got themselves into the Big Club Gang? Its bizarre!

Spurs were the first team to win the double in the 20th century, they were the first English team to win a European trophy, and Jimmy Greaves was going to lead us to victory in the 66 World Cup.
Some of you may have spotted this was more than 50 years ago. The media haven't.
They were 6th on the all-time major trophy list before we came along and are now 7th.
Villa have won more than Spurs but most of it was even earlier.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

However that contract was in place, as I understand it prior to him even interviewing for the City job. Makes a mockery of your theory if I am Correct… which I usually am.

My understanding is that the decision to sack Hughes was taken around November but not necessarily to sack him straight away. It's possible we might have given him till later in the season but he forced the issue. We did very much have Mourinho in our sights but he wasn't prepared to commit till the summer.

As a result we sacked Hughes without a long-term replacement lined up. Mancini seemingly already had some sort of relationship with the guys in Abu Dhabi so he was asked to take over at least till the summer. I don't know if that relationship was personal or contractual though.

 

[terraloon]

My understanding is that the decision to sack Hughes was taken around November but not necessarily to sack him straight away. It's possible we might have given him till later in the season but he forced the issue. We did very much have Mourinho in our sights but he wasn't prepared to commit till the summer.

As a result we sacked Hughes without a long-term replacement lined up. Mancini seemingly already had some sort of relationship with the guys in Abu Dhabi so he was asked to take over at least till the summer. I don't know if that relationship was personal or contractual though.

That’s quite interesting because I think that there were certain restrictions as to when Mancini could take up paid employment again following his pay off from Inter.

 

[petrusha]

I remembered that as well, but having a contract in place pre-City doesn't stop them re-negotiating at the same time he signs with City, I suppose.

Btw, do you know much about Mancini's contract? The DS documents seem to show pretty clearly that his AJ contract was being paid by MCFC through ADUG, so presumably the cost must have ended up in the MCFC accounts. So do you have an idea what the PL's problem with Mancini's contract actually is? Is it just a PL disclosure issue?

It's what @terraloon says above, basically. The allegation, as far as I can tell, seems to be that the fee Mancini received from from Al Jazira for a minor consultancy was so great that it can reasonably be inferred to have been a part of his remuneration at City.

The PL will need to produce cogent evidence that this is actually so and City dishonestly concealed it. Otherwise it will fall outside the limitation period under the 1980 Act.

 

[terraloon]

My understanding is that the decision to sack Hughes was taken around November but not necessarily to sack him straight away. It's possible we might have given him till later in the season but he forced the issue. We did very much have Mourinho in our sights but he wasn't prepared to commit till the summer.

As a result we sacked Hughes without a long-term replacement lined up. Mancini seemingly already had some sort of relationship with the guys in Abu Dhabi so he was asked to take over at least till the summer. I don't know if that relationship was personal or contractual though.

That’s quite interesting because I think that there were certain restrictions as to when Mancini could take up paid employment again following his pay off from Inter.