citizen_maine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 May 2011
- Messages
- 14,212
If the PL fail to prove dishonesty, then we'll 'get off on a technicality' again then?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
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.
I thought that issues in Italy usually arise precisely because a manager hasn't been paid off. Isn't it commonplace instead to keep them on the payroll rather than having to find a lump sum, and then stop paying them when they take up a new position?
I'm not sure what the restrictions are on a sacked manager earning when he's still being paid. He presumably has to remain available for work (you sometimes see in the Italian league that the successor is fired and they rehire the previous manager as he's still being paid by the club), but a consultancy might not mean that he isn't still available - e.g. if work is performed in the close season, or by way of advice given remotely.
If that was the position between Mancini and Inter, it would be a matter between them and it would depend on the provisions of the contract as well as possibly issues of Italian law. Inter might in theory be entitled to claim against Mancini to recover money paid to him if he undertook a prohibited consultancy while still on their payroll, but it's a long time ago so could well be time-barred.
In any case, that would be nothing to do with City. Or have I misunderstood and you're talking about some other regulation that applies in Italy to managers there?
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
Like most of the charges we can only judge what we have seen and to be hones that’s very little.
Yes there is the CAS ruling but again we know nothing to little other than what is in the case summary but the issues around manager and players remuneration wasn’t within UEFAs jurisdiction.
We all know that emails can be edited after the fact bank details can’t be.
Citys problem in this regard as I see it is this.
My guess would be If just one or indeed both of the remuneration charges are , on the balance of probability, ruled against City that then opens up a whole new dimension because you then can see how a whole lot of the other charges and issues could be impacted
As for time barred that for me is a bit of a red herring
What you probably are saying but without hearing the evidence the tribunal won’t be able to get to consider if it falls outside the act. Unlike UEFA where they specifically such matters the PL don’t.
No it was nothing to do with City I found it interesting because it was also claimed on here they had decided to let Hughes go earlierI thought that issues in Italy usually arise precisely because a manager hasn't been paid off. Isn't it commonplace instead to keep them on the payroll rather than having to find a lump sum, and then stop paying them when they take up a new position?
I'm not sure what the restrictions are on a sacked manager earning when he's still being paid. He presumably has to remain available for work (you sometimes see in the Italian league that the successor is fired and they rehire the previous manager as he's still being paid by the club), but a consultancy might not mean that he isn't still available - e.g. if work is performed in the close season, or by way of advice given remotely.
If that was the position between Mancini and Inter, it would be a matter between them and it would depend on the provisions of the contract as well as possibly issues of Italian law. Inter might in theory be entitled to claim against Mancini to recover money paid to him if he undertook a prohibited consultancy while still on their payroll, but it's a long time ago so could well be time-barred.
In any case, that would be nothing to do with City. Or have I misunderstood and you're talking about some other regulation that applies in Italy to managers there?
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,340
As for time barred that for me is a bit of a red herring
Do you need it to be explained again?
Like most of the charges we can only judge what we have seen and to be hones that’s very little.
Yes there is the CAS ruling but again we know nothing to little other than what is in the case summary but the issues around manager and players remuneration wasn’t within UEFAs jurisdiction.
We all know that emails can be edited after the fact bank details can’t be.
Citys problem in this regard as I see it is this.
My guess would be If just one or indeed both of the remuneration charges are , on the balance of probability, ruled against City that then opens up a whole new dimension because you then can see how a whole lot of the other charges and issues could be impacted
As for time barred that for me is a bit of a red herring
What you probably are saying but without hearing the evidence the tribunal won’t be able to get to consider if it falls outside the act. Unlike UEFA where they specifically such matters the PL don’t.
I don't agree that if the charges with respect to Mancini's contract are proven, that has an effect on other issues. They're separate points and separate evidence will be adduced with respect to them. If the evidence justifies ruling against City in respect of some charges, then it doesn't necessarily follow that other evidence will justify a ruling against City on other charges.
You keep stressing that the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, but as a matter of course you omit the well-established legal position that the Commission will also have to have regard to the need for particularly cogent evidence if accusations of this nature are to be regarded as proved. You shouldn't omit that. It's important.
I fully accept that the Commission will hear the evidence and decide on the limitation point. If that goes against City with respect to any matter, the club's case almost certainly fails as far as that issue is concerned. The converse is also true. I present it in that way because that's probably how the Commission will approach it, so it makes sense for me to do the same.
.
Rory Bluelow
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 May 2014
- Messages
- 2,193
I actually enjoy Terraloon’s posts on here as it stimulates good debate on matters beyond my expertise, but I do notice a strong undercurrent of wishful thinking on his part. To be expected from a fan of a rival club I suppose.I don't agree that if the charges with respect to Mancini's contract are proven, that has an effect on other issues. They're separate points and separate evidence will be adduced with respect to them. If the evidence justifies ruling against City in respect of some charges, then it doesn't necessarily follow that other evidence will justify a ruling against City on other charges.
You keep stressing that the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, but as a matter of course you omit the well-established legal position that the Commission will also have to have regard to the need for particularly cogent evidence if accusations of this nature are to be regarded as proved. You shouldn't omit that. It's important.
I fully accept that the Commission will hear the evidence and decide on the limitation point. If that goes against City with respect to any matter, the club's case almost certainly fails as far as that issue is concerned. The converse is also true. I present it in that way because that's probably how the Commission will approach it, so it makes sense for me to do the same.
.
Franny 1234
Well-Known Member
Modest tooHowever 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.
The exceptions are fraud, concealment or mistakeIf the PL fail to prove dishonesty, then we'll 'get off on a technicality' again then?
I actually enjoy Terraloon’s posts on here as it stimulates good debate
I agree with this. He has a background that enables him to have an interesting take on these matters and, to his credit, he's familiarised himself with the materials. His contributions do throw up issues worth thinking about and it's to the benefit of the discussion to have someone in it who's not from a City background.
No doubt he'd also say that our analysis is to some degree skewed by our emotional attachment to MCFC, as well. I'd have some sympathy with that, too! :)
Fairy Nuff. This is one of the areas where I am struggling to see exactly what the PL is charging the club with, and why ...... and, the more I think about it, how they are expecting a favourable outcome in any of them.
I keep coming back to the fact that there's an essential dichotomy in the whole affair. And, ultimately, all our attempts to unravel that rely on guesswork at this stage.
Consider the following:
- MCFC insists that it has provided the PL with "extensive engagement and [a] vast amount of detailed materials". It further claims that there's a "comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence ... in support of [the club's] position".
- One would assume that the PL wouldn't bring charges of this seriousness and in this volume without being confident that it has significant evidence that offers a realistic chance of the charges being proved to the necessary standard.
The thing is that points 1 and 2 above are mutually exclusive. If MCFC's position as stated in point 1 is correct then the assumption in point 2 as to the PL's stance can't be well founded, while if the assumption in point 2 as to the PL's stance is well founded then MCFC's position as stated in point 1 can't be correct.
That IMO applies even if the lawyers on here, including me, have overstated and overestimated the effect of the need for cogency in terms of the standard of proof given the nature of the charges. (I don't think we have.)
We should also, I suppose, note that which position is correct could differ with respect to different charges. In theory, one party's position could be well founded with regard to managerial remuneration and the other's with regard to image rights, for instance.
We can try to piece together in this thread how things look based on information that's in the public domain and we can pool the legal, accounting and regulatory knowledge that exists among posters to comment based on the information we do have.
Ultimately, though, all comments on here are necessarily speculative. The information that's in the public domain isn't sufficient for an authoritative assessment. I do think this thread does a decent job - better than anywhere else I've seen, anyway - at exploring the issues, but we certainly don't have definitive answers and will have to wait for them, potentially for a long time.
That prospect of that wait irritates the fuck out of me. But there are other things in my life right now that irritate the fuck out of me a lot more and I'll have to live with it as I do them, I suppose!