PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

The charge on Mancini’s contract and him being paid elsewhere, he signed a contract in December 2009 and then signed a new contract in Summer 2012. Would he have still be receiving payments from the consultancy role he was doing in the UAE with this new contract or did they stop when the extension was signed in 2012?

Even if he was if the limitations act comes into play the Der Spiegal hit piece came out in November 2018. Which puts that charge outside of the 6 year timescale if this is a civil case, which when you look at everything points exactly to that.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
I think there is a problem with a fudged non-proven ruling and that is that City may well refuse to accept it. We have been led to believe that our club is certain that we have done nothing wrong and a fudge by the PL may well convince the government that the PL can't regulate itself and is risking alienating an important strategic ally to satisfy a bunch of profiteers. Looking for a football club which is closest to government idea on how clubs should behave, we don't need to look beyond the Etihad and yet how many attempts are there going to be to ruin it.... Not proven won't do! Guilty or innocent?
Click to expand...
The hearing is of a civil nature, so guilty or not guilty are not terms that can be used. Strictly speaking, there are no “charges” rather claims that we broke some rules. We refute those claims and the dispute is settled by arbitration. It’s either “The PL has not proved their case on the balance of probabilities” or the opposite. Criminal law whether Scottish (!) or English does not come into it.
Incidently, the Grauniad (who else?) ran a whole piece based on CAS’s failure to say “not guilty” suggesting CAS thought our case was weak, despite saying 11 times “There is NO evidence that….”
 
halfcenturyup said:
Iirc, the wording of the mitigation rule didn't actually change and probably supported the treatment set out in the 2012/13 toolkit. What is undeniable, though, is that City followed the 2011/12 toolkit and thought they had complied on that basis. By the time the 2012/13 toolkit came out it was too late to do anything about it. So I am not sure that the 2012/12 toolkit was amended to screw City, but rather it was amended to correct a mistake. Whatever. The result was the same.

Don't forget, UEFA were also challenging the fair values of sponsorship contracts (probably around 10-20 million), the calculation of the pre-FFP contract costs (31 million) and the treatment of the intangible asset sales (28 million), amongst other things. It is likely the club would have not been able to use the mitigation if any of those were upheld.

So I would say CS vs SB was a score draw, rather than a defeat for either. :)

We accountants are conciliatory.
Click to expand...
I Agree. The amended rule was more sensible, it’s just that applying it retrospectively in effect was wrong.
Score draw indeed as we got satisfaction on sponsorship issues. UEFA treated our AbuDhabi connected deals as not related thereafter. So, of course the PL had to invent their ludicrous “associated” category.
 
KS55 said:
The hearing is of a civil nature, so guilty or not guilty are not terms that can be used. Strictly speaking, there are no “charges” rather claims that we broke some rules. We refute those claims and the dispute is settled by arbitration. It’s either “The PL has not proved their case on the balance of probabilities” or the opposite. Criminal law whether Scottish (!) or English does not come into it.
Incidently, the Grauniad (who else?) ran a whole piece based on CAS’s failure to say “not guilty” suggesting CAS thought our case was weak, despite saying 11 times “There is NO evidence that….”
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand all that but I'm trying to frame my response in terms of the original post.
 
manimanc said:
Nick "nuttier than a shithouse rat" Harris accusing the deputy prime minister of a country of fraud and corruption.

What a whopper. I actually can't stop laughing at the fact that the goggled eyed bellend pushes this everytime he talks.

We all know he's lurking on here, what a sad little man.
Click to expand...
C'mon Ric - out the cnut!
 
manimanc said:
Nick "nuttier than a shithouse rat" Harris accusing the deputy prime minister of a country of fraud and corruption.

What a whopper. I actually can't stop laughing at the fact that the goggled eyed bellend pushes this everytime he talks.

We all know he's lurking on here, what a sad little man.
Click to expand...
Putting Harris to one side (and hoping he stays there), are you really suggesting that being a senior politician makes it unlikely you're corrupt? It's not like our own Government have a wonderful record of truth and high standards of morality.

I am fairly confident about the charges, and I have no idea about the integrity of our owners, but I can't buy the argument that powerful men are above corruption.
 
bluenova said:
Putting Harris to one side (and hoping he stays there), are you really suggesting that being a senior politician makes it unlikely you're corrupt? It's not like our own Government have a wonderful record of truth and high standards of morality.

I am fairly confident about the charges, and I have no idea about the integrity of our owners, but I can't buy the argument that powerful men are above corruption.
Click to expand...
Fair does.
Sheikh Mansour is really called Alan and runs a money launderette.

Sounds better.
 
give it to gordon said:
I understand that view but football will become really boring if it's just the red tops +1 and City.
Click to expand...
They can get 14 votes to change the crazy rules they allowed to be set up, then that's up to them. I'd love our club to vote with them, but now the drawbridge is up, it's not our job to dig them out of the shit they happily dropped on us.
 
KS55 said:
I Agree. The amended rule was more sensible, it’s just that applying it retrospectively in effect was wrong.
Score draw indeed as we got satisfaction on sponsorship issues. UEFA treated our AbuDhabi connected deals as not related thereafter. So, of course the PL had to invent their ludicrous “associated” category.
Click to expand...
The original basis of calculation was somewhat obtuse and really didn't seem to meet the overall objective. The amended basis of calculation was more straightforward to use and more logical. But the point was that it was a 2-year calculation and you can't suddenly change it halfway through the period.
 
KS55 said:
I Agree. The amended rule was more sensible, it’s just that applying it retrospectively in effect was wrong.
Score draw indeed as we got satisfaction on sponsorship issues. UEFA treated our AbuDhabi connected deals as not related thereafter. So, of course the PL had to invent their ludicrous “associated” category.
Click to expand...

In 2019, they didn't contest the related party nature of the AD sponsors, or their fair value or, for that matter, the issue of image rights, all of which were part of the 2014 settlement. Which makes me think the settlement agreement absolutely closed all those issues off for UEFA.

The PL, though, doesn't have any such constraints, I imagine.
 
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