PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.