PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[OB1]

Oh so your family are not important
Well mine to me are, hence my op
Footie doesn’t rule my life

I’m on here talking about Manchester City and this subject is very important In that context.

You have come on here and commented so you clearly aren’t devoting all your attention to your family.

 

[M18CTID]

To be fair the amount of money is irrelevant, allegedly paying off the books is not a good look and arouses suspicion.

You’re right - it’s not a good look. However, I think that allegation is utter bollocks. We were throwing around far greater sums of money to sign players that were going through the books at the time so the notion we were paying Mancini’s wages off the books is fanciful IMO.

Also, as of a few months ago Mancini said he hadn’t been contacted by the Premier League about this. Surely if they want to pin that one on us then they’d actually talk to him and ask him for his observations?

 

[I'm Blue]

Pmsl

 

[I'm Blue]

Have some of you got nothing better to do than keep harping on an on and on about this?
Wait till an official announcement is made, More important things to discuss ffs

To the Southgate personality thread..

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Oh I do
But it amazes me who some of them on here react like it's the End of Days

Leave my pal @kaz7 out of this.

 

[I'm Blue]

PB
I have read your stuff time and time again, you know your stuff
On here and Kotk
My point is there's nothing anyone can do until its run its course
I'm saying there are more important things to worry about
Family etc thats all

By that logic we shouldn’t have any pre match threads either.

 

[OB1]

There is nothing in any way wrong with the club selling the image rights of (some?) players in return for a lump sum up front, and it has nothing to do with tax on the image rights themselves. That is a completely different issue, imo. The PL may not like it, and may wish to adjust for it, but there is nothing at all suspicious about it from a commercial viewpoint.

Must confess, back then, I would have advocated selling the rights to another company.

 

[stonie]

Ha ha.......and Jamie Pollock

Pollock should never have a good night's sleep after that, it long lives and will never be removed from my head

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

Some cases are still heard even when there was only a slight chance of a party winning. For example, Bennell Victims versus MCFC. The court spent 2 weeks arguing if Bennell had been a vicarious MCFC employee (ie an employe paid off the books). This was an attempt to make City liable to pay additional damages.

In the ruling, the judge stated the Bennell victims counsel had failed to prove the case. However he also stated even if they had proved it MCFC were NOT liable because of where and when the historical offences occurred.
So why did the judge not stop the hearing on day one ?. I just don't understand the Law.

 

[Norman kneejerk]

Don't worry about it then. Let us do that for you. ;-)

Seriously though, the Everton case, plus Chelsea's alleged offshore shenanigans, gives this a topic a new lease of life.

The Chelsea one seems a bit strange in that the PL seem to be saying they hadn't noticed anything in the reporting from Chelsea and their advisors for years and years but now Chelsea have just mentioned it to them.

Makes it sound like they were oblivious to everything!