There is nothing to stop those cases being investigated and conclusions drawn. What is time barred is any action as a result. Some time ago I suggested that City might want time barred cases aired but others disagreed. Another case of wait and see.Agreed, probably time barred.
And as the period for that is six years, surely in our case time barring would apply in the case of the Mancini payments and Etisalat ( and maybe even the image rights issue)?
It’s madness the level of ineptitude.I'm convinced the EFC points deduction will be reduced to 6 points, the compensation will be capped around £20M, so substantial but achievable. However during the IC the cretin Masters "revealed' the punishment criteria was a PL in house creation never approved or even seen by the clubs. Blindingly obvious it's been drummed up just recently and conveniently. He gave personal evidence at the IC demanding a 12 point deduction!. All this was just setting the scene for a huge points deduction on MCFC if found quilts of anything. The PL have completely botched up again.They are so intent on creating a landscape to attack MCFC that they have thrown EFC under a bus. No doubt a double whammy for the dips petrified what Everton could do once they move into an awesome new stadium. Make no mistake with the right owners Everton could easily be on a par with us and the Barcodes. The rags/dips/tarqs and little poodle Spud are having nightmares with us, NUFC, CFC, AVFC and WHUFC all threatening to destroy their comfy little cash cow the PL. Bring it on.
..
UEFA and their external lawyers clearly believed that they could uphold that there would not be any time barring, City and ultimately CAS believed time barring applied.
Such is the way it goes sometimes in ‘court’. I don’t have any love for UEFA, but I don’t believe for one second they just plowed ahead not believing they could uphold, not least because it would be a huge waste of money to proceed with something they knew would be overturned and their biggest love is the annual profit number.
Good points.Don't forget. It isn't the quantum of the adjustments they make that determines the FFP non-compliance, it's those adjustments pushing losses over 105 million. As far as I remember, City were well within that limit for 2014/15 through to the end of the PL investigation. I don't thnk adjustments for image rights will push us over the FFP "edge", as it were. The 30 million of Etisalat was for two years 1012 and 2013, before FFP as was Mancini as we know.
I am not sure what the transition rules were in 2014/15, the first FFP year, but we were well over the limit that year anyway, so there must have been some allowances as there were with UEFA, I guess.
It was done entirely for Mancini’s tax position. It made no difference to City as there was no ffp at the time and Mansour was funding us royally at the time. He could easily have covered an enormous salary for Mancini.Agree it is a something or nothing within the context of the historic big picture.
The amount of mileage generated by the mancini contract is insane. It's such a small story but now made out to be the crime of the century.
Does this mean we'll start seeing Redknapp getting interviewed in his car with the window wound down again?