Colin Bells Boots
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 16,472
- Team supported
- Manchester City
I like your bedtime stories of late - finding solace amongst the usual piles of shite :)
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
I like your bedtime stories of late - finding solace amongst the usual piles of shite :)
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
I never understood the fuss over this - and still don’t. My understanding was that Mancini under the terms of his severance deal with Inter couldn’t take a managers position for a specified timeframe. Mansour gave Mancini a consultancy gig which I assumed was similar to putting him on retainer, or an option on his services, as there were doubts over Hughes.
Hughes then got the bullet earlier than the owners ideally would have liked and Mancini was installed. The consultancy deal was common knowledge at the time and that the two jobs overlapped was more about timing than anything else.
Whether Mancini did any consultancy work or how long the jobs overlapped I don’t know, but why anyone cares a decade or so later is beyond me.
Anyone with more than 3 brain cells would agree with you.
It’s about as red a herring as you could ever imagine.
Even if “guilty” of anything in relation to it, it’s impact would have been extremely small on the overall picture / development / success of the club.
Knickers well and truly twisted about absolutely fuck all.
Last edited:
Presumably because it wasn't a big deal and we had no discernible lossWhy did we settle for pennies, Stefan? The Dippers wouldn’t have if the tables were turned.
The reports I have read, including claims here, were that an employee went there and used his old password that nobody at the City end bothered to change.
If that's true, it wasn't a 'hack' then. He maybe broke his contract clauses on conduct after leaving, and they exploited access that wasn't specifically granted, but does that really constitute a system breach?
If true at all, of course.
Which, if it is, is probably more likely why the club didn't pursue it much harder, rather than just being naively nice.
It was not that the club did not revoke the old employees credentials.
It's that there were several people in the office who shared/knew each others' credentials so when Person A left the club, he still knew Person B's log in details and kept accessing the City scouting database when he'd gone to work for Liverpool.
Blue Maverick
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 21,202
Or maybe it’s show no one is whiter than white and not many know about the hackingIf city are bringing up that hacking story they’re starting to not pick and are getting desperate. I hope I’m wrong but it’s worrying times if true
It is time barred - there is no possibility anyone could argue the statute of limitations doesn't apply. The PL at least have an argument v usMaybe it needs looked at again, now the league have set a precedent over alleged time barred behaviour? It no doubt gained Liverpool an unfair sporting advantage. The payment was not legit and off the books akin to the defoe charge for unlicensed agents.
The premier league rules have been broken allegedly.
Some of the city charges go back before ffp was introduced.
It is time barred but it just isn't a big deal. If had been City would not have settled for £1m. Waste of time discussing it in 2023But some of our charges are even more 'super historic' and I believe PL gave a reason for non investigation into the hacking allegations as 'too old'.
Irrespective of the settlement, shouldn't PL investigate anyway?
We 'settled' with UEFA on a number of issues back in 2014 when we 'took the pinch'. Are the PL excluding the issues covered in the UEFA settlement?
Apples and pears maybe legally, but can you see why this not a good look particularly wrt the older charges against us.
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
We just need to wait for the ESL legal case to complete next month and, assuming it is to UEFAs advanatage, this charade will be closed out.
The US hedges won't exactly be burnt to the ground but they will be with us and not against us. The owners that is and not the clubs and fans. Tribal rivalries are good for the £££.
Billionaires doing billionaire things. The redshirts have had their fun but they've turned. The threat to the PL with all this shit and the subsequent threat to PL ££ if it continues is too much for them to bear. Then, of course, is the threat of a sovereign as a REAL enemy in the boardrooms.That's where they risk being burnt to the ground and why they are playing ball now albeit with a bit of quid pro quo with Liverpool
As I said yesterday, it's hard to get your head round us being onside with Liverpool. But it is only for the purpose of moving this forward and it's good to have a rival on the pitch!
Chelsea/Arsenal already done - we have too much influence at both clubs.
United - City wanted Ratcliffe not Qatar. City have influence with Raine who were broking the deal. And Mubadala have joint ventures with Ineos.
Spurs - no one gives a shit. They will just hold on to the shirt tails.
Another belting post.
You’re either connected as fuck or need serious immediate help.
The hacking story is such a non story. It is super historic, we ourselves settled for pennies, it went nowhere. It is done and dusted.
Someone else in the thread alluded to Spurs being hacked similarly by ex-employees who went to Liverpool.
If this is the case (big if), would this be treated differently as it would show repeated behaviour, perhaps a strategy to do this even?
The PL rules don't include anything about limitation. UEFA's do, so UEFA are limited to five years by their own rules.That’s not a PL decision, that’s just English Law I think. Time barred only doesn’t apply if there has been concealment, which is what the PL allege against us. That’s not the case the hacking, so presumably that would be timebarred.
The PL can charge as far back as they like. It would be up to the commission to decide on whether to apply the six year limitation provided for in English law. Exceptions are concealment, fraud and mistake. City will argue none of these apply, and limitation should be enforced.
The PL have every right to charge Liverpool, they just choose not to. It's probably fair to say Liverpool concealed their criminal activity from the PL.