PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Citizen of Legoland]

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.

Why were they sharing credentials?

 

[Eric Hitchmough]

The Dippers really can do whatever the fuck they want, can’t they? The relevant authorities are terrified of upsetting them.

Words like protected and entitled barely tell the story.

 

[give it to gordon]

Going off Tolmie's tweets, the settlement would have been against PL rules, so would probably be another chance to hammer us anyway even though we were the victims (and not the dippers for once).

Both City and the dippers get a small fine for settling outside the pl than the pl investigate the dippers for the hacking

 

[Metalartin]

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?

Don't quote me on that, I just vaguely remember it being mentioned on BM at some point. Even if there was something to it, it would probably require their participation to make a thing of it and I don't see them doing that given how Spurs and their chairman are.

 

[domalino]

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.

Nah this is wrong, Mancini's 2 contracts, the one with the club to be manager and the one with Al Jazira were both signed on the same day, so the "he couldn't sign as manager yet" theory can't be true.

IMO It's pretty clear they were using the Al Jazira job as a way of paying Mancini tax free money. For starters, City were only paying him £1.4m per year to be manager which is less than half what Mark Hughes was reportedly paid (£3m) by the Shinawatra regime. Which would probably make him the only employee at the entire club that earned less in 2009 than his pre-takeover equivalent.

And then there's the email (We have some payments that require to be made by Al Jazira...We will need to send monies to ADUG and ADUG will then pass on to Al Jazira with payment instruction.) which intimates money is going from City to Al Jazira. What reason do Manchester City have to send money to Al Jazira to "make payments"? That seems clear that City were using Al Jazira just as an intermediary.

The real question is not whether it happened, it's whether it was actually against the rules to do so. There's no FFP at this point, the financial rules were much less strict.

Also the amounts we're dealing with here...something like £5m total, 14 years ago?

 

[Rory Bluelow]

Another belting post.

You’re either connected as fuck or need serious immediate help.

Although there’s no tangible evidence to support Pablo’s posts, that is literally how things work. I never imagined for one minute our principals would just sit back and get kicked around by a tuppence halfpenny organisation like the Premier League. Compared to them, United and Liverpool etc our owners are the 800lb gorilla in the room. So what Pablo is saying is entirely credible. Let’s hope it comes to pass.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

Nah this is wrong, Mancini's 2 contracts, the one with the club to be manager and the one with Al Jazira were both signed on the same day.

IMO It's pretty clear they were using the Al Jazira job as a way of reducing Mancini's salary on the City books. For starters, City were only paying him £1.4m per year to be manager which is less than half what Mark Hughes was reportedly paid (£3m) by the Shinawatra regime.

And then there's the email (We have some payments that require to be made by Al Jazira...We will need to send monies to ADUG and ADUG will then pass on to Al Jazira with payment instruction.) which intimates money is going from City to Al Jazira. What reason do Manchester City have to send money to Al Jazira?

The real question is not whether it happened, it's whether it was actually against the rules to do so.

And whether that motive - which is a reasonable supposition - can actually be proven.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

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.

Is the correct assessment.

To think the media and rival fans want to cry "cheat" over this and matters that had absolutely no bearing on how we became the best team in World football - just reeks of the jealousy that it is.
A modern day Witch Hunt with frothing mouthed, torch bearers who just want action over something they know absolutely nothing about - just that their team is no longer winning everything (not that it was - Arse and Spuds).

 

[M18CTID]

"Whataboutery" is not going to win this case.

It’s not and City know that they’ll win it by presenting their own evidence relevant to the case.

What I think is happening here is that if what TH has tweeted is true then the club are simply dropping the odd bomb here and there to remind the footballing world what other clubs have been up to. For me, there wasn’t nearly enough column inches dedicated to this hacking story when it broke in 2019. Only The Times bothered to run with it and the rest of the media couldn’t be arsed. I don’t think most fans of all other clubs know about it. If it’s reared its head again now, it might get much wider traction this time round, especially with the spotlight currently being on the PL and the various cases that have been concluded and are ongoing.

 

[rickmcfc]

Can this all be wrapped up and over so we can crack on with watching the best footballing team on the planet. It’s like a bad dream that keeps occurring