only about a million quid, basically peanuts and before ffp was even a thing so it wasn't even necessary to hide it. So just given that info is probably enough to rule this one out as anything dodgyDo you happen to know what we didn't declare for Mancinis Al Jazera consultancy.
Years ago I used to do the Directors and highest paid employees remuneration table in the Company Annual Report as part of my job and I don't remember having to include payments from other jobs they held, just stuff like basic, bonus, share options, loans, pension contributions from the Company..
You'd only mention other directorships held but not payments received from that as I remember.
Without getting too much into it do you know what city are supposed to have not done that they should have ? I'm thinking any personal stuff was for Roberto's advisors to sort out, not City.
I have never fully understand point nr 1It's actually two offences when you break it all down.
That's it. The rest is just window dressing.
- We used artificially inflated sponsorship agreements to overstate our revenue, which led to us knowingly filing incorrect accounts.
- We didn't declare payments made to Mancini, via the Al Jazira contract, and to players, via the Fordham image rights arrangements.
and more specifically said there was no evidence of overinflated deals or accounting fraud. So that rules out all charges from 2013 to 2023 and given time barring in UK law it means only the charges in 2012 season could be looked at as extra from CAS. Doubt they'll find anything thoughI have never fully understand point nr 1
lets just simplify it .
Lets just say the contract between Etihad and City is 40 million pounds per year. Are Pl and UEFA before them saying that we are putting more then 40 million into the club or are Etihad just paying part of the 40 million.
I just know that CAS said not guilty.
You have to wonder what the Premier League's thought process is in all this. If Richard Scudamore was still in charge then I'd be tempted to suspect this was all part of some grand strategy to demonstrate to clubs the absolute mess that PSR rules are when properly enforced; essentially asking them whether the resultant risk of damage to the overall brand is really something they desire.
Under Richard Masters however, I sadly doubt there is any strategy to this whatsoever.
Delusional.People on X don’t know what they are talking about.
Incidentally, this is why I don't buy the argument that the PL are doing all this to stave of the IR. It makes no sense. The IR wants to protect clubs from going under, not to force them unneccesarily into existential crisis, which is what the PL are doing.
Delusional.
Look at this gem. Saved it and whip it out when they say it’ all about sustainability.