PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Gordyola]

:)

1. Some is publicly available, some is my own analysis. Eg the breakdown of the charges is how I group the charges in my own mind. There are other ways of grouping the charges - issue by issue, year by year, but the three themes I have chosen seem to me the most logical breakdown. Others may have very valid reasons for disagreeing.

Very little however of what I say has not been said already in this thread, often by multiple posters all saying the same thing.

2. I think we can assume (a) that the SFO have heard of the fact that the PL has charged us, and (b) if the SFO had swooped in to confiscate City's laptops we'd have heard about it. I suppose you can draw your own conclusions from that.

3. What the PL is alleging, in essence, is that the contract between Al Jazira and RM was a sham, invented to cover additional remuneration actually paid to RM by MCFC. I don't see why City would have paid him in that way. There is a lot of logic in saying to a friendly club in AD 'would you mind paying him a lot of money for a few days work' so he doesn't take a job somewhere else as we moved towards the end of the Hughes era. But that doesn't make that contract a sham. Things can be artificial without being a sham. I don't see any reason why we would have disguised RM's income beyond that.

More importantly, I don't see how you can say 'that contract between RM and AJ was a sham' without hearing from RM and AJ and scrutinising the accounts of both. I agree RM's input would be extremely important in that respect. And like you, I have never heard RM say 'Oh no, I never went to Al Jazirah, that was just a smokescreen to hide how much money I was being paid by City.' And if he'd ever said that, I think it would have leaked.

As of March 2022 Bobby Manc has not been contacted about his City contract and denies any wrongdoings

Speaking ahead of Italy's Euro 2024 qualifier against England in Naples, Mancini was asked whether he had been contacted by the Premier League as part of their investigations.

"No, I haven't been contacted or called up by anyone and I don't think anyone will contact me," he replied. "I have paid my taxes, it is all above board so I don't think anyone will be in touch."

Mancini denies wrongdoing amid Man City probe

Roberto Mancini has denied any wrongdoing amid allegations of salary irregularities during his time as Manchester City manager.

www.espn.co.uk

 

[Centurions]

I think thee are two things we as fans could do. We could make a complaint against the club to the police. Anyone can make an allegation to the police. I think it has happened to a few celbs and politicians by members of the public with other motives where a possible crime has been committed to some unrelated to the complaining person but the incident was in the public domain. The police would then have to investigate and clear or not city.

I don’t think this is a good idea risks wasting police time and what if we have done something wrong.

However we could write to our MPs and lay out the issues especially law point around the allegations but also the other technical stuff I don’t think MPs have a clue

Please tell me that both of those suggestions are jokes?

Pretty please?

 

[WRicko]

Please tell me that both of those suggestions are jokes?

Pretty please?

Re read it

 

[halfcenturyup]

As of March 2022 Bobby Manc has not been contacted about his City contract and denies any wrongdoings

Speaking ahead of Italy's Euro 2024 qualifier against England in Naples, Mancini was asked whether he had been contacted by the Premier League as part of their investigations.

"No, I haven't been contacted or called up by anyone and I don't think anyone will contact me," he replied. "I have paid my taxes, it is all above board so I don't think anyone will be in touch."

Mancini denies wrongdoing amid Man City probe

Roberto Mancini has denied any wrongdoing amid allegations of salary irregularities during his time as Manchester City manager.

www.espn.co.uk

I had a look a while ago for information supporting my recollection that Mancini had been advising on football before he was appointed. The only thing I could find was an article, in the Guardian iirc, that Mancini had an existing relationship with Khaldoon. Not sure where he would get that relationship if it wasn't about replacing Hughes. Vague memories of a pundit saying something, maybe Savage? I remember his punditry starting around the time Mancini was appointed, so it's possible I guess, with his connection.

It was a long time ago and my memory isn't what it used to be. What were we talking about? :)

 

[Eric Hitchmough]

Vague memories of a pundit saying something, maybe Savage? I remember his punditry starting around the time Mancini was appointed, so it's possible I guess, with his connection.

If it was Savage, the actual quote was almost certainly:

“I still think there’s a goal in this for Manchester United.”

 

[metalblue]

:)

1. Some is publicly available, some is my own analysis. Eg the breakdown of the charges is how I group the charges in my own mind. There are other ways of grouping the charges - issue by issue, year by year, but the three themes I have chosen seem to me the most logical breakdown. Others may have very valid reasons for disagreeing.

Very little however of what I say has not been said already in this thread, often by multiple posters all saying the same thing.

2. I think we can assume (a) that the SFO have heard of the fact that the PL has charged us, and (b) if the SFO had swooped in to confiscate City's laptops we'd have heard about it. I suppose you can draw your own conclusions from that.

3. What the PL is alleging, in essence, is that the contract between Al Jazira and RM was a sham, invented to cover additional remuneration actually paid to RM by MCFC. I don't see why City would have paid him in that way. There is a lot of logic in saying to a friendly club in AD 'would you mind paying him a lot of money for a few days work' so he doesn't take a job somewhere else as we moved towards the end of the Hughes era. But that doesn't make that contract a sham. Things can be artificial without being a sham. I don't see any reason why we would have disguised RM's income beyond that.

More importantly, I don't see how you can say 'that contract between RM and AJ was a sham' without hearing from RM and AJ and scrutinising the accounts of both. I agree RM's input would be extremely important in that respect. And like you, I have never heard RM say 'Oh no, I never went to Al Jazirah, that was just a smokescreen to hide how much money I was being paid by City.' And if he'd ever said that, I think it would have leaked.

Point 3, whilst in isolation may raise an eyebrow, I simply can’t see how it will not struggle to be proven.

Firstly, as you say, “Why?”… why would we worry about paying an extra £1.75m salary? FFP had only just been agreed and we’d been busy spending in the transfer market. It doesn’t really make sense.

Then you have to look at precedent. RM was out of work anyway and is believed to have agreed to a 5m euro settlement with inter for being sacked with 4 years remaining on his contract, that would equate to 1.25m euro a year (let’s assume he was earning a bit more but gave a “little” to settle) so his salary of £1.45m is certainly comparable to that. There was a rumour he was entitled to 16m euro but there is no way anyone would give up 11m euro if they were entitled, that feels more like the bonus clauses but these can’t really be proven as loses incurred due to breach of contract you wouldn’t pursue them - in addition he had bonuses worth up to £4m with us so again seems comparable.

 

[Centurions]

Re read it

Which bit? The bit where you think we should all report our own club to the police for fraud or the bit where we should all write to our MP's (mine is an MSP so I'd love to see their reaction), although I'm slightly confused as to what we're supposed to tell them.

 

[Berts Neck]

:)

1. Some is publicly available, some is my own analysis. Eg the breakdown of the charges is how I group the charges in my own mind. There are other ways of grouping the charges - issue by issue, year by year, but the three themes I have chosen seem to me the most logical breakdown. Others may have very valid reasons for disagreeing.

Very little however of what I say has not been said already in this thread, often by multiple posters all saying the same thing.

2. I think we can assume (a) that the SFO have heard of the fact that the PL has charged us, and (b) if the SFO had swooped in to confiscate City's laptops we'd have heard about it. I suppose you can draw your own conclusions from that.

3. What the PL is alleging, in essence, is that the contract between Al Jazira and RM was a sham, invented to cover additional remuneration actually paid to RM by MCFC. I don't see why City would have paid him in that way. There is a lot of logic in saying to a friendly club in AD 'would you mind paying him a lot of money for a few days work' so he doesn't take a job somewhere else as we moved towards the end of the Hughes era. But that doesn't make that contract a sham. Things can be artificial without being a sham. I don't see any reason why we would have disguised RM's income beyond that.

More importantly, I don't see how you can say 'that contract between RM and AJ was a sham' without hearing from RM and AJ and scrutinising the accounts of both. I agree RM's input would be extremely important in that respect. And like you, I have never heard RM say 'Oh no, I never went to Al Jazirah, that was just a smokescreen to hide how much money I was being paid by City.' And if he'd ever said that, I think it would have leaked.

Thank you so much..I guess from your and other comments, it is not as bad as it appears..no doubt we will get a token fine..just wish to say your piece on the other thread was very informative and summed the case up concisely.
I suspect the longer this goes on , the weaker the PL case, as the Everton NF situation is that much clearer.

 

[Moss Side's Finest]

Would it not look better on our part if hmrc had a look through our books and said everything was tickety boo? Surely it would show this whole shit show up for the witch hunt it clearly is

You're forgetting that every transaction involved will have been audited at some point or other by approved external auditors. As much as the media will have you think, we aren't opperated like some shady cash only backstreet shop

 

[argyle]

Would it not look better on our part if hmrc had a look through our books and said everything was tickety boo? Surely it would show this whole shit show up for the witch hunt it clearly is

This is the same argument that Carragher has said.

Our evidence is our published accounts.

We don't have to do anything else as we're innocent until proven otherwise.

It's for the PL and their barristers to show what evidence they have they says our accounts are false.