PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

According to the football finace expert on 5 live Monday night club, (sorry forgot his name), Mancini was alledgely receiving two wages concurrently. One official wage as City manager and another wage as manager of a team in Abu Dhabi. He was in Manchester throughout as the City manger and only the City wage was "declared".
Yeah but Bobby manc was a consultant for them and did all his work by word of mouth.
 
Again our clubs very existence is under threat, again the usual suspects are sharpening their knives.

Submitting their articles and talking as if guilt has been proven by the latest batch of nonsense.

All done because we upset the status quo the red clubs thought would last forever! Not forgetting a large dose of good old fashioned xenophobia/racism.

Let’s do what Manchester City and us as fans have always done and answer these cretins with our wholehearted support at every game and in every interaction with these morons.

Time to show them what our club means to us in every game until this latest FArce is ended once and for all…
 
The conclusion I drew from the Twitter Spaces chat was that either:
a) We have been incredibly stupid
Or
b) The Premier League are being incredibly stupid

Doesn’t look like there’s much room for middle ground.

It’s like accusing somebody of faking having some awful disease, you either catch the **** or you look like a ****.
 
Actually can't wait for the CL to start again.

The PL and it's corruption, cheating, selective VAR, creative timekeeping, bookings, penalties etc etc all generally favouring 2 fuckin Clubs can fuck right off.
Yep. Said it for ages. The PL was never holier than the CL throughout our spat with UEFA.
 
Think of all those 3.00pm kick offs
And no problem about getting away tickets to Nyde United and Radcliffe Borough!

Perhaps one of our legal eagles could elaborate but I've just had a quick read about limitation periods and they seem to be related more to contracts and deeds.

But the key thing is that a court won't unilaterally impose them; they have be used a defence. So A sues B under a contract that doesn't have an explicit limitation clause. B's defence is the event they're being sued over was more than 6 years ago. The court then decides whether that's a valid defence (there can be exceptions to the six-year rule n certain circumstances).

If you recall from the CAShearing, our first two lines of defence (which were about as effective as Cancelo's defending) were around the admissibility of the emails and the 6-year limitation. CAS dismissed the first but partly upheld the limitation defence, setting a limit to the period that could be reviewed.

I suspect, as I said, that it would suit the PL just fine if we were punished and challenged that in court, that we had to resort to a defence mainly involving a limitation period.
 
If you google Mancini Al Jazira you'll get 100 breakdowns from today explaining the details.

Also just for clarity, Al Jazira is a football club Sheikh Mansour owns. Al Jazeera is a TV Channel.

This Link will take you to the PDF of both contracts
Are you telling us you are using this as a proof source? I hope the PL legal team are at the same level, my 6year old grandson would wipe the floor with them.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.