It was part of the regs that we had to send in Mancini's contract to the Premier League secretary. The contract with Al Jazeera (sp?) would have been irrelevant then (except the De Spiegal leaks suggested City paid that or something).Technically speaking, we had no right to send Mancini’s contract with Mansour’s club to the PL nor to report his payments thereunder. Privity of contract.
I'd put to that too, great idea.This would be a good time for 1894 to put a massive banner together, in the style of those ultras things, like the one they did about UEFA, stating that FPP is to close the door on competition or something. It would get media coverage and state the club's case well. Arsenal would have been perfect. I'd contribute.
"FPP - Damaging the Many to Protect the Few" or "FPP - Closing The Drawbridge" with the badges of Liverpool and Arsenal in it os summat like that.
The Premier League have absolutely nothing on us. They are piggybacking the Uefa nonsense and are being cajoled by the red top wankers. That masters looks totally clueless, as if that fat fuckin ponce knows absolutely anything about us or football in fact.They didn’t dismiss them totally, they said they weren’t evidence enough due to the evidence we provided ourselves (in particular the witness statements). They did say that Uefa were right to charge us on the basis of those emails, and that we didn’t provide them with the evidence we subsequently did at CAS.
With the PL, there’s only really two scenarios I can think. One is that they’ve only gone off the emails and the subsequent leaks too, and we’ve taken a similar approach to Uefa in that we will only present all the evidence when it gets to the next stage. That would explain the non co-operation charges too. The one thing against that though is this time we’ve said we’ve already provided irrefutable proof, and the CAS judgment itself would be part of it. Either way though, if they have just done that, I expect a very similar outcome as to what we got at CAS.
The other is that the PL have some evidence that we just don’t know about. I’m very dubious about that though as I’m sure that would have made its way into the public domain at some point.
So you could say he's the master of puppets...I'll get me coat!The Premier League have absolutely nothing on us. They are piggybacking the Uefa nonsense and are being cajoled by the red top wankers. That masters looks totally clueless, as if that fat fuckin ponce knows absolutely anything about us or football in fact.
He's being pushed into doing this by the red mardarse pricks, remember they was the one's who voted this bellend in wasn't they?
They have absolute control over him, a proper puppet being told what to do by the skint, racist and clueless yanks.
The Premier League have absolutely nothing on us. They are piggybacking the Uefa nonsense and are being cajoled by the red top wankers. That masters looks totally clueless, as if that fat fuckin ponce knows absolutely anything about us or football in fact.
He's being pushed into doing this by the red mardarse pricks, remember they was the one's who voted this bellend in wasn't they?
They have absolute control over him, a proper puppet being told what to do by the skint, racist and clueless yanks.
Prem teams furious as Liverpool and United vet league CEO candidates
Liverpool and Manchester United have left their Premier League rivals furious after reportedly having had special access to weigh up the candidates to be new chief executive of the Premier League.www.dailymail.co.uk
He got the job because nobody else wanted it or to be exact they accepted it but resigned after realising something was amiss.
Then masters gets it because nobody else wants it.
The rest is history.
How would a club know what a manager was being paid by other unrelated parties and how can they be punished if they did not know ? And why is it anyone’s business other than perhaps the tax man. Why should the club inform the league and not the manager ? Why should the league know ? In other lines of work your bosses do not need to know or if they do it’s only if it’s a conflict of interest and they don’t need to tell anyone else. It’s only really an issue in regulated financial services and maybe a few other industriesIt was part of the regs that we had to send in Mancini's contract to the Premier League secretary. The contract with Al Jazeera (sp?) would have been irrelevant then (except the De Spiegal leaks suggested City paid that or something).
It's actually now the rule that we also have to provide details of any payments made to the manager from anyone else as well (P.7.3 in this years handbook)
Here's a screenshot of the rules we breached in the first 2 Mancini seasons. The rule the following year was the same just in section P.
View attachment 111654
The 22/23 rulebook when we were charged does have the rule that we have to list other payments made to the manager by other parties. Maybe they are using that criteria to charge us for not giving details of Mancini's other contract. OR they are alleging the other contract was a way to pay Mancini more whilst declaring less (although no one has provided a good reason why we would do that) OR they are saying we never sent them Mancinis contract OR they are saying we sent something in but it wasn't the contract under which Mancini was working
Alternatively Im an idiot and all this theory is false
A least 3 other were offered the role but turned it down.The Premier League have absolutely nothing on us. They are piggybacking the Uefa nonsense and are being cajoled by the red top wankers. That masters looks totally clueless, as if that fat fuckin ponce knows absolutely anything about us or football in fact.
He's being pushed into doing this by the red mardarse pricks, remember they was the one's who voted this bellend in wasn't they?
They have absolute control over him, a proper puppet being told what to do by the skint, racist and clueless yanks.
Prem teams furious as Liverpool and United vet league CEO candidates
Liverpool and Manchester United have left their Premier League rivals furious after reportedly having had special access to weigh up the candidates to be new chief executive of the Premier League.www.dailymail.co.uk
He got the job because nobody else wanted it or to be exact they accepted it but resigned after realising something was amiss.
Then masters gets it because nobody else wants it.
The rest is history.
There is a rule. It doesn't need a vote to push it through, because it existed when those clubs made their approach to CAS. It is Masters' job to enforce the rules. He conveniently overlooked them on this occasion.I am sure their is such a rule. You probably would need 14 clubs out of the 20 to push it though. It's another thing the gutter press wouldn't print.