If City paid him, and it should have been reported but wasn’t, then that’s not good.How about if MCFC had paid Mancini direct for part of his Al Jazira contract from a MCFC account? Would that be within the scope of City's accounts in terms of how it was accounted for?
NB The Mancini contract is the least of our worries and, in the words of the boffins on here is inmaterial anyway.
Mancini will be a dead end for the PL, simple as...Who brought Mancini up in 2013? Who brought Mancini up in 2018?
Who settled it in 2013? Who settled it in 2018?
If you are referring to UEFA, the settlement was 2014 and Mancini wasn't part of the settlement.
If you are referring to CAS2 in 2020, Mancini wasn't mentioned anywhere and there certainly wasn't a settlement.
And also are you really saying there is a question as to whether Mancini forms part of the PL allegations? I'd suggest you read the opening post of this very long thread and read the PL allegation sheet under 2a. After you have done that do you have any other suggestions for who our manager might have been.
Literally you could be right :)
But I have a funny feeling "contracts" might be referring to City and al Jazira...
2. In respect of:
(a) each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2012/13 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2009/10 to 2011/12 inclusive, Premier League Rules Q.7 and Q.8; and
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules P.7 and P.8; and
How about if MCFC had paid Mancini direct for part of his Al Jazira contract from a MCFC account? Would that be within the scope of City's accounts in terms of how it was accounted for?
NB The Mancini contract is the least of our worries and, in the words of the boffins on here is inmaterial anyway.
I agree with you!
The contraction indicates that City were required to provide details of THE CLUB’S remuneration. Money that he may or not have made via contracts with non-CFG entities appear to be outside the scope of the request and rules.
Even if Etihad Airways had paid him $100M, it’s none of City’s business and isn’t within the scope of City’s accounts.
The assumption appears to be that City either were a party to this other lucrative contract or that it should have somehow been included. I disagree. It is separate, distinct and is akin to a player’s boot contract…none of City’s business!
It’s nothing more than a fucking fishing expedition.If City paid him, and it should have been reported but wasn’t, then that’s not good.
I’ve no doubt there are hooks in the water. Lets hope City are not on the dinner plate.It’s nothing more than a fucking fishing expedition.
Not a chance. We're in the kitchen with a huge carving knife serving these fuckers up with relish.I’ve no doubt there are hooks in the water. Lets hope City are not on the dinner plate.
anybody who takes anything from a poll set up to prove what they want believes 1 in 4 of the worlds population supports manchester united.I made a post about the poll but deleted it because I didn't want to keep the thread off topic. But since there's no hope for this thread...
There's actually a fair question or two to be asked about the validity of that data. How was the poll conducted? How many people voted?
Since the page tells you nothing and there's separate buttons on the graph with the 3 answers on. I'm going to guess, the poll was conducted on that very yougov webpage(log in and vote?), that the majority of the population doesn't know exists. The start date is August 2019.
It's a logical assumption to make, that the vast majority of people who care enough to search that subject up, log-in and vote are the ones who are strongly against it. Those who are happy with it or don't care, will be in the minority by default because they haven't been looking to voice their opinions on it as much(human nature). The point being, I strongly doubt 61% of the UK feel that strongly about it, especially where the UAE are concerned IMO(football fans maybe). Since that's the one country in the whole region westerners immigrate to the most(how can that not count for something?). Although, this was not a specific question about the UAE either.
With that said, even if they went out canvassing on the streets, asking the same multiple choice question, most people aren't going to want to give an answer that makes it look as though they care more about money than human rights.
I wonder what the response would be if you asked leading questions that get to point of: If it's ok to have economic ties with China(most people can make peace with that), then why not the UAE? We've all seen the BBC use the same tricks on their website, to be able to say 'most people want Liverpool to win the league afterall'. Which was probably to try and change peoples minds, so their HYS moderators weren't so busy deleting all the comments saying otherwise, on their Liverpool fanzine style articles.
anybody who takes anything from a poll set up to prove what they want believes 1 in 4 of the worlds population supports manchester united.
we know the people on bluemoon who are on here to debate or should i say argue, i also know there are none city fans on here or should i say suspect are on here to drip their negativity and catch a few,
as for annabel tiffin i suspect she doesn't give a flying fuck about human rights but it looks good on her facebook page next to her israel/palestine/BLM/rainbow/ukraine/woke/gammon/trump/biden/vegan/meat is lovely whatever is flavour of the month flag .