PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[KS55]

No that was for Etisalat, which had a different payment structure when it was renewed anyway. We never argued there wasn’t an ADUG payment on behalf of Etisalat.

I’m too old for this: memory like a sieve nowadays. It used to be my strong point.

 

[meltonblue]

I’m too old for this: memory like a sieve nowadays. It used to be my strong point.

Ha! It’s still got the same end result - they’ll find it very very difficult to prove :)

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

They didn’t consider Mancini, Uefa didnt charge us about that. You’re right about the rest though.

Yes agreed - I made a supposition from memory and its been a while since I read the CAS Ruling

- it seems UEFA thought that was a nothing burger not worthy of including in their charges - seems to me they were aware of their own time barring but thought they could sneak the Etisalat issues under the proverbial limbo bar by conflating the date that the time barring ran from. I suspect they knew this was a "loser" and thats why no evidence was offered.

I think the limitation bits apply to the PL charges which seem to clearly involve the Mancini contract.

In addition pinched from Projectriver below the 12/13 Rules don't state anywhere the requirements mentioned in the "list of allegations" to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager

and City deny that the contract with Al Jazira was part of his City remuneration - good luck proving otherwise when there will be signed separate contracts and likely testimony that contract obligations were met.

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;

 

[meltonblue]

Yes agreed - I made a supposition from memory and its been a while since I read the CAS Ruling

- it seems UEFA thought that was a nothing burger not worthy of including in their charges - seems to me they were aware of their own time barring but thought they could sneak the Etisalat issues under the proverbial limbo bar by conflating the date that the time barring ran from. I suspect they knew this was a "loser" and thats why no evidence was offered.

I think the limitation bits apply to the PL charges which seem to clearly involve the Mancini contract.

In addition pinched from Projectriver below the 12/13 Rules don't state anywhere the requirements mentioned in the "list of allegations" to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager

and City deny that the contract with Al Jazira was part of his City remuneration - good luck proving otherwise when there will be signed separate contracts and likely testimony that contract obligations were met.

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;

View attachment 120884

Yep. Always thought with the Mancini one, unless his contract with City was a tenner a month or something, then it’s got sod all to do with them!

That might not be true if we were negotiating his contract with them directly too though.

 

[KS55]

Yep. Always thought with the Mancini one, unless his contract with City was a tenner a month or something, then it’s got sod all to do with them!

That might not be true if we were negotiating his contract with them directly too though.

Pearce etc merely ADVISED!

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Yep. Always thought with the Mancini one, unless his contract with City was a tenner a month or something, then it’s got sod all to do with them!

That might not be true if we were negotiating his contract with them directly too though.

I suspect its the contractual documentation that will win out.
Even if we brokered that contract, paid it separately (as long as the re-imbursements from Al-Jazira are equally documented), appropriate tax was paid by whoever, the PL cannot prove its a sham contract.

 

[Metalartin]

I am no lawyer, but I think I have deduced the exact law being referenced concerning time limitations, is the Limitation Act 1980. Where Section 7 states; an arbitration award may not be enforced more that 6 years from the date on which the cause of action accrued(charges brought forward?).

The concealment and fraud bit, is where I'm now confused because I thought that would lift any restrictions completely(the reason why the PL took 5 years to act and then went as far back as 2009/10).

And then there is this helpful site which shows this:

So a 6 year limit does still apply, the difference is the discovery date(Nov 2018) vs the date of official proceedings(charged Feb 2023). Is that about right? If that's the case, then anything before November 2012 would be outside the limitation period. I still hope City prove their case regardless, learn from CAS, leave the cretins in the press(and twitter) no room to avoid admitting defeat.

 

[meltonblue]

Pearce etc merely ADVISED!

It was Garry Cook, the emails I saw.

 

[meltonblue]

I suspect its the contractual documentation that will win out.
Even if we brokered that contract, paid it separately (as long as the re-imbursements from Al-Jazira are equally documented), appropriate tax was paid by whoever, the PL cannot prove its a sham contract.

Agreed.

 

[casserole of nonsense]

almost, its bottle and glass = class, it comes from boxing when a boxer loses his ability to duck and dive

I checked in my cockernee dictionary, whilst tearing it apart again, and turns out bottle (and glass) is used for both arse and class.