cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 9,739
Looked again at this charge in light of some things yesterday
View attachment 128574
regarding "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"
None of Q7/Q8/P7/P8 required anything but disclosure of the managers contract (example here) - the rule did not say "full details" of manager remuneration/contracts (plural). It said merely:
View attachment 128576
It did not require disclosure of all agreements a shareholder may have directly or indirectly with the manager. That came in 21/22 in a new rule presumably because it was accepted that the drafting before did not capture such agreements.
View attachment 128578
In highly unique Mancini (hmmm) scenario, it is also interesting to consider the 1999-2004 saga between Ferguson and, shareholder, Magnier. Because in 2004, Ferguson entered into a £2.5m (net) settlement https://www.theguardian.com/football/2004/mar/09/newsstory.manchesterunited with the then 29% shareholder in United. This payment to the manager was never disclosed in United's accounts even though it would have represented approximately 8-10% of United's entire wage bill (grossed up). I guess the PL will want to go back and charge United if they prevail on Mancini...what?
View attachment 128577
Fucking hilarious isn’t it & not one of the sycophants who scan these pages will print it despite being handed an exclusive.