PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

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

An amusing anecdote for sure. But can you really imagine the PL has any significant chance on this Mancini issue? I am not even sure why that allegation is in there. I suppose they can only be suggesting the AJ contract was a sham and so they "deem" it to be part of his club salary which then should have been included in his contract with City, as was disclosed to them. Also that it was done deliberately to conceal that part of his salary for some reason which would have to be clear, convincing and appeal to reason moreso than the counter-argument otherwise it is all time-limited anyway. That is all pretty convoluted and a huge stretch, imho, bearing in mind the lack of FFP at the time. Especially considered against the much more simple counter-argument, which will presumably be that it was done for Mancini's personal tax position.

And that is before drawing parallels to Chelsea's related party fixed asset sales. Everyone knows why Chelsea did what they did, to get around PSR rules, but it isn't specifically precluded by the rules so it's OK. There is surely no planet on which they can make the above case in the same year as Chelsea have "got away with it" (to the tune of tens of millions) and ask the IP to punish City for doing something so immaterial that wasn't specifically precluded by the rules at the time?

I have a degree of sympathy with the PL for making the other allegations (Etihad and Etisalat, for example) despite what we know from CAS if the club has chosen not to provide them with external evidence. But this one, I don't get.

 

[Newman Noggs]

And that will fit the narrative perfectly. We didn't cooperate, because we had things to hide so we hid them. Therefore we are corrupt and "we told you so". The media pile-on continues unabated and all of our achievements, successes and reputation are forever tarnished. I could see a 15 to 20-point deduction, reduced to 10 on appeal. Mission accomplished by the red-shirted cartel clubs and the PL.

Our achievements are only "tarnished" by rival fans. Let them have it. I "tarnish" anything united have won because they simply bought their success by being the richest club, I "tarnish" any success liverpool have achieved by the fact that they should have been disbanded after Heysel, I "tarnish" anything Arsenal have achieved by calling them the most boring bastards English football has ever seen and I "tarnish" Spurs' achievements because....er....they don't exist in living memory.

 

[M18CTID]

In other words…. View attachment 128534

One of my favourite films ever!

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

An amusing anecdote for sure. But can you really imagine the PL has any significant chance on this Mancini issue? I am not even sure why that allegation is in there. I suppose they can only be suggesting the AJ contract was a sham and so they "deem" it to be part of his club salary which then should have been included in his contract with City, as was disclosed to them. Also that it was done deliberately to conceal that part of his salary for some reason which would have to be clear, convincing and appeal to reason moreso than the counter-argument otherwise it is all time-limited anyway. That is all pretty convoluted and a huge stretch, imho, bearing in mind the lack of FFP at the time. Especially considered against the much more simple counter-argument, which will presumably be that it was done for Mancini's personal tax position.

And that is before drawing parallels to Chelsea's related party fixed asset sales. Everyone knows why Chelsea did what they did, to get around PSR rules, but it isn't specifically precluded by the rules so it's OK. There is surely no planet on which they can make the above case in the same year as Chelsea have "got away with it" (to the tune of tens of millions) and ask the IP to punish City for doing something so immaterial that wasn't specifically precluded by the rules at the time?

I have a degree of sympathy with the PL for making the other allegations (Etihad and Etisalat, for example) despite what we know from CAS if the club has chosen not to provide them with external evidence. But this one, I don't get.

Wasn’t Mancini in some sort of period where he couldn’t work for other clubs managing from his exit from Inter Milan? Mansour sticking him on a retainer elsewhere wasn’t hiding Mancini working with City from Uefa and the PL, instead it was other clubs.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

An amusing anecdote for sure. But can you really imagine the PL has any significant chance on this Mancini issue? I am not even sure why that allegation is in there. I suppose they can only be suggesting the AJ contract was a sham and so they "deem" it to be part of his club salary which then should have been included in his contract with City, as was disclosed to them. Also that it was done deliberately to conceal that part of his salary for some reason which would have to be clear, convincing and appeal to reason moreso than the counter-argument otherwise it is all time-limited anyway. That is all pretty convoluted and a huge stretch, imho, bearing in mind the lack of FFP at the time. Especially considered against the much more simple counter-argument, which will presumably be that it was done for Mancini's personal tax position.

And that is before drawing parallels to Chelsea's related party fixed asset sales. Everyone knows why Chelsea did what they did, to get around PSR rules, but it isn't specifically precluded by the rules so it's OK. There is surely no planet on which they can make the above case in the same year as Chelsea have "got away with it" (to the tune of tens of millions) and ask the IP to punish City for doing something so immaterial that wasn't specifically precluded by the rules at the time?

I have a degree of sympathy with the PL for making the other allegations (Etihad and Etisalat, for example) despite what we know from CAS if the club has chosen not to provide them with external evidence. But this one, I don't get.

As many posters have previously said, the process is the punishment (or at least part of it). Including the Mancini issue simply enables the myth of widespread “off the books” payments to circulate. Mancini himself has said he’s never been spoken to by the Premier League and that allegation is going nowhere - but it’s been very effective black propaganda.

 

[manimanc]

All this talk of points deductions is hilarious.

But do carry on if it floats your boat.

We have done nothing wrong apart from being well run, having a fantastic manager, winning trophies and most importantly keeping the red cartel from winning league's.

 

[GOULDYBOBS]

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

95 grand for Bobby Charlton to talk utter shite

It's alright mate, I feel the same.
Five in a row will be fought at every angle by every corner of the media. Already the narrative is about "two-time runners up Arsenal pushing Manchester City". The media has clearly chosen their champions elect, and until these charges are settled it will follow the players and fans around every game.

I suppose it's one of the reasons i've been hoping for the positive news about City suing the PL being announced already; something to go into battle with against the dimwitted. Having the same conversation over and over, raising the factual points with others gets tedious. Talk of "115" is going to dominate any football discussion about City from now until January and it's genuinely getting boring talking about it. So, like you, I don't have much enthusiasm about this season, expecting TV coverage to mention 115 at least ten times during matches, whilst watching Haaland miss another sitter.

It just feels like limbo. Manchester City right now are about the "115 charges", not about how well they play football.

Don't worry blue, they elected the Tarquins last year too.

 

[GOULDYBOBS]

Our achievements are only "tarnished" by rival fans. Let them have it. I "tarnish" anything united have won because they simply bought their success by being the richest club, I "tarnish" any success liverpool have achieved by the fact that they should have been disbanded after Heysel, I "tarnish" anything Arsenal have achieved by calling them the most boring bastards English football has ever seen and I "tarnish" Spurs' achievements because....er....they don't exist in living memory.

This is it blue. I grew up saying "it's not even a stadium, bigger floodlights, brown envelopes, bacon face time, prawn sarnies etc".
Any chance of snipering them I took it.
That's all these dead heads are doing now.

I couldn't care less what the tik tok generation have to say about our great club.

If you argue with an idiot, there are two idiots.
Half of these pricks have never set foot at home let alone an away ground.
They count soccer aid at Old Scaffold.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Wasn’t Mancini in some sort of period where he couldn’t work for other clubs managing from his exit from Inter Milan? Mansour sticking him on a retainer elsewhere wasn’t hiding Mancini working with City from Uefa and the PL, instead it was other clubs.

That is a story that has circulated. I think it is generally accepted that Mancini couldn't sign with another club for a period post-Inter without losing his pay-off, but I don't think a contract has ever been found between him and AJ before he signed for City. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, of course. On the other hand, it doesn't explain why it would have been continued while he was at City, unless it was to add weight to the validity of the pre-City contract, or that Mancini rather liked getting a sizable portion of his remuneration, presumably, tax-free.

 

[CC1]

Whilst that thought does linger in my head. Agree the pl is bent no doubt about that.
But when you look at things with a calm head, the thought of serious business people willing to risk their reputations for little City doesnt make sence. These aren't just serious business people in their own country but on the world stage.
They have invested billions into the UK, Etihad Airways were really smart in sponsor of City both companies have grown because of this.

The pl is run by small fry people who don't understand big business. Masters is totally out of his depth, 5th choice for the job after being vetted by dippers and rags.

Part of me thinks the pl HAVE to find City guilty because if they don't the damage to the pl could be final. Have the pl really gone ahead even after CAS because the 3 red tops +1 have wanted this ?
If so it shows how weak the chairman of the pl is. But he was vetted by two of those clubs.

The American owners are a real threat to our game. They take money out of the game, they don't invest much into the clubs. They want a closed shop league. They want games played in American.

The one thing that does confuse me is that other fans can't see this manager.

I believe in our owner and our club, we are hated because our owners are not white American, it is that simple.

This non cooperation shit is farcical, who can you give our all your books and information when you know its going straight to the 3 red tops +1. How ?

The pl do 'kick it out' in October, the pl shirt have kick out racism of the shirts. But the pl do fuck all to stop racism aimed at clubs and club owners.

I believe City are 100% innocent do I believe the IC will agree with me 50/50. I don't trust the pl and I don't trust an IC.

Exactly. Good summary