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.You must have missed my post from the other day. We can only go off past charges of non co-operation and there's only been one, Evertons. They were found guilty of it and were given a 4 point penalty deduction for it. Remember the commission said in the Everton's case that a financial penalty is not appropriate for rich teams only sporting sanctions will be considered (sounds like discrimination if you ask me). That was for Everton imagine how rich they consider City to be. Everton managed to get the 4 points back on appeal due to not actually being charged for it in the first place. This was a major fuck up from the Premier League and the original commission but I question whether they did this for preparation for our case (tin foil hat stuff maybe). So make no mistake about it if we're found guilty on the non coperation charges we will be deducted points it's just a question of how many.
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
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.
One of my favourite films ever!In other words…. View attachment 128534
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.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.
95 grand for Bobby Charlton to talk utter shiteLooked 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
Don't worry blue, they elected the Tarquins last year too.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.
This is it blue. I grew up saying "it's not even a stadium, bigger floodlights, brown envelopes, bacon face time, prawn sarnies etc".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.
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.