Champions again in 2012
Well-Known Member
I heard that the PL legal team have taken the case 'pro bono' which, i believe means they can avoid some corporation tax
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Bluesince1979
Well-Known Member
I was pointing out how stupid it was that we'd bribe the IC. If the rag genuinely believes that's the avenue we'd go down then why not bribe the PL, obviously he doesn't know how to use cognitive reasoning.
Has George Graham got that bag of used fivers
We are in agreement of how stupid the notion of bribery is full stop
Kinkys Left Foot
Well-Known Member
Even if they could run a fall back bad faith claim, it’d likely be time barred
Thanks fellas, ive long been of the opinion the matter will be time barred as long as City can provide evidence the contract was satisfactorily performed by both parties. I wouldn't have thought that was necessary under normal circumstances as City were not a direct party to the contract however did we not facilitate payment as a third party?The "good faith" breach only applies to the filing incorrect accounts allegations (also to non-cooperation after 2018). So I think what they are trying to say is that Mancini's consultancy agreement was clearly part of Mancini's salary and should have been included in the club's accounts. Because it wasn't, the accounts were wrong. It's pretty hard to prove that, I think, for a whole host of reasons and, in that case, the whole thing will probably be time limited anyway.
The breaches in respect of the manager remuneration rules (or the player remuneration rules for that matter) don't refer to the "good faith" breach so will probably just be a procedural issue with the PL. Did we comply with the rules as written? And I think the answer to that is clearly yes, especially after the Leicester judgment.
I think that's the situation, although it could all be bollocks :)
I was only pondering the thoughts of berkshire blue down the rabbit hole of "good faith".
I think the main issue here is not what the rags did it’s whether the rest of the clubs were made aware by the PL that they could also do the same? Or did they only tell the rags?
It seems pretty obvious to me that had the other clubs known they could, they would have. Why wouldn’t they?
Looks like preferential treatment to me.
Really wished (no offence to any of their fans) that Everton had relegated due to the points deduction.
This would have really ramped up if they could have given United this.
As they stayed up Everton may well get to use it to their advantage now, but if they had gone down this could have been huge.
Do you care whether City actually broke the rules or there’s we just get cleared of the charges?
For me it’s prove them or do one.
In some ways I’d rather we were guilty but got away with it.
As I don't agree with the rules I couldn't give a fuck as they were only created to stop our progress. I actually don't think they're legal anyway but unfortunately nobody challenged them in the same way Bosman did players contracts.
They also get around 30 million per year deductible costs like infrastructure, women's football, community and youth.
The bigger question is why the Ratcliffe acquisition costs were deductible. I am not sure if there has ever been an instance of costs being deducted except for those four categories. Maybe there has been?
I’m not sure if it has before and if not that is clearly wrong.
However if it has I do think that is the correct position to take.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 10,931
Thanks fellas, ive long been of the opinion the matter will be time barred as long as City can provide evidence the contract was satisfactorily performed by both parties. I wouldn't have thought that was necessary under normal circumstances as City were not a direct party to the contract however did we not facilitate payment as a third party?
I was only pondering the thoughts of berkshire blue down the rabbit hole of "good faith".
Yes, we don't know much about the payments of the contract out of the club's bank account. But payments themselves mean nothing. It's the accounting of them that is important. Credit went to the bank account. But where did the debit go? Only one of two places realistically. Balance sheet as a receivable from AJ, or profit and loss as an expense. If the latter, what is the PL's problem? If the former, the payments mean nothing.
Anyway it doesn't matter, I don't think. It's the intent behind the AJ contract the PL is challenging. And good luck with that :)
Centurions
Well-Known Member
I very much care if they did with two exceptions, the non-cooperation charges given the PL are acting on others behalf and anything with "in good faith" appended as that's purely subjective rather than objective and can mean anything they like (or are told to like).Do you care whether City actually broke the rules or there’s we just get cleared of the charges?
For me it’s prove them or do one.
In some ways I’d rather we were guilty but got away with it.
Great response to that irritating bellend Ian Darke
oh fuck not this ian drag **** again, the most irritating thick **** on tv with a punchable voice and fuck a face. This **** gets personal with anything man city related