PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
The PL may have asked the club for information from AJ and Mancini but City said they were unable to provide it. The PL can't just ask third parties for information directly, as I understand it, they can only ask City to provide it "when able to do so". Which is the biggest problem they have with all the allegations I think and, I would imagine, the main element of their non-cooperation allegation.
Click to expand...

Mancini has said he would have been happy to talk to them.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
As you well know, you don't use a witness who can harm your case more than they can help it. I can't believe they expect to land the Mancini-related charges.

Given the outcome at CAS, I also can't believe they expect they can land the sponsorship charges. If I'm right that they knew about Fordham back in 2015, and neither UEFA nor the PL did anything at the time or subsequently, then they surely can't be confident they can land that either. So why do this?

We've speculated that it's just to damage our reputation, which looks more and more like a rational explanation, plus they might hope to get us on the non-cooperation allegations. Given the cost of this to the PL, if I was one of the non-cartel member clubs of the PL, I'd be asking some very searching questions once this is over.
Click to expand...

Agree that I can't see the PL landing any of the main charges (with the possible exception of Toure which I don't know much about but is small anyway).

On the reason for pursuing the allegations, do you think there is any merit in my view that, at the end, they had no choice? They had investigated for four years and City were presumably withholding key external evidence, so they had a choice: drop the investigation which would set a terrible precedent, or refer the allegations knowing that the external evidence will disprove them when it is provided which would be a terrible result for the cost involved.

There are questions around the investigation and why and when it was carried out, but for the decision to eventually refer the allegations I am not sure they had a choice.

I have said before I think the club know exactly what they are doing, and have the PL exactly where they want them on this whole thing. Clever stuff.

Or maybe it's all bollocks. Interested in your view, though.
 
halfcenturyup said:
My point in the discussion I was having (iirc, it was a while ago) was that we can't just look at the literal wording of P7 and P8 and then say Mancini isn't a problem. There is, indeed, the issue of sham contract and accounting.

Yes, of course the burden of proof is on the PL, but there is evidence available in the leaked documents that would suggest the club were involved in negotiating and paying the AJ contract. Enough, I would imagine, for the Panel at least to consider the possibility of finding for the PL on the balance of probabilities. It seems to me the club have to counter that and they will quite easily and quite comprehensively by showing how the contract was separate, how it was fulfilled and accounted for internally and externally and by providing witness statements from third parties.

As for Mancini and AJ, the PL has the same problem they have for Etihad and Etisalat, as I understand it. They don't have access. All they can do is ask the club to provide third party information "when able to do so".

Perfectly willing to admit I may be wrong on any of that, though, as always. I am (thank God) no lawyer and am here to learn :)
Click to expand...
If I may say so, the error here is to assume that the artificial and the sham are synonymous. There is however a world of difference between the two. Imagine the scenario plays out like this.

City have it in mind that they will be sacking Hughes’s before too long and think Mancini is their go-to guy. Mancini says “if you want me, hire me, otherwise I’m on the market and may be in another job by the time you decide you do want me.” City, not wanting to take that chance, says this; “our owner also owns a club in the UAE. They will pay you for a modest amount of consultancy work until the time is right.” Mancini looks at his severance packet from Inter and thinks “that works.”

All That might be wholly artificial but it is certainly not a sham. A sham is where two people sign a contract that neither of whom intend to be bound by. I think if anyone had asked Mancini he would very much have intended that he would be paid.

When AJ entered into the contract with Mancini HHSM and his advisers may have had their eye on what would happen if/when Hughes got the axe. That does not make it concealment for remuneration under a contract between a club MCFC don’t own and a manager City don’t employ not to feature in MCFC accounts.
 
Chris in London said:
If I may say so, the error here is to assume that the artificial and the sham are synonymous. There is however a world of difference between the two. Imagine the scenario plays out like this.

City have it in mind that they will be sacking Hughes’s before too long and think Mancini is their go-to guy. Mancini says “if you want me, hire me, otherwise I’m on the market and may be in another job by the time you decide you do want me.” City, not wanting to take that chance, says this; “our owner also owns a club in the UAE. They will pay you for a modest amount of consultancy work until the time is right.” Mancini looks at his severance packet from Inter and thinks “that works.”

All That might be wholly artificial but it is certainly not a sham. A sham is where two people sign a contract that neither of whom intend to be bound by. I think if anyone had asked Mancini he would very much have intended that he would be paid.

When AJ entered into the contract with Mancini HHSM and his advisers may have had their eye on what would happen if/when Hughes got the axe. That does not make it concealment for remuneration under a contract between a club MCFC don’t own and a manager City don’t employ not to feature in MCFC accounts.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I suppose it's the contract equivalent of @Prestwich_Blue 's argument that not everything accounting is fraudulent just because you don't agree with it. Makes sense to me.

More to the point: do you never sleep?
 
Last edited:
Chris in London said:
If I may say so, the error here is to assume that the artificial and the sham are synonymous. There is however a world of difference between the two. Imagine the scenario plays out like this.

City have it in mind that they will be sacking Hughes’s before too long and think Mancini is their go-to guy. Mancini says “if you want me, hire me, otherwise I’m on the market and may be in another job by the time you decide you do want me.” City, not wanting to take that chance, says this; “our owner also owns a club in the UAE. They will pay you for a modest amount of consultancy work until the time is right.” Mancini looks at his severance packet from Inter and thinks “that works.”

All That might be wholly artificial but it is certainly not a sham. A sham is where two people sign a contract that neither of whom intend to be bound by. I think if anyone had asked Mancini he would very much have intended that he would be paid.

When AJ entered into the contract with Mancini HHSM and his advisers may have had their eye on what would happen if/when Hughes got the axe. That does not make it concealment for remuneration under a contract between a club MCFC don’t own and a manager City don’t employ not to feature in MCFC accounts.
Click to expand...

Wasn’t that what we were accused of on the Sunday Supplement when they said Mancini was in the stadium.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Safe in the knowledge they can't ask him directly? :)
Click to expand...

I still don’t know why you can’t ask a 3rd party a question. They aren’t obligated to answer but I see no problem in asking Mancini if he’d be happy to explain what his consultancy role was in the UAE. If he says no it’s a different matter but not approach is wrong.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Agree that I can't see the PL landing any of the main charges (with the possible exception of Toure which I don't know much about but is small anyway).

On the reason for pursuing the allegations, do you think there is any merit in my view that, at the end, they had no choice? They had investigated for four years and City were presumably withholding key external evidence, so they had a choice: drop the investigation which would set a terrible precedent, or refer the allegations knowing that the external evidence will disprove them when it is provided which would be a terrible result for the cost involved.

There are questions around the investigation and why and when it was carried out, but for the decision to eventually refer the allegations I am not sure they had a choice.

I have said before I think the club know exactly what they are doing, and have the PL exactly where they want them on this whole thing. Clever stuff.

Or maybe it's all bollocks. Interested in your view, though.
Click to expand...

They set precedents all the time. Liverpool / City hacking was considered too old & resolved. Surely that’s the same precedent as an allegation from 2009 & an investigation cleared by CAS.

The question is despite this being so old, investigated by CAS was there still an appetite to charge, embarrass, damage your own product with little opportunity for success.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.