I'm With Stupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 May 2013
- Messages
- 20,275
VAR check............checking against Dulux colour chart...........red shirt, no violation!
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
I'm With Stupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 May 2013
- Messages
- 20,275
Lining himself up for the job when we get relegated.
Ah! The old John 'Budgie' Burridge plan, gifted from that Master of Footballing Arts & Sciences during his time at Wolves to be enjoyed, nay savoured by the rest of us mere mortal onlookers..
'Formations? Tactics? Well, we play to the 'W' plan.. if the ball comes into our area, we 'welly' it upfield as far as we can..!'
Genius. Pure, simple genius..
In the last PL accounts they had £1 billion quid in cash recorded in their current assets. They can afford to pay their legal bills.
No doubt the member clubs will be concerned by the size of the legal bills, but if the governing body is spoiling for a fight with its members then there are costs for doing that. All of the legal costs are going to pay the big fat lawyers fees that could instead be going to grass roots football.
The parasites are feeding off the PL carcass. Win or lose, the lawyers get paid and move on to their next case.
The PL have totally mismanaged the emergence of new money into the game. They've pandered to the old guard and thus created ridiculous rules on an iterative basis to try to snare the supposed nouveau riche clubs. What a bloody mess!
No doubt the member clubs will be concerned by the size of the legal bills, but if the governing body is spoiling for a fight with its members then there are costs for doing that. All of the legal costs are going to pay the big fat lawyers fees that could instead be going to grass roots football.
The parasites are feeding off the PL carcass. Win or lose, the lawyers get paid and move on to their next case.
The PL have totally mismanaged the emergence of new money into the game. They've pandered to the old guard and thus created ridiculous rules on an iterative basis to try to snare the supposed nouveau riche clubs. What a bloody mess!
Me too like the mafia of football
OrigamiNinja
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2008
- Messages
- 9,618
Only in football is change frowned upon. “You don’t have X history, so you’re not allowed to win things or earn more than Y club”. Can you imagine that being applied in other sectors? Apple nearly went bankrupt in the 90s. Amazon didn’t even exist until the mid 90s. Twitter…founded 2006, sold 16 years later for $44bn.
It blows my mind when you hear people like Spitty talking about football finance and how it’s impossible that City can earn more than Real Madrid and the rest. Football clubs from a business standpoint earn fuck all given their worldwide popularity. United talk about having 600m fans…ok, why isn’t your turnover in the multiple billions? There are thousands of companies around the world that 99.9% of people haven’t heard of, whose turnover will dwarf any football club. It tells you that football was/is crying out for visionaries who can take it to a new level but try to tell a United/Liverpool/Arsenal fan that the visionary is Mansour/City and they’ll be straight on their Amazon purchased Apple iPad to tell all and sundry on Twitter, that it’s impossible that PL and CL winners Manchester City can earn a whole £160m more than Tottenham for the same accounting period. Tottenham.
Not saying that at all nor am I saying that it would be wrong for Mancini to have a standalone contract with another entity or indeed that Mancini’s company haven’t properly accounted for the income , in Italy, for tax purposes.
The issues are:
1) Was there within the PL / FA rules at that point a requirement for City to lodge at PL /FA full details of a managers remuneration package. Clearly the PL believe there was. I personally haven’t tracked the matter back through historical rule books but it would seem the PL are confident there was such a requirement and yes I know but on that I am working on the basis that the PL have got that right. So if the IC agree with the PL box then we move to 2) If there isn’t then the matter ends there
2) Moving on If the leaked emails are correct then( and note the word if) there clearly needs for an assessment to be made by the IC as to if the second contract was or wasn’t an designed to mask the true extent of the package paid by Man City for duties undertaken as Cities HC. People talk about the overall sums are so small as to be meaningless in the overall scheme of things and yes are but the question then is was it tax efficient to Mancini to have such an arrangement?
3) I am far from a legal expert but would doubt that if 1 is correct and 2 goes against City that any criminal court would suggest that the matter was fraud but the question was the matter an attempt to conceal the true extent of Mancini’s City wages, for whatever reason and if that again is assessed by the IC to be the case then their isn’t the limitations afforded by the the Limitations Act.
So sorry I don’t think that they are easy to disprove/ prove but back to the standard of proof required that judgement won’t be beyond reasonable doubt it will be assessed on the balance of probability. That doesn’t mean that the PL will even reach that standard hence why I keep repeating it’s an assessment that the panel members will be having to make.
Not just the newly promoted clubs, i shouldn't imagine that other teams are too happy about footing the bill for the red cartel's campaign.
dickie davies
Well-Known Member
See my above quoted post of when they tried to get out of paying for the player and lost at CAS