PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Gordyola said:
The Premier League decided that they wouldn’t have a title sponsor, after the Barclays deal expired, as it could conflict any sponsor that one of the members could recruit eg. Barclays conflict the scousers money laundering bank sponsors Also Mansour doesn’t have any business interest Etihad
Click to expand...
Given the financial predicament the PL now have with legal costs I wonder if a Sheikh M loan similar to his old Barclay's loan would be possible.
Perhaps the rule you mention excludes it but my point is that the PL is running out of money so why not borrow like Man U?

Debt seems to be accepted FOR PL members but investment frowned upon. Time for them to practice what they preach rather than complain about funds running out
 
The line from the Overlap that everyone is coming out saying that Carrager said - City can't have a bigger revenue than Real Madrid, Man United, Barcelona etc

Well we're regularly in the latter stages of the champions league where all the money is at. United are a Europa League club these days, Barca's finances are in a mess, and we've never reported to have had a bigger revenue than Real Madrid so that's just a lie thats now being taken as truth.
 
IrishBlueSince92 said:
The line from the Overlap that everyone is coming out saying that Carrager said - City can't have a bigger revenue than Real Madrid, Man United, Barcelona etc

Well we're regularly in the latter stages of the champions league where all the money is at. United are a Europa League club these days, Barca's finances are in a mess, and we've never reported to have had a bigger revenue than Real Madrid so that's just a lie thats now being taken as truth.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I found this article interesting. Of course no direct correlation to revenue but interesting nevertheless.

barcauniversal.com

Former star highlights differences between how Barcelona and Man City operate

Claudio Bravo, a former Barcelona goalkeeper, recently made some surprising comments about his time at the club and how the club operates compared to Manchester City. Since leaving Real Betis, Bravo has been without a club, but that has not stopped him from sharing his opinions on the clubs...
barcauniversal.com barcauniversal.com
 
hammocity said:
Correct, when Bobby left Inter City put him on a contract to advise AD football until the following season.

However Hughes failed badly so Mancini's appointment was brought forward, his contract is not something we're all privy to but there's no way the PL can prove Bobby's original contract or his renegotiated one was in any way dodgy.
Click to expand...
My point is It literally doesn't matter if he had a second contract or not as the rules only state the manager must have a contract with termination clauses set out and that is it
 
terraloon said:
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 te panel members will be having to make.
Click to expand...
On point (1) there is no PL rule stipulating managers renumeration must be stated in full. For the players it does the manager it doesn't. So it ends there legal as that's the rules as written and City haven't broken them. It's that simple really
 
terraloon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thing that pisses me of about the whole thing is the other 19 pl aren't being investigated for you've 4 years going back decades as well.

How come the hate 9 wrote to CAS on headed arsenal paper didn't get charged with not acting in good faith rule ?

How come rags can do a deal with the pl of 75million to avoid failing ffp or whatever its called now. Yet other clubs can't do a deal and get docked points ?

The pl is bent as fuck thanks to the 3 red top American owners wanting their own way. Plus being American are racist against the middle east.

If City are guilty fair do's but I want to see the other 19 clubs investigated back decades as well. That's only fair.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
On point (1) there is no PL rule stipulating managers renumeration must be stated in full. For the players it does the manager it doesn't. So it ends there legal as that's the rules as written and City haven't broken them. It's that simple really
Click to expand...

There is no rule saying owners can't fund sponsorship, yet here we are.
 
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.