PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

Don’t think that’s the issue with the Mancini one, it’s the possibility that we were paying it.

You are right, of course. Maybe you will have more luck convincing him. I am out.

 

[terraloon]

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

If you look at my last post you will see that I talk about if there was a rule in place re disclosure of a managers remuneration.
If you then go to the allegations lodged by the PL is that there was indeed such rules in place for the first 2 years it was ruleQ7&Q8 and in 2012/13 it was re numbered P7&P8

I link rule P7 from the 24/25 rule book.

I repeat I haven’t looked at the rule books in place for the relevant 3 years but there most certainly is such a rule in place now

 

[meltonblue]

It still doesn't matter. The rule simply states a contract must exist that has termination clauses in place. That is it. It doesn't matter if city are paying an invoice to a separate company that has also hired Mancini. The rules don't mention how the manager is paid or anything stating full renumeration must be lodged. Basically shoddy rules. If that's what the PL wanted to happen with the rules than they should have written them like that. That's not city's fault whatsoever

That may well be our defence for it although I seem to remember something referencing full renumeration, can’t remember when that came in though. I was pointing out what the potential issue was though rather than saying whether it was valid or not.

 

[slbsn]

If you look at my last post you will see that I talk about if there was a rule in place re disclosure of a managers remuneration.
If you then go to the allegations lodged by the PL is that there was indeed such rules in place for the first 2 years it was ruleQ7&Q8 and in 2012/13 it was re numbered P7&P8

I link rule P7 from the 24/25 rule book.

I repeat I haven’t looked at the rule books in place for the relevant 3 years but there most certainly is such a rule in place now

The point is the 24/25 rule only serves to highlight the differences between now and then.

 

[Ric]

 

[halfcenturyup]

That may well be our defence for it although I seem to remember something referencing full renumeration, can’t remember when that came in though. I was pointing out what the potential issue was though rather than saying whether it was valid or not.

The new rule was after 2012/13 iirc, after Mancini had left, so I don't think the club has a problem with a literal reading of the contract he had with the club.

I think the more serious allegation, although unlikely to succeed imo, is that, because the club apparently made some payments to Mancini for the AJ contract and was apparently involved in negotiating the AJ contract, the club should have included the AJ remuneration in his club contract and, because they didn't, knowingly understated expenses in the accounts (the first tranche of allegations along, probably, with Fordham and Toure).

Does that make sense?

 

[meltonblue]

The new rule was after 2012/13 iirc, after Mancini had left, so I don't think the club has a problem with a literal reading of the contract he had with the club.

I think the more serious allegation, although unlikely to succeed imo, is that, because the club apparently made some payments to Mancini for the AJ contract and was apparently involved in negotiating the AJ contract, the club should have included the AJ remuneration in his club contract and, because they didn't, knowingly understated expenses in the accounts (the first tranche of allegations along, probably, with Fordham and Toure).

Does that make sense?

Yes and exactly my thinking too, said the same thing a while ago on this thread.

 

[mike1923]

Those clubs will always use the servicable debt reply to justify the amount of debt they are in. So it's OK to be over £1billion in debt as long as it is serviceable but not OK to spend money that you do have without going into debt.

‘sustainability’ - you can’t spend money you do have but you can spend money you don’t have

 

[eyalluvitt]

The new rule was after 2012/13 iirc, after Mancini had left, so I don't think the club has a problem with a literal reading of the contract he had with the club.

I think the more serious allegation, although unlikely to succeed imo, is that, because the club apparently made some payments to Mancini for the AJ contract and was apparently involved in negotiating the AJ contract, the club should have included the AJ remuneration in his club contract and, because they didn't, knowingly understated expenses in the accounts (the first tranche of allegations along, probably, with Fordham and Toure).

Does that make sense?

All seems a very long time ago, the PL come across as a very bitter ex wife

 

[Father Paul]

Those clubs will always use the servicable debt reply to justify the amount of debt they are in. So it's OK to be over £1billion in debt as long as it is serviceable but not OK to spend money that you do have without going into debt.

Look its not really about financial sustainability but rather about preventing clubs gaining advantages via investment and indirectly capping expenditure on player recruitment.much the same way that Sleepy Joe's Inflation Reduction Act had fuck all to do with reducing inflation. The Yanky model of entering the lucrative PL market is based on leveraging large amounts of money to purchase a club. Effectively they use other people's money to dine out and then moan when someone who pays for their own food runs a better show. Not likely to end anytime soon sadly.