PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I'm about to ask a question at risk of sounding completely thick, but it's been on my mind.

If the hearing is expected to last 10-12 weeks, yet we're told that if they can't prove fraud/concealment/conspiracy stuff then the rest will likely be time barred - would it be seen as a negative sign if the case does indeed last this long?

IE, would we cautiously hoping this is far shorter because the main allegations haven't been proven so the rest is time-barred and not discussed at length, or would the case going on as long point to a negative for us that they have potentially/likely proven the substantive stuff?

Sorry - I know there's probably an obvious answer to this, but just something which has crossed my mind so thought I'd ask those with experience of this sort of stuff how that would work.

Depends on what they deal with when, and how. Hearing rules might be sui generis, although likely to echo how the civil courts operate. Might be up to the chair what order to deal with things, although terminatory applications would normally be taken at start of play.

They may adjust the timetable too if the tribunal are booked out for those 12 weeks. Introduce a few ‘reading days’. Sitting for shorter hours. Taking the odd days off because one of the tribunal cannot sit, for fairly nebulous reasons. Covid!

Loads of ways to stretch it out.

 

[Kippaxpete]

Depends on what they deal with when, and how. Hearing rules might be sui generis, although likely to echo the CPR.

Although terminatory applications would normally be taken at start of play.

They may adjust the timetable too if the tribunal are booked out for those 12 weeks. Introduce a few ‘reading days’. Sitting for shorter hours. Taking the odd days off because one of the tribunal cannot sit, for fairly nebulous reasons. Covid!

Loads of ways to stretch it out.

Come on man! You can't drop in a term like 'sui generis' without an explanation. Show off!
; )

 

[Champions again in 2012]

A bit tongue in cheek and unlikely I know but a similar possibility if Sheikh M could get control of the big loan the Glazers have.

Banks do it all the time and our owner made a lot of money lending to Barclay's some time ago.

I prefer that idea.Get control of the Glazers debt on united and then call it in, thus pulling the rug from under their feet. The piss boiling would be awesome. I am sure we would get a premier league, acting in bad faith charge, but hey who would give a flying feck :-)

 

[ayrshire_blue]

Thanks, @gordondaviesmoustache. Understood, I think!

 

[Deblueded]

I'm about to ask a question at risk of sounding completely thick, but it's been on my mind.

If the hearing is expected to last 10-12 weeks, yet we're told that if they can't prove fraud/concealment/conspiracy stuff then the rest will likely be time barred - would it be seen as a negative sign if the case does indeed last this long?

IE, would we cautiously hoping this is far shorter because the main allegations haven't been proven so the rest is time-barred and not discussed at length, or would the case going on as long point to a negative for us that they have potentially/likely proven the substantive stuff?

Sorry - I know there's probably an obvious answer to this, but just something which has crossed my mind so thought I'd ask those with experience of this sort of stuff how that would work.

I am running the risk of chatting out my arse but would think that they have allotted 12 weeks to cover the case in its entirety and they would make no judgements or findings until that has finished. So the Premier League will try to prove concealment and City will try to argue it is time barred. And then they will cover the meat of the allegations. When it's finished, the IC will consider everything.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Come on man! You can't drop in a term like 'sui generis' without an explanation. Show off!
; )

It's like chow mein.

(Apologies - oldie from my law days)

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Thanks, @gordondaviesmoustache. Understood, I think!

It would be most likely a positive sign if it was foreshortened, but I wouldn’t be especially concerned if it was not.

And where has the 10-12 week time estimate come from? Most likely made up by some **** in the press!

 

[terraloon]

ah so you're applying 2024/25 rules to 2009 to 2013 charges. I see where you've gone completely wrong.

here's the actual rule from the handbooks in question for the period.

View attachment 133095

As you can clearly see this is a slam dunk for city as it doesn't mention anything about renumeration or not having seperate contracts whatsoever. Case closed

Where did I say that the 24/25 rule would be applied to the years in question? Indeed I thought I had made it clear that reference would have to be made to the rules in place at the time.


However since you quote the rule surely 7.1 that can only be read that the contract that is registered has to reflect the total sums paid in respect of duties carried out by in this instance Mancini at Man City by my reading the PL are clearly suggesting / claiming that the City contract lodged giving details of agreed remuneration as per the City contract but said contract doesn’t fully record all sums paid for his duties at City they are claiming ,to use others words the parallel contract is ,“ a sham”

As I keep saying the IC will be required to take a view and sorry I very much doubt it is a slam dunk as you suggest it will be down to the panels view

 

[cheekybids]

View attachment 133091

Ffs Omar, don’t blow your cover!

 

[terraloon]

Here's what it says in the PL Rules for 2011/12, when Mancini was in place for the season:

Contracts of Employment and Registration
7. No Club shall employ any person as a Manager unless and until:
7.1 the terms of the Manager’s employment have been evidenced in a written contract of
employment between the Club and the Manager; and
7.2 the Manager’s contract of employment has been registered with the Secretary.

Contents of Contracts of Employment
8. Contracts of employment between a Club and a Manager shall:
8.1 include the standard clauses set out in Appendix 8;
8.2 clearly set out the circumstances in which the contract of employment may be
determined by either party.

Nothing in there about full details of remuneration. There are rules about declaring material transactions over £25k so if City paid Mancini under his Al Jazira contract and didn't declare it as a material transaction, there's chance we may have broken that rule, but we haven't been charged under that rule so that's immaterial. It's those rules above P7 and P8, that we have been charged with breaching.

Your right it doesn’t but how do you read in 7.1 the requirements to detail “the terms of the managers employment”
I take it you are suggesting that doesn’t require details of remuneration whereas the PLs view has to be that by terms they do in fact mean remuneration is included