PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[LeonardoDaVnci]

i know nothing but i would have thought a stalemate is impossible. Either the PL can prove the allegations or they can't. Surely?

It's almost inevitable that it won't be a binary Guilty or Not Guilty. It will be a spectrum of judgments eg Etihad, Aabar sponsorships are cleared, ie all questions answered. Worst case scenario, the contested Etisalat £30m payment could be ruled as acting in bad faith, in one FY only. Hopefully all other Etisalat payments are completely cleared, there is nothing else about Etisalat that is contentious and in the public domain. If Mancini is considered as not time barred and he didn't set foot in Abu Dhabi in one specific FY, then once again that could be ruled bad faith, in one FY. The non cooperation charges can only lead to non sporting sanctions, so bollocks to them. It terns of severity of possible sporting sanction, I've always considered the weighing to be something like:-
Etihad 80% (£600m 10 year deal)
Etisalat 5%
Aabar 5%
Mancini 5%
Toure/Fordham 5%
Non cooperation 0%

 

[M18CTID]

correct but the rule is simply, does the manager have a contract or not. There's no mention of exact renumeration is needed or a second contract with a separate company is not allowed. So the mancini stuff is pretty much in the bin from the start. That's before the statute of limitations even needs considering

Yes, sorry mate - agree that it’s never been a smoking gun and it’s utterly laughable that they’ve thrown that one in.

 

[citizen_maine]

It's almost inevitable that it won't be a binary Guilty or Not Guilty. It will be a spectrum of judgments eg Etihad, Aabar sponsorships are cleared, ie all questions answered. Worst case scenario, the contested Etisalat £30m payment could be ruled as acting in bad faith, in one FY only. Hopefully all other Etisalat payments are completely cleared, there is nothing else about Etisalat that is contentious and in the public domain. If Mancini is considered as not time barred and he didn't set foot in Abu Dhabi in one specific FY, then once again that could be ruled bad faith, in one FY. The non cooperation charges can only lead to non sporting sanctions, so bollocks to them. It terns of severity of possible sporting sanction, I've always considered the weighing to be something like:-
Etihad 80% (£600m 10 year deal)
Etisalat 5%
Aabar 5%
Mancini 5%
Toure/Fordham 5%
Non cooperation 0%

As i understand it, there is nothing on the PL rules that deal with any other contract any manager has with another employer, so what Mancini did or didn't do as part of his other contract is moot?

 

[kaz7]

I would piss myself laughing if the only thing that sticks is the grass was too long

 

[Lord Blue]

It's almost inevitable that it won't be a binary Guilty or Not Guilty. It will be a spectrum of judgments eg Etihad, Aabar sponsorships are cleared, ie all questions answered. Worst case scenario, the contested Etisalat £30m payment could be ruled as acting in bad faith, in one FY only. Hopefully all other Etisalat payments are completely cleared, there is nothing else about Etisalat that is contentious and in the public domain. If Mancini is considered as not time barred and he didn't set foot in Abu Dhabi in one specific FY, then once again that could be ruled bad faith, in one FY. The non cooperation charges can only lead to non sporting sanctions, so bollocks to them. It terns of severity of possible sporting sanction, I've always considered the weighing to be something like:-
Etihad 80% (£600m 10 year deal)
Etisalat 5%
Aabar 5%
Mancini 5%
Toure/Fordham 5%
Non cooperation 0%

well i get that all the charges could have different outcomes. but i would have thought that each and every charge will either be proved or not. we may win some and we may lose some but no stalemate on any specific charge. i mean how would that even work?

 

[Stoned Rose]

well i get that all the charges could have different outcomes. but i would have thought that each and every charge will either be proved or not. we may win some and we may lose some but no stalemate on any specific charge. i mean how would that even work?

There won’t be any stalemates.

The PL will either prove any given charge or they won’t.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

As i understand it, there is nothing on the PL rules that deal with any other contract any manager has with another employer, so what Mancini did or didn't do as part of his other contract is moot?

Despite the LCFC ruling the PL will still have a go with "acting in bad faith", which to me is the PL saying "you should have to told us about Al Jirra". If I was on our legal team I would question the PL "If City had informed the PL about Al Jirra what precisely would the PL have done with that information?". They probably wouldn't want to reply "fuck all" but that is precisely what they did when they learnt about bacon face's racehorses given to him by the rag owners.

 

[remember arthur mann]

I would piss myself laughing if the only thing that sticks is the grass was too long

Lol.

 

[ysmsa]

"Have City cost you a title, have they taken money you believe to be rightfully yours" ?

Call 115 115 to make a quick no win, no fee claim.

CALL NOW, it's never too late!

** claims from Liverpool area will have to make a cash deposit before claim accepted. We just don't trust you**

 

[citizen_maine]

Despite the LCFC ruling the PL will still have a go with "acting in bad faith", which to me is the PL saying "you should have to told us about Al Jirra". If I was on our legal team I would question the PL "If City had informed the PL about Al Jirra what precisely would the PL have done with that information?". They probably wouldn't want to reply "fuck all" but that is precisely what they did when they learnt about bacon face's racehorses given to him by the rag owners.

I've no doubt that's exactly what they intended to do before the LCFC appeal, but they might struggle with that now. I'm also pretty sure they intended something similar with the non co-operation allegations, in that they're trying to do us under new rules that didn't exist for the period of the allegations