PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

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.

The Mancini contract allegation doesn't include a breach for not acting in good faith (good faith was only referred to in the tranche of allegations relating to the accounts and in the non-cooperation allegations) so they seem to be relying on the wording of the manager contract rules at the time which didn't include any requirement to report secondary contracts. New rules, implemented later did refer to secondary contracts but these can't be applied retrospectively afaik, so I am not sure why they included Mancini as a breach of those rules, tbh, other than as some attempt to apply the new rules to Mancini, which won't work especially post-Leicester.

There is a second point on the Mancini contract, though, which needs addressing imho and that is the effect on the accounts. They may be saying the Mancini AJ contract is a sham intended to reduce costs in MCFC and so include it in their assessment of whether the accounts filed were incorrect (this tranche of allegations does refer to good faith). That tranche specifically refers to understatement of expenses in the accounts and that may be due to Mancini, Toure or Fordham, or all three. I struggle to see how it could be material (I suppose it could be accumulated with other allegations) or how they could prove the contract was a sham but that is their job, not mine.

Just my twopenneth's worth on Mancini.