PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[petrusha]

That’s quite interesting because I think that there were certain restrictions as to when Mancini could take up paid employment again following his pay off from Inter.

I thought that issues in Italy usually arise precisely because a manager hasn't been paid off. Isn't it commonplace instead to keep them on the payroll rather than having to find a lump sum, and then stop paying them when they take up a new position?

I'm not sure what the restrictions are on a sacked manager earning when he's still being paid. He presumably has to remain available for work (you sometimes see in the Italian league that the successor is fired and they rehire the previous manager as he's still being paid by the club), but a consultancy might not mean that he isn't still available - e.g. if work is performed in the close season, or by way of advice given remotely.

If that was the position between Mancini and Inter, it would be a matter between them and it would depend on the provisions of the contract as well as possibly issues of Italian law. Inter might in theory be entitled to claim against Mancini to recover money paid to him if he undertook a prohibited consultancy while still on their payroll, but it's a long time ago so could well be time-barred.

In any case, that would be nothing to do with City. Or have I misunderstood and you're talking about some other regulation that applies in Italy to managers there?

 

[terraloon]

It's what @terraloon says above, basically. The allegation, as far as I can tell, seems to be that the fee Mancini received from from Al Jazira for a minor consultancy was so great that it can reasonably be inferred to have been a part of his remuneration at City.

The PL will need to produce cogent evidence that this is actually so and City dishonestly concealed it. Otherwise it will fall outside the limitation period under the 1980 Act

Like most of the charges we can only judge what we have seen and to be hones that’s very little.

Yes there is the CAS ruling but again we know nothing to little other than what is in the case summary but the issues around manager and players remuneration wasn’t within UEFAs jurisdiction.

We all know that emails can be edited after the fact bank details can’t be.

Citys problem in this regard as I see it is this.

My guess would be If just one or indeed both of the remuneration charges are , on the balance of probability, ruled against City that then opens up a whole new dimension because you then can see how a whole lot of the other charges and issues could be impacted

As for time barred that for me is a bit of a red herring

What you probably are saying but without hearing the evidence the tribunal won’t be able to get to consider if it falls outside the act. Unlike UEFA where they specifically such matters the PL don’t.

 

[terraloon]

I thought that issues in Italy usually arise precisely because a manager hasn't been paid off. Isn't it commonplace instead to keep them on the payroll rather than having to find a lump sum, and then stop paying them when they take up a new position?

I'm not sure what the restrictions are on a sacked manager earning when he's still being paid. He presumably has to remain available for work (you sometimes see in the Italian league that the successor is fired and they rehire the previous manager as he's still being paid by the club), but a consultancy might not mean that he isn't still available - e.g. if work is performed in the close season, or by way of advice given remotely.

If that was the position between Mancini and Inter, it would be a matter between them and it would depend on the provisions of the contract as well as possibly issues of Italian law. Inter might in theory be entitled to claim against Mancini to recover money paid to him if he undertook a prohibited consultancy while still on their payroll, but it's a long time ago so could well be time-barred.

In any case, that would be nothing to do with City. Or have I misunderstood and you're talking about some other regulation that applies in Italy to managers there?

No it was nothing to do with City I found it interesting because it was also claimed on here they had decided to let Hughes go earlier

 

[Chris in London]

As for time barred that for me is a bit of a red herring

Do you need it to be explained again?

 

[petrusha]

Like most of the charges we can only judge what we have seen and to be hones that’s very little.

Yes there is the CAS ruling but again we know nothing to little other than what is in the case summary but the issues around manager and players remuneration wasn’t within UEFAs jurisdiction.

We all know that emails can be edited after the fact bank details can’t be.

Citys problem in this regard as I see it is this.

My guess would be If just one or indeed both of the remuneration charges are , on the balance of probability, ruled against City that then opens up a whole new dimension because you then can see how a whole lot of the other charges and issues could be impacted

As for time barred that for me is a bit of a red herring

What you probably are saying but without hearing the evidence the tribunal won’t be able to get to consider if it falls outside the act. Unlike UEFA where they specifically such matters the PL don’t.

I don't agree that if the charges with respect to Mancini's contract are proven, that has an effect on other issues. They're separate points and separate evidence will be adduced with respect to them. If the evidence justifies ruling against City in respect of some charges, then it doesn't necessarily follow that other evidence will justify a ruling against City on other charges.

You keep stressing that the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, but as a matter of course you omit the well-established legal position that the Commission will also have to have regard to the need for particularly cogent evidence if accusations of this nature are to be regarded as proved. You shouldn't omit that. It's important.

I fully accept that the Commission will hear the evidence and decide on the limitation point. If that goes against City with respect to any matter, the club's case almost certainly fails as far as that issue is concerned. The converse is also true. I present it in that way because that's probably how the Commission will approach it, so it makes sense for me to do the same.
.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

I don't agree that if the charges with respect to Mancini's contract are proven, that has an effect on other issues. They're separate points and separate evidence will be adduced with respect to them. If the evidence justifies ruling against City in respect of some charges, then it doesn't necessarily follow that other evidence will justify a ruling against City on other charges.

You keep stressing that the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, but as a matter of course you omit the well-established legal position that the Commission will also have to have regard to the need for particularly cogent evidence if accusations of this nature are to be regarded as proved. You shouldn't omit that. It's important.

I fully accept that the Commission will hear the evidence and decide on the limitation point. If that goes against City with respect to any matter, the club's case almost certainly fails as far as that issue is concerned. The converse is also true. I present it in that way because that's probably how the Commission will approach it, so it makes sense for me to do the same.
.

I actually enjoy Terraloon’s posts on here as it stimulates good debate on matters beyond my expertise, but I do notice a strong undercurrent of wishful thinking on his part. To be expected from a fan of a rival club I suppose.

 

[Franny 1234]

However that contract was in place, as I understand it prior to him even interviewing for the City job. Makes a mockery of your theory if I am Correct… which I usually am.

Modest too

 

[terraloon]

If the PL fail to prove dishonesty, then we'll 'get off on a technicality' again then?

The exceptions are fraud, concealment or mistake

 

[petrusha]

I actually enjoy Terraloon’s posts on here as it stimulates good debate

I agree with this. He has a background that enables him to have an interesting take on these matters and, to his credit, he's familiarised himself with the materials. His contributions do throw up issues worth thinking about and it's to the benefit of the discussion to have someone in it who's not from a City background.

No doubt he'd also say that our analysis is to some degree skewed by our emotional attachment to MCFC, as well. I'd have some sympathy with that, too! :)

Fairy Nuff. This is one of the areas where I am struggling to see exactly what the PL is charging the club with, and why ...... and, the more I think about it, how they are expecting a favourable outcome in any of them.

I keep coming back to the fact that there's an essential dichotomy in the whole affair. And, ultimately, all our attempts to unravel that rely on guesswork at this stage.

Consider the following:

1. MCFC insists that it has provided the PL with "extensive engagement and [a] vast amount of detailed materials". It further claims that there's a "comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence ... in support of [the club's] position".
2. One would assume that the PL wouldn't bring charges of this seriousness and in this volume without being confident that it has significant evidence that offers a realistic chance of the charges being proved to the necessary standard.

The first of those is an accurate quotation setting out MCFC's position. The second is an assumption as to the PL's position, but, I'd suggest, a perfectly reasonable one.

The thing is that points 1 and 2 above are mutually exclusive. If MCFC's position as stated in point 1 is correct then the assumption in point 2 as to the PL's stance can't be well founded, while if the assumption in point 2 as to the PL's stance is well founded then MCFC's position as stated in point 1 can't be correct.

That IMO applies even if the lawyers on here, including me, have overstated and overestimated the effect of the need for cogency in terms of the standard of proof given the nature of the charges. (I don't think we have.)

We should also, I suppose, note that which position is correct could differ with respect to different charges. In theory, one party's position could be well founded with regard to managerial remuneration and the other's with regard to image rights, for instance.

We can try to piece together in this thread how things look based on information that's in the public domain and we can pool the legal, accounting and regulatory knowledge that exists among posters to comment based on the information we do have.

Ultimately, though, all comments on here are necessarily speculative. The information that's in the public domain isn't sufficient for an authoritative assessment. I do think this thread does a decent job - better than anywhere else I've seen, anyway - at exploring the issues, but we certainly don't have definitive answers and will have to wait for them, potentially for a long time.

That prospect of that wait irritates the fuck out of me. But there are other things in my life right now that irritate the fuck out of me a lot more and I'll have to live with it as I do them, I suppose!

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

That’s quite interesting because I think that there were certain restrictions as to when Mancini could take up paid employment again following his pay off from Inter.

He was put on gardening leave.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Obviously you aren't going to name your old buddy but what does he do, why would he know ?

He's an EvertonIan.

 

[terraloon]

Do you need it to be explained again?

No but read the last paragraph of petsuras last post which is the point I am making

“I fully accept that the Commission will hear the evidence and decide on the limitation point. If that goes against City with respect to any matter, the club's case almost certainly fails as far as that issue is concerned. The converse is also true. I present it in that way because that's probably how the Commission will approach it, so it makes sense for me to do the same.”

In other words the commission will hear the evidence and not bar based on time

If the evidence is there to prove the PLs case then it can’t be time barred if it isn’t then time barring is not relevant

In UEFA statues they specifically bar matters based on time

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

It's what @terraloon says above, basically. The allegation, as far as I can tell, seems to be that the fee Mancini received from from Al Jazira for a minor consultancy was so great that it can reasonably be inferred to have been a part of his remuneration at City.

The PL will need to produce cogent evidence that this is actually so and City dishonestly concealed it. Otherwise it will fall outside the limitation period under the 1980 Act.

Hardly concealing it if we have included it/paid it through one of our City accounts though?

 

[Stoned Rose]

I bumped into an old buddy in town today, he's an Evertonian, we went for a coffee and he told me the following, strictly on the QT...
The week before the charges were announced four clubs demanded a video conference with PL Chief Exec Richard Masters. One of the clubs execs led the meeting let's say "TH". He requested the latest status of the PL investigation into MCFC. He was told it was effectively stalled with no progress. Then on behalf of all four clubs TH demanded the PL proceed with all possible charges irrespective of the prospects of winning. After a series of threats were made by TH, Masters capitulated and agreed to rush the charges through before the announcement of the White Paper. That's why there were so many errors in the published charges requiring numerous corrections.The club are confident this is a golden opportunity to resolve these issues once and for all.

Going for the “went for a coffee” one rather than the “was having a pint with” one, isn’t doing much to convince me this happened.

 

[Norbert D]

I agree with this. He has a background that enables him to have an interesting take on these matters and, to his credit, he's familiarised himself with the materials. His contributions do throw up issues worth thinking about and it's to the benefit of the discussion to have someone in it who's not from a City background.

No doubt he'd also say that our analysis is to some degree skewed by our emotional attachment to MCFC, as well. I'd have some sympathy with that, too! :)



I keep coming back to the fact that there's an essential dichotomy in the whole affair. And, ultimately, all our attempts to unravel that rely on guesswork at this stage.

Consider the following:

1. MCFC insists that it has provided the PL with "extensive engagement and [a] vast amount of detailed materials". It further claims that there's a "comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence ... in support of [the club's] position".
2. One would assume that the PL wouldn't bring charges of this seriousness and in this volume without being confident that it has significant evidence that offers a realistic chance of the charges being proved to the necessary standard.

The first of those is an accurate quotation setting out MCFC's position. The second is an assumption as to the PL's position, but, I'd suggest, a perfectly reasonable one.

The thing is that points 1 and 2 above are mutually exclusive. If MCFC's position as stated in point 1 is correct then the assumption in point 2 as to the PL's stance can't be well founded, while if the assumption in point 2 as to the PL's stance is well founded then MCFC's position as stated in point 1 can't be correct.

That IMO applies even if the lawyers on here, including me, have overstated and overestimated the effect of the need for cogency in terms of the standard of proof given the nature of the charges. (I don't think we have.)

We should also, I suppose, note that which position is correct could differ with respect to different charges. In theory, one party's position could be well founded with regard to managerial remuneration and the other's with regard to image rights, for instance.

We can try to piece together in this thread how things look based on information that's in the public domain and we can pool the legal, accounting and regulatory knowledge that exists among posters to comment based on the information we do have.

Ultimately, though, all comments on here are necessarily speculative. The information that's in the public domain isn't sufficient for an authoritative assessment. I do think this thread does a decent job - better than anywhere else I've seen, anyway - at exploring the issues, but we certainly don't have definitive answers and will have to wait for them, potentially for a long time.

That prospect of that wait irritates the fuck out of me. But there are other things in my life right now that irritate the fuck out of me a lot more and I'll have to live with it as I do them, I suppose!

one thing that does concern me is this “balance of probability“ finding us guilty of something when there isn’t conclusive proof. A bit like i suddenly have a million pounds and a million pounds was stolen from my local bank a few weeks ago. There is nothing to link me with the robbery, I have no criminal record or criminal associates, but I won’t answer questions about how I came into possession of such a large amount of untraceable notes. Can I get banged up or have the money confiscated on balance of probability?

 

[terraloon]

I actually enjoy Terraloon’s posts on here as it stimulates good debate on matters beyond my expertise, but I do notice a strong undercurrent of wishful thinking on his part. To be expected from a fan of a rival club I suppose.

Rory.

My points are on process and what we know .

Yes I have a view re some ( not all the charges ) and it’s the two that I keep mentioning namely Mancini’s wages and The Image Rights issue . Most if not all those that post on here don’t see it the same way and just I being a fan from a rival club as you pint would expect it I would expect the polar opposite take from City fans

petrusha

“That IMO applies even if the lawyers on here, including me, have overstated and overestimated the effect of the need for cogency in terms of the standard of proof given the nature of the charges. (I don't think we have.)”

Thats an interesting point and something that I too have thought about.

It’s worth remembering that this isn’t a court of law although it’s run in accordance with English law.


Does that mean for instance that the rules of evidence apply in the Courts apply ? I don’t think they do.

I have attended a couple of cases before a Football tribunal of course they were no where near as complex as the city case and my club and solicitors thought the case was cast iron yet we lost them both.

 

[bluesince76]

Spurs were the first team to win the double in the 20th century, they were the first English team to win a European trophy, and Jimmy Greaves was going to lead us to victory in the 66 World Cup.
Some of you may have spotted this was more than 50 years ago. The media haven't.
They were 6th on the all-time major trophy list before we came along and are now 7th.
Villa have won more than Spurs but most of it was even earlier.

They are also the first club to have a cheese room and if that doesn't make you massive, I don't know what does. Other than floodlights, obviously.

When they got dumped out of the FA Cup the other week, the commentary made it sound like their should be a minute's silence, as they're so synonymous with it. He obviously hadn't realised the year doesn't end in a 1...

 

[The perfect fumble]

1. One would assume that the PL wouldn't bring charges of this seriousness and in this volume without being confident that it has significant evidence that offers a realistic chance of the charges being proved to the necessary standard.

I think the opposite.

If the PL had significant evidence we wouldn't be here, we'd be talking about the implications of our punishment.

We're engaged in this farce precisely because they don't have the evidence.

City has consistently stated that this nonsense is nothing more than a campaign with a single purpose, to damage the reputation of the club. A campaign spearheaded by the usual suspects on the continent and closer to home in London and down the road, and nothing I've heard or read has convinced me otherwise.

Throw into the mix the PL desire to show they're capable of keeping their own house in order ahead of an independent regulator and it's a perfect win. They manage to find something to hang us with and it's doubles all round, they don't and it doesn't matter, we're still dodgy and everyone knows it.

Just as there was no redemption for City after CAS, there'll be no redemption after this, regardless of the outcome.

This is politics, the process is the punishment, and the verdict is already in from the one court that matters, the one court they control absolutely, the court of public opinion.

 

[terraloon]

Hardly concealing it if we have included it/paid it through one of our City accounts though?

Mistake then ?

 

[ayrshire_blue]

This thread is really reassuring with the input from seemingly very qualified and knowledgeable individuals. There's always that nagging feeling though that the PL are also acting on advice of highly qualified and knowledgeable individuals, they have their own reasoning behind the charges and we just don't know what that is yet.

Hopefully it plays out well for us but there are two sides to this and it's beneficial to try and understand where the other side are coming from in their views. Another reason why terraloons posts are helpful because it prevents somewhat of an echo chamber.