PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Centurions]

This thread is turning to shit and boredom. It seems very few of the more legal minded posters are leaving it alone as it's becoming a fucking merry go round with the same questions over and over and over........... zzzzzzzz.

Let's just see who sticks their head above the parapet first and we'll go from there..... ....................................................and sleep!

You'll get more sleep than Sleeping Beauty at this rate.

 

[KS55]

The purpose of the contract was probably to ensure that RM didn't take a job elsewhere in the meantime.

That however is irrelevant. If the agreed services were rendered by RM and paid for by Al Jazeerah, that's an end of it.

But City paid the first two instalments, so they will have to show re-embursement from Al J. Alternatively, it depends on whether we added a note to the return for Bobby’s salary.

 

[unexpected item]

There are a number of interesting PDFs available from that link. Stick this search term in google.

site: https://cdn.prod.www.spiegel.de/ filetype:pdf "manchester city"

 

[Chris in London]

But City paid the first two instalments, so they will have to show re-embursement from Al J. Alternatively, it depends on whether we added a note to the return for Bobby’s salary.

Not necessarily reimbursement, but if not that it would have to be explained why we have paid another club's liability

 

[bakerdave76]

This is a dripping tap.

116 now ...

 

[Bodicoteblue]

This is a dripping tap.

Needs a new sportswasher put in.

 

[feelymcfeel]

Needs a new sportswasher put in.

Very good.

 

[mrbelfry]

Pablo

Sorry if I appear dumb on this - you may know a lot more than me on this topic which is very likely as it’s the first time I’ve seen the docs you posted.

You point to payments detailed on pages 19 and 22. The docs on these pages are dated Spring 2011 which is prior to the introduction of FFP which became effective from season 11/12 (and of course pre dates the the Prem version).

It also seems that tax was paid in rounded up sums in which case the burden for reporting and settling said tax would lie with the recipient (I think).

Personally can’t see what the big ya hoo is about this aspect of the charges and…. even if we did something which stretched the rules the sums involved are paltry and fairly immaterial against the overall club turnover. Even if found ‘guilty’ these lines on the 115 charge sheet shouldn’t lead a substantial penalty…. which of course we were given when we took the massive ‘pinch.’

I think because of the way it's been reported people think we have failed FFP again. From reading the regs a while ago (if I remember right) the charges related to Mancini's contract not being registered with the PL. Rules in later regulations state that all payments need to included which I guess they are alleging we didn't do in this case.

There was also some rumour that the PL were retroactively applying current rules to these old breaches

 

[WRicko]

I think because of the way it's been reported people think we have failed FFP again. From reading the regs a while ago (if I remember right) the charges related to Mancini's contract not being registered with the PL. Rules in later regulations state that all payments need to included which I guess they are alleging we didn't do in this case.

There was also some rumour that the PL were retroactively applying current rules to these old breaches

I thought the argument was we are keeping his contract if the books and saving money rather than not registering it

 

[WRicko]

Out of interest why are there no charges relating to more recent times ? I get we earn more now and would pass FFP. But we did anyway before. I get they probably only have the emails but the email are rubbish anyway. Seems to me if we was doing what is claimed we would still be doing it. Do the premier league not have power to look at current stuff other documents etc.