PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[wolviedinho]

The Judge has thrown out an appeal by Ronaldo’s Rape accuser. Essentially she was after more money despite receiving £ 275 grand hush money.

The alleged victim tried to use the “football leaks” throve against Ronaldo.


Stovall sought and used documents from 'Football Leaks' - including those clearly marked attorney-client privileged - to prosecute a new lawsuit on behalf of Mayorga against Ronaldo,' the circuit court said.

Judge Dorsey 'properly held that Ronaldo did not waive or otherwise forfeit his claim of attorney-client privilege as to the 'Football Leaks' documents,' it said.

The appellate judges specifically rejected Stoval's argument that Ronaldo failed to adequately safeguard the documents.

Ronaldo is a wrong un so I am not supporting the twat regarding his actions. Interesting bit of info tho. Gives you an idea how the stolen emails can be viewed and used in court.

 

[meltonblue]

I recall talk of Mancini doing consultancy work for Mansour prior to his appointment as manager. It was part of the discussion about Hughes and possible successors. Mancini was mentioned in the context of his existing links and work for Mansour.

I have no idea if a new consultancy contract was signed or extended or whatever. I do know it was no secret that he was time barred from working as a manager and employed as a consultant and no one cared. For me, ‘Man has two jobs’, is not much of a scandal.

It wouldn’t be. Like I said though, he signed an agreement with Al Jazira the same day he signed for us and it looks like we paid the invoices for both and continued to do so for a while (again, if the leaked docs are legit)

 

[g180aj]

It wouldn’t be. Like I said though, he signed an agreement with Al Jazira the same day he signed for us and it looks like we paid the invoices for both and continued to do so for a while (again, if the leaked docs are legit)

The signatures on the docs were signed by the same person on behalf of City and Al Jazira too.

 

[domalino]

But this is a waste of time:

• We are are already fucked on Point 1 of the PL charge sheet if it gets down to this.
• It is not a hanging offence if indeed there is an offence.
• It is immaterial in any case as repeatedly confirmed by Stefan and others.

We aren't fucked on point 1 if this comes up, it will likely be part of deciding whether the club has acted in good faith and disclosed it's financial situation accurately.

 

[meltonblue]

My understanding is that former employees who went to Liverpool used someone's password who was still working at City.

But it doesn't matter. Knowingly accessing a computer system you know you're not authorised to access is a criminal offence. No ifs, buts or maybes.

Think the issue we had was we could have been in a bit of trouble for it too.

 

[Gordyola]

The reports I have read, including claims here, were that an employee went there and used his old password that nobody at the City end bothered to change.

If that's true, it wasn't a 'hack' then. He maybe broke his contract clauses on conduct after leaving, and they exploited access that wasn't specifically granted, but does that really constitute a system breach?

If true at all, of course.

Which, if it is, is probably more likely why the club didn't pursue it much harder, rather than just being naively nice.

Yes it was an hack as it was accessing a system without authorisation
Who ever logon on, using someone else's ID or his own from his City employment committed an offence under the misuse of computer act, and would be subject to imprisonment. Account details to access an enterprise system do not belong to an individual, the enterprise is the owner and most probably regard the details as secret. Enterprises have a conduct code for the use of their data and systems, in that it will clearly state that any access to any system will terminate immediately upon ending employment.
For the good of the league and probably because they din't want to see the individual with a criminal record it appears that City dint report the crime and were given a substantial compensation from the offenders employers, which somewhat goes to show that they were aware or even actively encouraged it.

 

[domalino]

Is the onus on us to prove that something was done in return for the £1.7m/year or is the onus on them to show that it wasn't? It just seems a bit easy for us to say well actually, person X done this or that to fulfill the agreement and they'd be unable to dispute otherwise.

The onus is obviously on them to convince the panel on the basis of probablilities, but I think there's enough evidence going in one direction (date of contracts, same person signing both, City paying the exact amount to Al Jazira etc.) that the club can't just ignore it and claim the PL hasn't reached the threshold, they will need some sort of rebuttal.

 

[HelloCity]

By failing to change our passwords, we would have failed to ensure adequate security. The player records would have been classed as personal data.

Think the issue we had was we could have been in a bit of trouble for it too.

Article 5(1)(f) of the UK GDPR concerns the ‘integrity and confidentiality’ of personal data. It says that personal data shall be:

'Processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage, using appropriate technical or organisational measures'

 

[KS55]

The Premier League have really fucked up and I always thought turkeys never voted for Christmas. The negative PR from all this media coverage is a total shitshow for English football.

Khaldoon has twice let our enemies off the hook in the interests of better relations: this Liverpool case (they just carried on spying by suborning City employees) and UEFA in 2014. In both cases it has come back to bite us and I don’t think Khaldoon will lightly let anyone off in future.
When our PL charges are finally settled, I hope he will open up with both barrels.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

If all the club has to throw at Liverpool is the hacking affair that was settled 'out of court' between the two parties then everyone can forget about 'going nuclear' or 'shit storms' or whatever.

If we had any evidence of major wrongdoing by any rival club it would be out there already, either directly or via third parties. We have nothing of note.

This new counter-sue culture seems popular on Twitter and on here. It’s what high profile dicks do in America.

City still won’t do it, however many times people want it to happen.

Same as banning journalists. City don't have the Pisscan in charge. We aren’t like them.

 

[domalino]

Mancini was working as a consultant for Mansour prior to being City manager. Mancini was also time barred from working as a manager as part of his severance deal with Inter. Whether he was working the two jobs, or the job in Abu Dhabi was largely a ’gift’ to Mancini is between Mancini and the people who employed him.

Mancini was initially hired by City on a six month contract so keeping the consultancy job or even signing a new consultancy deal seems likely. I assume we all remember the ‘six month break clause‘ as City manager because we sure as hell went on about on here and how this proved he wasn’t really a ‘top manager’. That he was on less than Hughes to begin with probably reflects the contract structure.

As for City paying via Al Jazira - this makes no sense as I assume Al Jazira aren’t short of cash and could pay him directly. I have no idea if the emails you refer to are genuine or not and given the rules were less strict then I can’t say I really care given as you say the amounts and the time involved.

Sorry mate but there's a lot wrong in here.

He wasn't working for Mansour before joining City - at least I've seen nothing that says he was.

You can't time bar someone from working after they leave you, Mancini was probably on gardening leave for Inter as this is how they do managerial sackings in Italy, no one gets a big lump sum pay off, they just stay on salary until they get a new job or the contract runs out.

He wasn't signed for 6 months, the contract he signed in December 2009 was until 2013, although it did have a clause allowing the club to terminate at the end of each season in return for 8 months salary.

He couldn't "keep" the consultancy job because he signed both employment contracts on the same day.

City did pay via Al Jazeera, there's proof of that and the email is legitimate (City accepted the leaked emails were at CAS).

 

[BlueLou82]

Tin foil hat time but wondering if all the recent leaks are as a result of us or yourselves airing others dirty laundry.

We had the FOI requests on Newcastles takeover, where it appears that the government put pressure on the PL to accept the takeover.

A Spurs dodgy deal with Defoe now looks to be getting looked into again

Then today, one of yours @tolmie's hairdoo tweeting that there is pressure on the PL to investigate the hacking of your scouting database.

They may not have anything to do with each other but all coming out since we were hit with the 10pt deduction and City's name is getting dragged up again as if you are already guilty.

Even if its not either clubs, I really hope we just start throwing everyone elses shady shit out there and throw the PL into chaos.

 

[moomba]

Sorry mate but there's a lot wrong in here.

He wasn't working for Mansour before joining City - at least I've seen nothing that says he was.

I'm certain he was.

 

[Norbiton]

I raised earlier on in the thread that when we were fined bu Uefa we recieved a £50 million sanction for a £3 million overspend, so we were fined over 16 times the amount we failed by. Using the same logic the rags fine of £250k would mean they overspent by £15k over a 3 year period, do we really believe the same rules are being applied?

If I remember rightly it was a lot more than £3 million because of UEFA’s weird rejigged rules. If all your overspend was because of the wages of players signed before FFP you were OK, if not then none of the wages were allowable

 

[moomba]

Can't imagine anything will come of Spurs and Liverpool stories, but if nothing else it will reinforce that the Premier league believe that time limitations exist, at least for some clubs

 

[decmancity]

By failing to change our passwords, we would have failed to ensure adequate security. The player records would have been classed as personal data.

Article 5(1)(f) of the UK GDPR concerns the ‘integrity and confidentiality’ of personal data. It says that personal data shall be:

From what we know, it appears an ex city scout went to Liverpool and used either his own login or he used someone elses (Fernandinho?) and either knew their password or did some social engineering to get it.

The system isn't owned by City, its an independent company called Scout7.
Maybe City's HR filed the termination request to Scout7 and they never did it, City never followed up and thats why nobody realised for a long time.

It could well be a combination of both.

 

[Coatigan]

He’s gained access to a system he is not authorised to access and taken information from it.

If that happened to one of your password protected online accounts your head would fall off.

Don’t be downplaying it mate.

It’s still illegal under The Computer Misuse Act 1990.

It was not that the club did not revoke the old employees credentials.

It's that there were several people in the office who shared/knew each others' credentials so when Person A left the club, he still knew Person B's log in details and kept accessing the City scouting database when he'd gone to work for Liverpool.

My understanding is that former employees who went to Liverpool used someone's password who was still working at City.

But it doesn't matter. Knowingly accessing a computer system you know you're not authorised to access is a criminal offence. No ifs, buts or maybes.

Fair enough.

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

All the fuss about the Mancini contract is frying my brain,

Der Spiegel provided a link to everything thay have 2022,. There is a 53 page PDF that you can download. Just google "Mancini Der Spiegel April 22" and scroll down to the link. You can then see the exact content that the IC will be looking at rather than the multiple mixed explanations in this thread. The answers are all there.

But this is a waste of time:

• We are are already fucked on Point 1 of the PL charge sheet if it gets down to this.
• It is not a hanging offence if indeed there is an offence.
• It is immaterial in any case as repeatedly confirmed by Stefan and others.
• We're ok anyway as per my recent posts :)

Here's a taster from a couple of documents:




View attachment 99364
View attachment 99365

I'm surprised that more people haven't asked you so I will. You have a unique viewpoint on here in that you have stated several times that relations between us and Liverpool (& other rival clubs) have improved to the point that they are on our side. You also say the endpoint in this process is the PL withdrawing charges and PL clubs voting / lobbying for that to happen.

Whilst I'd be delighted for that to happen and even if relations between us and Liverpool say have improved I find it hard to believe that they are now actually supporting us. My question is how much of this is personal opinion (joining the dots as you've said) and how much is based on information you have received? My follow up question is how reliable is any information you are party to? I'm struggling to see what's in it for Liverpool for instance as getting rid of the dominant force in English football surely outweighs any other advantage.

 

[KS55]

And whether that motive - which is a reasonable supposition - can actually be proven.

There was no need at the time to reduce Mancini’s cost, there was no ffp and Mansour could cover any amount he wished. It was all about Mancini’s tax.
Whether we broke the rule about accurately reporting his salary depends on the fine detail. @domalino posted some time ago that he had seen a draft of Mancini’s contract which detailed the payment from other sources. City got no benefit, so, even if we are found to have broken a rule, it is a fine only.

 

[HelloCity]

From what we know, it appears an ex city scout went to Liverpool and used either his own login or he used someone elses (Fernandinho?) and either knew their password or did some social engineering to get it.

The system isn't owned by City, its an independent company called Scout7.
Maybe City's HR filed the termination request to Scout7 and they never did it, City never followed up and thats why nobody realised for a long time.

It could well be a combination of both.

City would be classed as the data controller and the company the data processor. The controller is just as liable, if not more so, than the data processor, if there is a breach of personal data.