PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Oldham Exile]

This would be a good time for 1894 to put a massive banner together, in the style of those ultras things, like the one they did about UEFA, stating that FPP is to close the door on competition or something. It would get media coverage and state the club's case well. Arsenal would have been perfect. I'd contribute.

"FPP - Damaging the Many to Protect the Few" or "FPP - Closing The Drawbridge" with the badges of Liverpool and Arsenal in it os summat like that.

Love that idea - many would contribute

 

[manimanc]

I hope when/if we’re cleared, the club run the same graphic on the Etihad screens it did when Agueroooooo happened, but with the counter running down from 115 to zero.

That's a class idea.

 

[Blueknows]

Every home match.

Whilst the team run out to summut like this

 

[mrbelfry]

Technically speaking, we had no right to send Mancini’s contract with Mansour’s club to the PL nor to report his payments thereunder. Privity of contract.

It was part of the regs that we had to send in Mancini's contract to the Premier League secretary. The contract with Al Jazeera (sp?) would have been irrelevant then (except the De Spiegal leaks suggested City paid that or something).

It's actually now the rule that we also have to provide details of any payments made to the manager from anyone else as well (P.7.3 in this years handbook)

Here's a screenshot of the rules we breached in the first 2 Mancini seasons. The rule the following year was the same just in section P.


The 22/23 rulebook when we were charged does have the rule that we have to list other payments made to the manager by other parties. Maybe they are using that criteria to charge us for not giving details of Mancini's other contract. OR they are alleging the other contract was a way to pay Mancini more whilst declaring less (although no one has provided a good reason why we would do that) OR they are saying we never sent them Mancinis contract OR they are saying we sent something in but it wasn't the contract under which Mancini was working

Alternatively Im an idiot and all this theory is false

 

[Inter Me Nan]

This would be a good time for 1894 to put a massive banner together, in the style of those ultras things, like the one they did about UEFA, stating that FPP is to close the door on competition or something. It would get media coverage and state the club's case well. Arsenal would have been perfect. I'd contribute.

"FPP - Damaging the Many to Protect the Few" or "FPP - Closing The Drawbridge" with the badges of Liverpool and Arsenal in it os summat like that.

I'd put to that too, great idea.

 

[manimanc]

They didn’t dismiss them totally, they said they weren’t evidence enough due to the evidence we provided ourselves (in particular the witness statements). They did say that Uefa were right to charge us on the basis of those emails, and that we didn’t provide them with the evidence we subsequently did at CAS.

With the PL, there’s only really two scenarios I can think. One is that they’ve only gone off the emails and the subsequent leaks too, and we’ve taken a similar approach to Uefa in that we will only present all the evidence when it gets to the next stage. That would explain the non co-operation charges too. The one thing against that though is this time we’ve said we’ve already provided irrefutable proof, and the CAS judgment itself would be part of it. Either way though, if they have just done that, I expect a very similar outcome as to what we got at CAS.

The other is that the PL have some evidence that we just don’t know about. I’m very dubious about that though as I’m sure that would have made its way into the public domain at some point.

The Premier League have absolutely nothing on us. They are piggybacking the Uefa nonsense and are being cajoled by the red top wankers. That masters looks totally clueless, as if that fat fuckin ponce knows absolutely anything about us or football in fact.
He's being pushed into doing this by the red mardarse pricks, remember they was the one's who voted this bellend in wasn't they?

They have absolute control over him, a proper puppet being told what to do by the skint, racist and clueless yanks.

Prem teams furious as Liverpool and United vet league CEO candidates

Liverpool and Manchester United have left their Premier League rivals furious after reportedly having had special access to weigh up the candidates to be new chief executive of the Premier League.

www.dailymail.co.uk

He got the job because nobody else wanted it or to be exact they accepted it but resigned after realising something was amiss.
Then masters gets it because nobody else wants it.

The rest is history.

 

[Inter Me Nan]

The Premier League have absolutely nothing on us. They are piggybacking the Uefa nonsense and are being cajoled by the red top wankers. That masters looks totally clueless, as if that fat fuckin ponce knows absolutely anything about us or football in fact.
He's being pushed into doing this by the red mardarse pricks, remember they was the one's who voted this bellend in wasn't they?

They have absolute control over him, a proper puppet being told what to do by the skint, racist and clueless yanks.

So you could say he's the master of puppets...I'll get me coat!

 

[meltonblue]

The Premier League have absolutely nothing on us. They are piggybacking the Uefa nonsense and are being cajoled by the red top wankers. That masters looks totally clueless, as if that fat fuckin ponce knows absolutely anything about us or football in fact.
He's being pushed into doing this by the red mardarse pricks, remember they was the one's who voted this bellend in wasn't they?

They have absolute control over him, a proper puppet being told what to do by the skint, racist and clueless yanks.

Prem teams furious as Liverpool and United vet league CEO candidates

Liverpool and Manchester United have left their Premier League rivals furious after reportedly having had special access to weigh up the candidates to be new chief executive of the Premier League.

www.dailymail.co.uk

He got the job because nobody else wanted it or to be exact they accepted it but resigned after realising something was amiss.
Then masters gets it because nobody else wants it.

The rest is history.

I nearly put that as the third scenario but that’s pretty much the same as the first one I put tbh, what we don’t know is how we responded to it if that’s the case.

I was focussing more on what they might have rather than what the motivation behind it was though. On that, I don’t think it would have just been the red clubs pushing for it albeit they’ll have had the loudest voice and he’d have been pushing himself for it to try and fend off an independent regulator. Irony being to me it’s just highlighted even more why it’s needed.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

Looks like the PL will have to launch an investigation into itself soon ie into Bruce Buck, a lawyer who was Chairman of CFC and worked for the Premier League for a number of years

From todays Grundian:-

"However, a leak of documents from an accounting firm in Cyprus which acted for Abramovich revealed a series of payments over a decade to managers, scouts and football agents connected to Chelsea. The information, which was published as part of the Cyprus Confidential series, was shared with the Guardian by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and Germany’s Paper Trail Media.
The Premier League is investigating whether Abramovich secretly subsidized his team by using offshore companies to make payments which should, under rules designed to ensure fair competition, have been made by the club itself from its own bank accounts.
The material raises questions about oversight of the club’s affairs by its board, which was chaired by the American lawyer Bruce Buck during Abramovich’s highly successful reign. Buck was a partner at the law firm Skadden, which acted for Chelsea and Abramovich for two decades, and held senior positions at the Premier League, which acts as both regulator and promoter for its member clubs."

So at the PL Buck was only responsible for leading the Nominations Committee used to appoint senior execs, including the CEOs !!!

"Buck, who is also the Chairman of the Premier League Nominations Committee, which conducted the recruitment process following Richard Scudamore's departure last year..."

Chelsea Chairman Bruce Buck welcomes new Premier League Chief Executive

The Premier League has announced David Pemsel as its new Chief Executive following a recruitment process overseen by Chelsea Chairman Bruce Buck.

www.chelseafc.com

 

[WRicko]

It was part of the regs that we had to send in Mancini's contract to the Premier League secretary. The contract with Al Jazeera (sp?) would have been irrelevant then (except the De Spiegal leaks suggested City paid that or something).

It's actually now the rule that we also have to provide details of any payments made to the manager from anyone else as well (P.7.3 in this years handbook)

Here's a screenshot of the rules we breached in the first 2 Mancini seasons. The rule the following year was the same just in section P.
View attachment 111654

The 22/23 rulebook when we were charged does have the rule that we have to list other payments made to the manager by other parties. Maybe they are using that criteria to charge us for not giving details of Mancini's other contract. OR they are alleging the other contract was a way to pay Mancini more whilst declaring less (although no one has provided a good reason why we would do that) OR they are saying we never sent them Mancinis contract OR they are saying we sent something in but it wasn't the contract under which Mancini was working

Alternatively Im an idiot and all this theory is false

How would a club know what a manager was being paid by other unrelated parties and how can they be punished if they did not know ? And why is it anyone’s business other than perhaps the tax man. Why should the club inform the league and not the manager ? Why should the league know ? In other lines of work your bosses do not need to know or if they do it’s only if it’s a conflict of interest and they don’t need to tell anyone else. It’s only really an issue in regulated financial services and maybe a few other industries