PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[west didsblue]

The whinging about Trams to Rochdale would be off the scale :-)

There’s a direct tram from Didsbury to Rochdale. Every cloud.

 

[vicg47]

There’s a direct tram from Didsbury to Rochdale. Every cloud.

And a few good pubs in Rochdale town centre

 

[Chappie]

There’s a direct tram from Didsbury to Rochdale. Every cloud.

Diverting through Piccadilly Gardens at the moment and my mum won't let me go through there, something about smackheads are naughty.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Is that right though? The only document in the public domain is the Mancini signed contract with Al Jazira that he signed on the same day he signed with us in 2009, I’ve not seen anything saying he had a contract with Al Jazira prior to taking the role with us, let alone pre-takeover. Surely Al Jazira would have said that at the time if that was the case, it would have been a pretty big deal he was working with them at the time.

The leaks show more than just him having a contract too, if they’re genuine it shows City personnel renegotiating his Al Jazira contract as well as the transactions. That’s the one out of all the charges that concerns me the most tbh.

Nothing to worry about with Mancini, at least nothing serious, imo.

Certainly nothing that affects the true and fair view of the accounts which is the central tenet of the PL's case. It just isn't material in view of the losses.

I don't think they have any chance of proving any allegation that implies fraud, either, when there was no FFP and so no benefit to be gained.

The fact that there is no evidence in the public domain to support the al Jazeera connection before Mancini signed for City doesn't mean there isn't any. The leaked emails were for effect, of course, all negative. My theory is Mancini's settlement with Inter prevented him signing full-time for another club for 15 months and so Mansour gave him a consultancy contract with AJ to keep him warm for the City job. Nothing wrong with any of that. Then it was kept on for tax reasons (Mancini's, not ours). Again, nothing wrong with any of that. And, anyway, as pointed out, the rules at the time didn't require disclosure of contracts a manager had with other clubs.

I remember Robbie Savage saying at the time that Khaldoon and Mancini had already worked together and Mancini had been advising him on football. Savage knew Mancini from their time at Leicester, of course. I also found an article in the Guardian when Mancini was signed saying that he and Khaldoon already had a relationship. How else would Mancini have developed a relationship with Khaldoon?

I am thinking this is just another area in which the club has refused to give external information to the PL to justify its position. Once it does that at the panel, the whole thing goes away, imho.

That's assuming it isn't all time barred anyway, which it most probably is. Good luck to the PL proving this was "knowingly concealed" from them.

 

[bernard o'silver]

..and don't forget those of us travelling from the south of the city who will have to contend with the temporary traffic lights at the top end of Piper Street, past McVitie's, up to the Bank on Birdhall Lane.. there's talk it's all going to be one way now..

Like

OK Eddie , that's enough now ;-)

 

[BringBackSwales]

As my gran used to say, "run around in ever diminishing circles and you will disappear up your own arse"

Classy gran

 

[KS55]

Nothing to worry about with Mancini, at least nothing serious, imo.

Certainly nothing that affects the true and fair view of the accounts which is the central tenet of the PL's case. It just isn't material in view of the losses.

I don't think they have any chance of proving any allegation that implies fraud, either, when there was no FFP and so no benefit to be gained.

The fact that there is no evidence in the public domain to support the al Jazeera connection before Mancini signed for City doesn't mean there isn't any. The leaked emails were for effect, of course, all negative. My theory is Mancini's settlement with Inter prevented him signing full-time for another club for 15 months and so Mansour gave him a consultancy contract with AJ to keep him warm for the City job. Nothing wrong with any of that. Then it was kept on for tax reasons (Mancini's, not ours). Again, nothing wrong with any of that. And, anyway, as pointed out, the rules at the time didn't require disclosure of contracts a manager had with other clubs.

I remember Robbie Savage saying at the time that Khaldoon and Mancini had already worked together and Mancini had been advising him on football. Savage knew Mancini from their time at Leicester, of course. I also found an article in the Guardian when Mancini was signed saying that he and Khaldoon already had a relationship. How else would Mancini have developed a relationship with Khaldoon?

I am thinking this is just another area in which the club has refused to give external information to the PL to justify its position. Once it does that at the panel, the whole thing goes away, imho.

That's assuming it isn't all time barred anyway, which it most probably is. Good luck to the PL proving this was "knowingly concealed" from them.

If what you say is true, then the PL’s failure to talk to Mancini
is decidedly odd. It’s almost as if they didn’t want to know the truth in order to preserve those charges.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Classy gran

I think I`d of liked her, but not in a Wayne Rooney kind of way.

 

[eversince 76]

Just imagine the length of every report in the papers after judgement day. At least 115 plus pages. Or the length of every talkshow. At least 115 plus days.
As for this topic, it’ll probably have reached twice as many pages by than. And add the same number after.

Fck me. I just realised one of City or the FA will appeal …

If ever there is a chance to beat “A La Recherche Du Temps Perfu” by Marcel Proust for being the longest ever written story.

 

[cibaman]

Apologies if this has already been discussed at length, but where do City’s auditors stand in all of this? Have we had the same auditors throughout the period? Presumably, if the charges were proved, that would call into question the adequacy of their work. I expect they would argue that City initially duped them. But once these allegations came to light, wouldn’t they have had to carry out their own investigation? And if they found that they had been misled, shouldn’t they have resigned? Or at least insist that City restate their accounts?