PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[meltonblue]

Well, obviously we don't know what the club's defence will be, because we don't know what the facts really are, but some things to consider:

If the arrangement was for tax purposes, it is completely normal that the leading employer is involved in the discussions and negotiations around the contracts. After all, arrangements for tax purposes are normally made for the purposes of reducing the employee's tax, so it would be strange if the leading employer wasn't making sure that the details were clean from the point of view of both Mancini and the club in the high tax paying country. These guys don't fart without legal and tax clearance. Same applies to 2009 and 2011.

I am still assuming Mancini had a consultancy contract with AJ before joining City. Why? Based on my recollections from the time when Savage mentioned (in commentary I think) that Mancini had already been advising Khaldoon on football matters and I thought "Oh, that's interesting". I am getting old, but I remember that quite clearly (I think). Granted, the only other "evidence" I can find is the reference to a prior relationship in a Guardian article in December 2009 (iirc). That gives me more comfort that there was an existing relationship than a lack of clear evidence of a relationship persuades me otherwise, especially in view of the Inter clause which would have required a certain subtlety. I fully accept others may draw different conclusions.

I am sure when we know the facts, everything will become clear.

Anyway, I am pretty relaxed about Mancini, I have more concerns about Fordham, purely because I don't have a feel for the contract. You know anywhere where it is explained, at all?

The only thing I found about it was Mancini saying he met them once before they approached him about the City job, which to me suggested the opposite and there was no consultancy agreement in place. You’ve articulated the issue there though, we aren’t the leading employer, they’re completely separate entities and that’s going to be the challenge to argue with the 2011 agreement in particular.

Again I’ll caveat it with if all the leaks are valid.

 

[KS55]

Who audits auditors?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal). Ancient question to which the answer should be “The people.”

 

[bluemanchester]

Well, obviously we don't know what the club's defence will be, because we don't know what the facts really are, but some things to consider:

If the arrangement was for tax purposes, it is completely normal that the leading employer is involved in the discussions and negotiations around the contracts. After all, arrangements for tax purposes are normally made for the purposes of reducing the employee's tax, so it would be strange if the leading employer wasn't making sure that the details were clean from the point of view of both Mancini and the club in the high tax paying country. These guys don't fart without legal and tax clearance. Same applies to 2009 and 2011.

I am still assuming Mancini had a consultancy contract with AJ before joining City. Why? Based on my recollections from the time when Savage mentioned (in commentary I think) that Mancini had already been advising Khaldoon on football matters and I thought "Oh, that's interesting". I am getting old, but I remember that quite clearly (I think). Granted, the only other "evidence" I can find is the reference to a prior relationship in a Guardian article in December 2009 (iirc). That gives me more comfort that there was an existing relationship than a lack of clear evidence of a relationship persuades me otherwise, especially in view of the Inter clause which would have required a certain subtlety. I fully accept others may draw different conclusions.

I am sure when we know the facts, everything will become clear.

Anyway, I am pretty relaxed about Mancini, I have more concerns about Fordham, purely because I don't have a feel for the contract. You know anywhere where it is explained, at all?

I also in the depths of my memory seem to recall Khaldoon himself said Mancini was a friend and they had worked/talked about football before his appointment at City.
Then Mancini upset one of the main instigators of this vendetta by beating them to our first Premier League title in dramatic circumstances. And who can forget the scenes with their entitled players at the end of the FAcup semi which we won. Ferdinand Anderson and others were looking for blood after Scholes had already drawn the blood of Zabba during the game. That was the moment we etched deep into their consciousness from where we have never left and torment them still.
The days get better;-)

 

[halfcenturyup]

The only thing I found about it was Mancini saying he met them once before they approached him about the City job, which to me suggested the opposite and there was no consultancy agreement in place. You’ve articulated the issue there though, we aren’t the leading employer, they’re completely separate entities and that’s going to be the challenge to argue with the 2011 agreement in particular.

Again I’ll caveat it with if all the leaks are valid.

Well, yes, that makes sense. They met him once before they offered him the City job and liked him, so they offered him the City job but couldn't sign him up because of the Inter clause, so they kept him warm with a lucrative consultancy contract until they could comfortably sign him or, in Hughes's case, had to sign him because it was going tits up. The contract was continued for Mancini's tax reasons, all negotiations and contracts being handled by the club.

Sounds more than plausible to me.

Anyway, its all speculation, but I am much more comfortable with that as an explanation than the club deliberately trying to mislead the PL for reasons which aren't, at all, apparent. Balance of probability, if you will.

It's OK to disagree, though.

 

[Dribble]

I also in the depths of my memory seem to recall Khaldoon himself said Mancini was a friend and they had worked/talked about football before his appointment at City.
Then Mancini upset one of the main instigators of this vendetta by beating them to our first Premier League title in dramatic circumstances. And who can forget the scenes with their entitled players at the end of the FAcup semi which we won. Ferdinand Anderson and others were looking for blood after Scholes had already drawn the blood of Zabba during the game. That was the moment we etched deep into their consciousness from where we have never left and torment them still.
The days get better;-)

To be honest, our card was marked because of this Dr Sulaiman Al-Fahim dude (The Donald Trump of the desert), who claimed we were going to buy Ronaldo, Messi, Fabregas & Torres after buying Robinho to become the biggest club in the world.


"We are going to be the biggest club in the world, bigger than both Real Madrid and Manchester United."

He was quickly jettisoned because of his embarrassing (& ultimately true) claims, but the die was cast. UEFA's ongoing 7 year quest to combat crippling debt in European football, was quickly supplanted by FFP with its focus purely on stopping Manchester City by stifling owner investment.

There was no way the European elite clubs were going to have their status threatened by this new, unwanted oil money interloper.



If we could rewind the clock & erase that Dr Sulaiman Al-Fahim claim from our history, perhaps the fierce 15 year resistance toward Manchester City wouldn't have been so vehement.

I could never imagine Khaldoon making such wild & incendiary comments as Desert Donald did. However he did, & nearly 16 years later here we are with a further 115 bullshit FFP/PSR breaches hanging over our heads.

 

[meltonblue]

Well, yes, that makes sense. They met him once before they offered him the City job and liked him, so they offered him the City job but couldn't sign him up because of the Inter clause, so they kept him warm with a lucrative consultancy contract until they could comfortably sign him or, in Hughes's case, had to sign him because it was going tits up. The contract was continued for Mancini's tax reasons, all negotiations and contracts being handled by the club.

Sounds more than plausible to me.

Anyway, its all speculation, but I am much more comfortable with that as an explanation than the club deliberately trying to mislead the PL for reasons which aren't, at all, apparent. Balance of probability, if you will.

It's OK to disagree, though.

I can’t see them doing that explanation though, that’s effectively saying we’re guilty!

 

[hammocity]

Just seen an article about the Tarquin’s dodgy dealings that most of us suspected but no way of knowing. How come the media are not throwing the shit bucket at them? It’s starts with Abramovich and the female CEO which are allegations being put forward but will it end with the new regime thoroughly investigated?

 

[johnevans]

Bloody hell we've got some well-read intellectuals on here!

Must admit these latest posts re Mancini and Al Jazira/Jazeera confused me.. I always thought the latter was F Scott Fitzgerald's favourite TV station..?!

('Jazz Era'?! All right, all right.. since this morning I've mentioned 'Early Doors', Proust and now 'The Great American Novel'.. Matron says enough is enough, time for my medication and a little nap..)

 

[Dribble]

Must admit these latest posts re Mancini and Al Jazira/Jazeera confused me.. I always thought the latter was F Scott Fitzgerald's favourite TV station..?!

('Jazz Era'?! All right, all right.. since this morning I've mentioned 'Early Doors', Proust and now 'The Great American Novel'.. Matron says enough is enough, time for my medication and a little nap..)

Please continue! You've given me a right intellectual belly laugh this morning mate. :-)

 

[Chi-town blues]

They went on a fishing expedition expecting to land a catch is the most likely correct answer.

Some wise man said “Give man a fish and he eats it naked in 2 minutes . Teach a man to fish and he goes on an expedition wanking 115 charges.”