PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

The investigation side of the pl must be one of the biggest employers in the uk.

Working on, City, Everton, Forest, Chelsea, Leicester.
The pl will also be investigating every club in the pl past and present with a fine tooth comb.

The pl have the 50 million for Anfield to be investigate, utd and pisscan transfers with his son this could go on for decades.

Come off it, there is absolutely no way Liverpool, Arsenal, United and Spurs will be investigated the way we are!
 
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;-)
If you can find footage of just after the final whistle of the first leg of the League Cup semi final win over united (1-3) at OT on Jan 7th 2020 - David Gill is shown leaving his seat with a 'that's it, I've had enough of them face, time to hit back' - you could visibly see his bitterness spilling over.
 
For six months after he was sacked the press had regular articles about how disruptive he was. I am not saying he wasn't, he cleatly was, I am saying Soriano runs a tight enough ship for me to know that if that happens it happens with, at least, the blessing of the club, if not directly from the club.

Mancini was man enough to keep his silence, but it wasn't a good look for the club and it wasn't even necessary.

At least, that's how I remember it.
If Bobby Manc was called as a witness he has already said that he has paid tax on the payments and everything was above board as far as he's concerned. So I don't think there is a smoking gun there.
 
Not providing full details of manager remuneration. They can’t say they continued the contract with the negotiations done by the club as that does show it was a related transaction.

There was no requirement to provide details of the manager's contract with other clubs in those days, was there?

And even if there was, what was the consequence? Did it give a sporting advantage?
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.