PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[old blue]

Was this written by a two year old fukin dipper

In between reporting to a police station and his printing "hobby".

 

[hello]

I wish that had occurred to me when we were kids.

Bet you wouldn't want to be that kid that turned up at A&E with a water pistol stuck to their todger after trying to refill it a bit too enthusiastically.

 

[RayCTID]

Was this written by a two year old fukin dipper

Crayon eating at its finest. I wonder if Lewis Oldham wore a Crash Helmet when typing that masterpiece?

 

[M18CTID]

Yes. I meant that more as in the renumeration. If we were paying Mancini an acceptable amount at the time just from us, then unless we were also paying Al Jaziras wage to him too, I’d argue there’s nothing wrong with it, it’s got sod all to do with the PL.

I know posters on here have said that his salary from us seemed to be on the low side but wasn't it heavily loaded with extras in the form of bonuses?

Even if it wasn't and it was being "topped up" with his Al Jazira wage then like I've said before, the arrangement wouldn't have been in place to deceive the Premier League. I mean, why would we need to when there was no FFP in 2009 and back then we were posting eye-watering losses that absolutely dwarf the amounts we're talking about with regards to Mancini? When you look at what the likes of Wayne Bridge and Croque Santa Cruz were being paid through the books, why would we hide part of Mancini's salary which, even when you combine his AJ wage, was probably lower than what those two were being paid? It makes absolutely no sense to do it as a form of deception, so this was almost certainly only ever being done for tax purposes for Mancini's benefit rather than ours, and as such that's none of the Premier League's business. It most definitely is HMRC's business though but it seems they're not in the least bit arsed because they've not exactly been banging our door down about it. I mentioned this to my boss at work. He's a United fan so obviously he wants us found guilty but when I told him about the Mancini stuff he said what I said - that it would've been an arrangement for tax purposes - then shrugged his shoulders as if to say "Where's the scandal in that?"

Also, let's not forget that last year Mancini said the PL hadn't even approached him about it. Now you'd have thought that he'd be the first person they'd want to interview about it.

 

[meltonblue]

There are apparently bank transfers. They are not disclosable transactions in the accounting sense or the FFP sense even if it existed at the time, which it didn't.

I think we are getting away from the point. The only important point is that there were two contracts with two different clubs. We can agree on that. Who discussed or negotiated what isn't important. Only who signed what. Who paid for what isn't even that important as long as the right charges ended up in the right clubs.

You seemed to be worried the emails showed the club was involved in negotiating some Mancini arrangements also for AJ. I tried to explain why I don't think that is a problem.

That's all.

I think Mancini is the least of our problems, honestly, so we have probably hogged the thread long enough .....

I dont, I think that and the Fordham one are our two main problems as they’re the only two for which there’s no defence already out there, so we’re hypothesising. I just disagree with who discussed or negotiated what isn’t important, I think that’s the main crux of the whole issue.

 

[meltonblue]

I know posters on here have said that his salary from us seemed to be on the low side but wasn't it heavily loaded with extras in the form of bonuses?

Even if it wasn't and it was being "topped up" with his Al Jazira wage then like I've said before, the arrangement wouldn't have been in place to deceive the Premier League. I mean, why would we need to when there was no FFP in 2009 and back then we were posting eye-watering losses that absolutely dwarf the amounts we're talking about with regards to Mancini? When you look at what the likes of Wayne Bridge and Croque Santa Cruz were being paid through the books, why would we hide part of Mancini's salary which, even when you combine his AJ wage, was probably lower than what those two were being paid? It makes no sense to do it, so this was almost certainly only ever being done for tax purposes for Mancini's benefit rather than ours, and as such that's none of the Premier League's business. I mentioned this to my boss at work. He's a United fan so obviously he wants us found guilty but when I told him about the Mancini stuff he said what I said - that it would've been a tax thing - then shrugged his shoulders as if to say "Where's the scandal in that?"

I’ve no idea if it was low or not tbh, I don’t know what the wage for managers was like back then. It was definitely loaded with bonuses though.

Ultimately, the motive doesn’t really matter, not to the PL, in terms of it being a valid excuse at least. If we say we did it for Mancinis tax purposes, then they’ll still just say in which case you didn’t provide details of full manager renumeration to us.

I don’t actually think it’s a big deal that we did it and even if they did find us guilty, I don’t see how it can be much more than a slap on the wrists. I’m only focussing on it as it’s one of the only things I’m not feeling hugely positive about.

 

[dadnlad]

I don't think there is a smoking gun anywhere in these allegations, or a gun of any kind. Not even a water pistol.

alot of pissing into the wind

 

[halfcenturyup]

I dont, I think that and the Fordham one are our two main problems as they’re the only two for which there’s no defence already out there, so we’re hypothesising. I just disagree with who discussed or negotiated what isn’t important, I think that’s the main crux of the whole issue.

Any background on Fordham for me?

 

[Phil1]

Was this written by a two year old fukin dipper

I think @malg is a bit older tbf..

 

[Dribble]

I know posters on here have said that his salary from us seemed to be on the low side but wasn't it heavily loaded with extras in the form of bonuses?

Even if it wasn't and it was being "topped up" with his Al Jazira wage then like I've said before, the arrangement wouldn't have been in place to deceive the Premier League. I mean, why would we need to when there was no FFP in 2009 and back then we were posting eye-watering losses that absolutely dwarf the amounts we're talking about with regards to Mancini? When you look at what the likes of Wayne Bridge and Croque Santa Cruz were being paid through the books, why would we hide part of Mancini's salary which, even when you combine his AJ wage, was probably lower than what those two were being paid? It makes absolutely no sense to do it as a form of deception, so this was almost certainly only ever being done for tax purposes for Mancini's benefit rather than ours, and as such that's none of the Premier League's business. It most definitely is HMRC's business though but it seems they're not in the least bit arsed because they've not exactly been banging our door down about it. I mentioned this to my boss at work. He's a United fan so obviously he wants us found guilty but when I told him about the Mancini stuff he said what I said - that it would've been an arrangement for tax purposes - then shrugged his shoulders as if to say "Where's the scandal in that?"

Also, let's not forget that last year Mancini said the PL hadn't even approached him about it. Now you'd have thought that he'd be the first person they'd want to interview about it.

Mancini's basic was £1.7m, but heavily incentivised, averaging £6m per season. He also said he paid the relevant taxes on all remuneration & that neither UEFA or the PL had ever been in touch with him about it, & if they did, he'd be happy to put them straight.

This smacks of even more poo-slinging adding to the "cheats" narrative, in the hope the shit sticks to us. If the UAE has a lower tax bracket, as long as Mancini can prove he carried out the consultation work as contracted, there's fuck all the UK authorities can do about it, let alone the piddling Premier League.

This shows their utter futile desperation to find us guilty of breaching something, anything. The fact no UK authorities have been knocking at our door to feel our collars should tell anyone with an ounce of commonsense this whole witchhunt is bollox.