PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Something I found interesting from sports bible whatever that is. Etihad are preparing for an Initial Public Offering (IPO), opening up their accounts for all to see before going on the stock exchange. Investment banking experts told the The Mirror that it's unlikely Etihad would allow such access if it risked revealing evidence of a manipulated sponsorship deal with City. The plot thickens. Or should that be the legal treacle does!
 
KS55 said:
He put a whacking great capital gains tax on them, levied on every trading gain. Legalised theft, if you like. It wounded pensions and pensioners very badly and the stock market too.
A disastrous move, imho.
Click to expand...
No difference between that guy and someone waltzing into your house and stealing the family silverware off the mantle piece.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Correct imho. I think his point is that it looks suspicious for City directors/employees to be involved in negotiations/discussions with any company with which a senior employee has a second contract. I just don't see it. I think the opposite. It would be negligent not to be involved to ensure the club isn't at any fiscal or legal risk from a second contract.

The related party argument is a red herring. If Mancini had taken a part-time job to manage England in the international breaks I would equally expect the leading club to be involved in negotiations/discussions for the same reasons.
Click to expand...

Joe Mercers contract will be getting checked now…
 
halfcenturyup said:
Fair enough. What about this as a suggested defence to the panel?:

"Oh, just tell the PL to fuck off will you? All they have is a couple of emails chosen to show the club in the worst possible light. We have valid contracts signed by the appropriate people in the appropriate companies and UK legal and tax clearances to support the contracts, the services provided and the amounts involved. And you can tell them not to even think about using the new rules. It was 13 fucking years ago, the cunts. I rest my case."

Could work. And my last post on Mancini ....
Click to expand...

I think that’s pretty much what we will say :)
 
halfcenturyup said:
Fair enough. What about this as a suggested defence to the panel?:

"Oh, just tell the PL to fuck off will you? All they have is a couple of emails chosen to show the club in the worst possible light. I put it to you…….. We have valid contracts signed by the appropriate people in the appropriate companies and UK legal and tax clearances to support the contracts, the services provided and the amounts involved. And you can tell them not to even think about using the new rules. It was 13 fucking years ago, the cunts. I rest my case."

Could work. And my last post on Mancini ....
Click to expand...

Edited for you :)
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
You mean the same Annabel Tiffin married to a man kicked out of Greater Manchester Police press office for sexual harassment?
Click to expand...
I queried Annabel Tiffin when she did this article and this was her reply.

“Thanks for replying. I appreciate what you’re saying. But I suppose from a journalist’s point of view we were doing a largely positive piece about a new venue. We have also done many items over the years about the regeneration of east Manchester. Never the less there is an issue that Manchester City council sold the land to a state with questionable human rights and many people have concerns about that. I put that point to the Mayor and it is for him to defend the position, which he did.

The UAE ranks 153 in the world in terms of personal freedoms. So while they’ve brought a lot of money into Manchester - and I love Manchester and want it to flourish - I believe it is fair to ask the question where that money is coming from.

Sorry for lengthy reply!!
Hope I haven’t put you off watching
Best wishes
Annabel”
 
halfcenturyup said:
Correct imho. I think his point is that it looks suspicious for City directors/employees to be involved in negotiations/discussions with any company with which a senior employee has a second contract. I just don't see it. I think the opposite. It would be negligent not to be involved to ensure the club isn't at any fiscal or legal risk from a second contract.

The related party argument is a red herring. If Mancini had taken a part-time job to manage England in the international breaks I would equally expect the leading club to be involved in negotiations/discussions for the same reasons.
Click to expand...

Not quite. I’m saying if you have city director able to negotiate a contract on behalf of another entity including financial arrangements and that entity also has the same owner, and subsequently transactions happened between those entities, it’d be a tough sell to say that they aren’t related parties.

The England analogy doesn’t work. I wouldn’t expect City to be involved in any financial side of the contract negotiation with England and also Mansour doesn’t own the England national team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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.