Obviously we have disagreed on the topic - albeit I think respectfully and in good faith - so once again I would just pick up on these few points, once again being my opinion only.
On Mancini, I would actually say it would be pretty easy for the PL to show concealment, not least because we all know full well that the reason Mancini signed the deal with the UAE was to enable both parties to lock in without risking his €14m payout from Inter.
I don’t think any of us disagree that for the most important topics, the evidenciary requirement is going to be huge and likely impossible to meet, but for €1,25m I don’t think the panel will have issue ruling ‘only’ on balance of probabilities, which again only in my opinion wouldn’t be hard for the PL to meet.
On Fordham, the agreement with City wasn’t wound down until sometime between 17 & 19, so it’s highly likely it won’t found to be time barred, but as I’ve said before, it wouldn’t have needed Sherlock Holmes to uncover the setup as Cliff was even a director….
That said, the Fordham arrangement ultimately added £59.9m in revenue to the club, so clearly it would in theory pass the materiality test for filing false accounts and acting in bad faith, however as above would in my opinion fall on the fact that City weren’t ever hiding the setup…
As said before, ultimately my opinion is that Mancini and Fordham are slam dunks for the PL, but they can only ever carry a minimal sporting sanction as Mancini is immaterial and Fordham was never concealed.
The interesting question is why the PL didn’t just stick with these 2x + non compliance which likely could’ve been wrapped up by now…perhaps the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze for ‘only’ those charges.
www.thetimes.co.uk
