PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[TheGhost]

Do you care whether City actually broke the rules or that we just get cleared of the charges?
For me it’s prove them or do one.
In some ways I’d rather we were guilty but got away with it.

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Even if they could run a fall back bad faith claim, it’d likely be time barred

The "good faith" breach only applies to the filing incorrect accounts allegations (also to non-cooperation after 2018). So I think what they are trying to say is that Mancini's consultancy agreement was clearly part of Mancini's salary and should have been included in the club's accounts. Because it wasn't, the accounts were wrong. It's pretty hard to prove that, I think, for a whole host of reasons and, in that case, the whole thing will probably be time limited anyway.

The breaches in respect of the manager remuneration rules (or the player remuneration rules for that matter) don't refer to the "good faith" breach so will probably just be a procedural issue with the PL. Did we comply with the rules as written? And I think the answer to that is clearly yes, especially after the Leicester judgment.

I think that's the situation, although it could all be bollocks :)

Thanks fellas, ive long been of the opinion the matter will be time barred as long as City can provide evidence the contract was satisfactorily performed by both parties. I wouldn't have thought that was necessary under normal circumstances as City were not a direct party to the contract however did we not facilitate payment as a third party?

I was only pondering the thoughts of berkshire blue down the rabbit hole of "good faith".

 

[Silva2021]

I think the main issue here is not what the rags did it’s whether the rest of the clubs were made aware by the PL that they could also do the same? Or did they only tell the rags?

It seems pretty obvious to me that had the other clubs known they could, they would have. Why wouldn’t they?

Looks like preferential treatment to me.

Really wished (no offence to any of their fans) that Everton had relegated due to the points deduction.

This would have really ramped up if they could have given United this.

As they stayed up Everton may well get to use it to their advantage now, but if they had gone down this could have been huge.

 

[paulchapo]

Do you care whether City actually broke the rules or there’s we just get cleared of the charges?
For me it’s prove them or do one.
In some ways I’d rather we were guilty but got away with it.

As I don't agree with the rules I couldn't give a fuck as they were only created to stop our progress. I actually don't think they're legal anyway but unfortunately nobody challenged them in the same way Bosman did players contracts.

 

[Silva2021]

They also get around 30 million per year deductible costs like infrastructure, women's football, community and youth.

The bigger question is why the Ratcliffe acquisition costs were deductible. I am not sure if there has ever been an instance of costs being deducted except for those four categories. Maybe there has been?

I’m not sure if it has before and if not that is clearly wrong.

However if it has I do think that is the correct position to take.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Thanks fellas, ive long been of the opinion the matter will be time barred as long as City can provide evidence the contract was satisfactorily performed by both parties. I wouldn't have thought that was necessary under normal circumstances as City were not a direct party to the contract however did we not facilitate payment as a third party?

I was only pondering the thoughts of berkshire blue down the rabbit hole of "good faith".

Yes, we don't know much about the payments of the contract out of the club's bank account. But payments themselves mean nothing. It's the accounting of them that is important. Credit went to the bank account. But where did the debit go? Only one of two places realistically. Balance sheet as a receivable from AJ, or profit and loss as an expense. If the latter, what is the PL's problem? If the former, the payments mean nothing.

Anyway it doesn't matter, I don't think. It's the intent behind the AJ contract the PL is challenging. And good luck with that :)

 

[Centurions]

Do you care whether City actually broke the rules or there’s we just get cleared of the charges?
For me it’s prove them or do one.
In some ways I’d rather we were guilty but got away with it.

I very much care if they did with two exceptions, the non-cooperation charges given the PL are acting on others behalf and anything with "in good faith" appended as that's purely subjective rather than objective and can mean anything they like (or are told to like).

 

[ufo]

Great response to that irritating bellend Ian Darke

oh fuck not this ian drag **** again, the most irritating thick **** on tv with a punchable voice and fuck a face. This **** gets personal with anything man city related

 

[Canter]

It would be interesting to see how the Independent Regulator would view the cartel attempting to Reform the Premier League. Should such a thing come to pass.

The perfect time for an Independent Regulator to be introduced to English Football and would that not be where the FA step in. After all they are our governing body.
That's exactly where the Premier League will see it being reformed surely. Ownership, governance, finances (FFP), protecting the whole football pyramid and you never know we as fans may get more of a say. Although I'm not holding my breath for that one.

 

[slbsn]

I’m not sure if it has before and if not that is clearly wrong.

However if it has I do think that is the correct position to take.

I'd assume a) it has been permitted before b) United have had it cleared already.

I just don't believe they would take chances in a NYSE announcement. That said it appears both the PL and United have not guided either way which is a bit odd