PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Super-Barwuah]

I now doubt an independent regulator will make any difference,if the premier league changed to whatever the same clubs with the same people will have their tentacles all over it,I wouldn’t be surprised either that the recent statement from uefa about government interference ( regulator)was somehow pushed by the usual suspects..

How much are city really in debt compared to utd's 1billion plus ...I'm not sure if city are like Aston villa Fulham debtless or am I wrong

 

[ufo]

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.

This has been bothering me too .

 

[Eccles Blue]

It would be good if our own ex-Chairman David Bernstein believed in us though!!
He is 'worried' and he is saying they may find us guilty!
We believe in City Bernstein, we believe. :-) :-(

 

[Champions again in 2012]

But the pl legal team still haven’t found what they are looking for

Could that be because this is a "nothing to see here, move on" situation

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Could also be, as with the Etisalat sponsorship, that we were netting money off against money due from ADUG. So for the Mancini/Al Jazira contract it could be that City paid it as they had the banking details and Al Jazira repaid us, or ADUG added it onto any monies they paid us.

With that Etisalat sponsorship, it was never denied that ADUG had met the initial payment but the accounting entries were then set up so that Etisalat owed ADUG the money, which they later paid. As we've always said with this, you simply can't take one email at face value without understanding the full picture and context.

the Mancini charges aren't a problem anyway all the rule states is "the terms of the Manager’s employment have been evidenced in a written contract of employment between the Club and the Manager" and "the Manager’s contract of employment has been registered with the Secretary". Also " Contracts of employment between a Club and a Manager shall include the standard clauses and clearly set out the circumstances in which the contract of employment may be determined by either party".

That's what we're charged with, which are just factual things we either did or didn't do these basic admin things. It doesn't mention not having second contracts with related/associated parties or any financial constraints in the rules whatsoever. So as far as a solicitor would see, these rules would only be broken if we didn't have a written contract that fulfilled standard terms and the termination agreements between Mancini and club, something I expect City to have. So these manager charges will drop very quickly and the PL can go and fuck themselves

 

[Stoned Rose]

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.

I care.

If we genuinely breached any of the regulations, we need to take that on the chin, take whatever sanction coming from it and learn from it.

 

[Kippax77]

Would make sense.

However, I see this as something we have an issue with because it is United, as opposed to a real world view on it.

I see it as non-football related costs and that if paid for, why should it be included in PSR etc.

The Covid allowance is the big one, as whichever club it who got £40 million whilst the rest got £1 million, I think our real world view would be why have they been allowed that.

Seems they've been really forgiven for trying to elope to the Super League, whilst others obviously haven't

 

[Eccles Blue]

the Mancini charges aren't a problem anyway all the rule states is "the terms of the Manager’s employment have been evidenced in a written contract of employment between the Club and the Manager" and "the Manager’s contract of employment has been registered with the Secretary". Also " Contracts of employment between a Club and a Manager shall include the standard clauses and clearly set out the circumstances in which the contract of employment may be determined by either party".

That's what we're charged with, which are just factual things we either did or didn't do these basic admin things. It doesn't mention not having second contracts with related/associated parties or any financial constraints in the rules whatsoever. So as far as a solicitor would see, these rules would only be broken if we didn't have a written contract that fulfilled standard terms and the termination agreements between Mancini and club, something I expect City to have. So these manager charges will drop very quickly and the PL can go and fuck themselves

They're too busy doing that to the cartel and keeping in their good books so that the poor little darlings don't get upset. ;-)

 

[Stoned Rose]

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).

I raised a similar point earlier.

“Bad faith” seems such an abstract concept how would you prove what someone’s intentions were?

And how would you even measure it?

 

[hello]

My seemingly sensible brother in law (rag) is convinced if we “get let off” its because we bribed “The FA”.

This is what we are up against.
I asked him what the fuck its got to do with the FA anyway and how any bribe would go down.

He just said “money talks”

:))

Tell your sister/brother to make sure they take full fiscal responsibility for their household finances as he's a fucking idiot if he thinks bribing a totally different organisation would make any difference.