PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[slbsn]

Did anybody get 6? I can picture something along the lines of the closest to United was someone with 6, I thought it was Arsenal, apologies.

Everton £8m

 

[Protein Junkie]

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?

Absolutely this.
“Bad Faith” is a totally subjective phrase on its own.
Imho you need a defined and complete set of circumstances under which “Bad Faith” resides.
Subjectivity can be used as a catch all but doesn’t need expensive lawyers to see it for what it is in this instance.

 

[Champions again in 2012]

I'm not even sure what those costs were doing in the club's accounts in the first place. They should have been Glazers' costs as they made the money, so I don't really have a problem with taking them back out again.

Except that post-Leicester, the written rules are the rules and, as far as I know, there is no rule saying those costs could be deducted. Someone should challenge it :)

Conversely, I assume that there is no rule saying that they cannot be deducted

 

[paulchapo]

Right pc, but this guy who messaged you could maybe have been asking what it is actually all about?
I'll be surprised if you have seen the real breakdown of charges in the press, beyond 35 counts of non-cooperation, 45 counts of failure to submit accurate accounts etc etc - I've not once seen any media mention of the real issues as presented here - etihad, etisalat, mancini et al... they are just not interested to look beyond the '115' and insist we must be guilty

I'd quote Pep..."I'm not a lawyer, Erling is not a lawyer." Neither am I.
I'm not even sure the premier league know all the charges.

 

[cheekybids]

Absolutely this.
“Bad Faith” is a totally subjective phrase on its own.
Imho you need a defined and complete set of circumstances under which “Bad Faith” resides.
Subjectivity can be used as a catch all but doesn’t need expensive lawyers to see it for what it is in this instance.

The whole introduction of FFP was done in bad faith. They dishonestly said it was to prevent clubs from going bust when the reality was it was to stop City.

 

[halfcenturyup]

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

You have to make a distinction between the manager remuneration breaches and the incorrect accounting breaches, I think.

Yes, the club should have easily complied with the P7 and P8 rules, but I think the PL is saying that, in good faith, the monies paid to Mancini should have been recorded in the club's accounts as part of his club remuneration. So, in their view, the accounts were wrong.

I don't think they can prove that, but the club's defence won't just be looking at the P7 and P8 wording. They will have to show why the services were separate, fulfilled and perfectly normal from a personal and professional point of view. I am sure they can.

Anyway, as we keep saying, it's not material to the accounts and very probably time limited anyway.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

You have to make a distinction between the manager remuneration breaches and the incorrect accounting breaches, I think.

Yes, the club should have easily complied with the P7 and P8 rules, but I think the PL is saying that, in good faith, the monies paid to Mancini should have been recorded in the club's accounts as part of his club remuneration. So, in their view, the accounts were wrong.

I don't think they can prove that, but the club's defence won't just be looking at the P7 and P8 wording. They will have to show why the services were separate, fulfilled and perfectly normal from a personal and professional point of view. I am sure they can.

Anyway, as we keep saying, it's not material to the accounts and very probably time limited anyway.

you have to follow wording as the premier league just found out with Leicester's win. The accounts were audited so were deemed correct even with any extra payments or whatever so that doesn't matter either. The key bit is was there a contract between Mancini and the club, yes or no, if yes then we haven't broken any of the rules they state we've broken

 

[Fred_Quimby]

Sorry if this rehashes old stuff but please bare with me. We have 3 teams in this arbitration I think. Ours is Panick esq, but who are in the other 2? The PL and the arbitration team. Thanks.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

You have to make a distinction between the manager remuneration breaches and the incorrect accounting breaches, I think.

Yes, the club should have easily complied with the P7 and P8 rules, but I think the PL is saying that, in good faith, the monies paid to Mancini should have been recorded in the club's accounts as part of his club remuneration. So, in their view, the accounts were wrong.

I don't think they can prove that, but the club's defence won't just be looking at the P7 and P8 wording. They will have to show why the services were separate, fulfilled and perfectly normal from a personal and professional point of view. I am sure they can.

Anyway, as we keep saying, it's not material to the accounts and very probably time limited anyway.

reading this again I think you're thinking that the manager has a renumeration rule.
This isn't the case only the players do

"Full details of a Player’s remuneration including all benefits to which he is entitled whether in cash or in kind shall be set out in his contract."

 

[BerkshireBlue]

reading this again I think you're think that the manager has a renumeration rule.
This isn't the case only the players do

"Full details of a Player’s remuneration including all benefits to which he is entitled whether in cash or in kind shall be set out in his contract."

Note there was no mention of Yaya's birthday cake in his contract so didn't get one