PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

BerkshireBlue said:
On point (1) there is no PL rule stipulating managers renumeration must be stated in full. For the players it does the manager it doesn't. So it ends there legal as that's the rules as written and City haven't broken them. It's that simple really
Click to expand...

There is no rule saying owners can't fund sponsorship, yet here we are.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
On point (1) there is no PL rule stipulating managers renumeration must be stated in full. For the players it does the manager it doesn't. So it ends there legal as that's the rules as written and City haven't broken them. It's that simple really
Click to expand...

Don’t think that’s the issue with the Mancini one, it’s the possibility that we were paying it.
 
SilverFox2 said:
Given the financial predicament the PL now have with legal costs I wonder if a Sheikh M loan similar to his old Barclay's loan would be possible.
Perhaps the rule you mention excludes it but my point is that the PL is running out of money so why not borrow like Man U?

Debt seems to be accepted FOR PL members but investment frowned upon. Time for them to practice what they preach rather than complain about funds running out
Click to expand...
Those clubs will always use the servicable debt reply to justify the amount of debt they are in. So it's OK to be over £1billion in debt as long as it is serviceable but not OK to spend money that you do have without going into debt.
 
bigA said:
Those clubs will always use the servicable debt reply to justify the amount of debt they are in. So it's OK to be over £1billion in debt as long as it is serviceable but not OK to spend money that you do have without going into debt.
Click to expand...
I realise that but my point includes their brief that they have used up a lot of their banked money as though that is their only option.
They also say they cannot pay lower league sides their usual cut. Presumably they should borrow to keep up their role.
I imagine it would be a serviceable debt, after all they dictate the rules and fines etc,
 
meltonblue said:
Don’t think that’s the issue with the Mancini one, it’s the possibility that we were paying it.
Click to expand...
It still doesn't matter. The rule simply states a contract must exist that has termination clauses in place. That is it. It doesn't matter if city are paying an invoice to a separate company that has also hired Mancini. The rules don't mention how the manager is paid or anything stating full renumeration must be lodged. Basically shoddy rules. If that's what the PL wanted to happen with the rules than they should have written them like that. That's not city's fault whatsoever
 
BerkshireBlue said:
erm yes there is? all related party transactions must be of fair market value
Click to expand...

Which rule is that? I don't think the accounts are required to show related party transactions at fmv, but the PL has the right to adjust to fmv for FFP reporting purposes. Anyway, it doesn't matter.

Firstly, none of Etihad, Etisalat, Aabar, ADTA, Fordham, Mancini or Toure (which are apparently the target of the most serious allegations) are related parties, unless the PL is questioning the definition in the accounts, which would be a stretch as even UEFA didn't try that.

Secondly, on sponsorship, as far as I am aware, the fair value isn't being questioned. It certainly wasn't by UEFA at CAS and it hasn't been questioned in any of the years since 2009 by the PL, as far as I am aware.

Thirdly, the allegation with the AD sponsorships is that Mansour secretly funded the sponsorship commitments, deceived the auditors about the source of the sponsorship, filed accounts knowing them to be wrong, and then knowingly concealed these facts from the PL. Nothing to do with fair values.

The point of my post is that there is no rule saying owners can't fund sponsorships in the same way there was no rule (at the time) saying the club had to report all remuneration a manager received while under contract to the club.

But that doesn't matter. The allegations in the first tranche of allegations are that the club knowingly overstated income (sponsorship income) and understated costs (presumably Fordham, Mancini and Toure) in its filed accounts.

That is the actual situation, afaik, but I really don't have the energy to go through it again.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
On point (1) there is no PL rule stipulating managers renumeration must be stated in full. For the players it does the manager it doesn't. So it ends there legal as that's the rules as written and City haven't broken them. It's that simple really
Click to expand...
If you look at my last post you will see that I talk about if there was a rule in place re disclosure of a managers remuneration.
If you then go to the allegations lodged by the PL is that there was indeed such rules in place for the first 2 years it was ruleQ7&Q8 and in 2012/13 it was re numbered P7&P8

I link rule P7 from the 24/25 rule book.

I repeat I haven’t looked at the rule books in place for the relevant 3 years but there most certainly is such a rule in place now
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0066.png
    IMG_0066.png
    528.3 KB · Views: 24
BerkshireBlue said:
It still doesn't matter. The rule simply states a contract must exist that has termination clauses in place. That is it. It doesn't matter if city are paying an invoice to a separate company that has also hired Mancini. The rules don't mention how the manager is paid or anything stating full renumeration must be lodged. Basically shoddy rules. If that's what the PL wanted to happen with the rules than they should have written them like that. That's not city's fault whatsoever
Click to expand...

That may well be our defence for it although I seem to remember something referencing full renumeration, can’t remember when that came in though. I was pointing out what the potential issue was though rather than saying whether it was valid or not.
 
terraloon said:
If you look at my last post you will see that I talk about if there was a rule in place re disclosure of a managers remuneration.
If you then go to the allegations lodged by the PL is that there was indeed such rules in place for the first 2 years it was ruleQ7&Q8 and in 2012/13 it was re numbered P7&P8

I link rule P7 from the 24/25 rule book.

I repeat I haven’t looked at the rule books in place for the relevant 3 years but there most certainly is such a rule in place now
Click to expand...
The point is the 24/25 rule only serves to highlight the differences between now and then.

1727436449085.png
 
meltonblue said:
That may well be our defence for it although I seem to remember something referencing full renumeration, can’t remember when that came in though. I was pointing out what the potential issue was though rather than saying whether it was valid or not.
Click to expand...

The new rule was after 2012/13 iirc, after Mancini had left, so I don't think the club has a problem with a literal reading of the contract he had with the club.

I think the more serious allegation, although unlikely to succeed imo, is that, because the club apparently made some payments to Mancini for the AJ contract and was apparently involved in negotiating the AJ contract, the club should have included the AJ remuneration in his club contract and, because they didn't, knowingly understated expenses in the accounts (the first tranche of allegations along, probably, with Fordham and Toure).

Does that make sense?
 
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