PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Come on man! You can't drop in a term like 'sui generis' without an explanation. Show off!
; )

Some examples of Sui Genesis:
4 in a row.
100 points.
32 wins in a PL season.
23 consecutive home wins.
20 consecutive away wins.
12 consecutive away PL wins.
10 consecutive wins in UEFA competitions.
11 CL games won in a season.
25 consecutive games unbeaten in CL.
32 unbeaten games at home in CL.
169 goals in a season.
106 goals in a PL season.
36 league wins a calendar year.
19 away league wins in a calendar year.
Not forgetting being relegated the year after winning the top division.

I sometimes forget what a privilege it is supporting this team……

 

[Inter Me Nan]

Depends on what they deal with when, and how. Hearing rules might be sui generis, although likely to echo how the civil courts operate. Might be up to the chair what order to deal with things, although terminatory applications would normally be taken at start of play.

They may adjust the timetable too if the tribunal are booked out for 12 weeks. Introduce a few ‘reading days’. Sitting for shorter hours. Taking the odd days off because one of the tribunal cannot sit, for fairly nebulous reasons. Covid!

Loads of ways to stretch it out.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

View attachment 133121

I talk how I talk. You ****! :-)

 

[kaz7]

As I posted months ago I am not going to post an opinion re the main charges until we hear the outcome from the IC. My take on many of the charges does accord with the majority view on here but there are some of the charges like the Mancini contract issue that will , if the email chain is indeed fact, will be down to the assessment of the panel members in terms on balance were payments from city and as a consequence I don’t think it’s even close to a foregone conclusion

In terms of your take about how City would behave I personally can’t see how they would have not carried on with the stadium project.If that project had been put on ice surely the whole of football save city would see that as a self sign of guilt

As for sponsors again the bulk of the football community outside City are of the opinion that there are direct links the narrative from many supporters is that the majority of Cities . That almost certainly isn’t the case indeed most clubs see the value offered through greater number of “ partners” as opposed to major sponsors exclusively . There is no way that City would be saying anything differently to new sponsors in term of their innocence.

As for Gundogan. Sorry he is only on a one year deal at City so the question of him playing in the Championship next season isn’t really an issue still a very good player at soon to be 34 he may indeed get another deal but at this time he is only a city player guaranteed till May 25.

As for Utd hiring Berrada that is an interesting one and there is an alternative narrative that particularly if it suited Utd and potentially the PL to have in effect access to someone that was close to the facts and should ultimately he, Berrada, be implicated then an exit from Utd would certainly follow.

Thank you for telling us gundy has only signed for a year , who knew and why mention the championship at all ?

Gundy has in fact got the option for another year

 

[slbsn]

Depends on what they deal with when, and how. Hearing rules might be sui generis, although likely to echo how the civil courts operate. Might be up to the chair what order to deal with things, although terminatory applications would normally be taken at start of play.

They may adjust the timetable too if the tribunal are booked out for those 12 weeks. Introduce a few ‘reading days’. Sitting for shorter hours. Taking the odd days off because one of the tribunal cannot sit, for fairly nebulous reasons. Covid!

Loads of ways to stretch it out.

Moreover any judgment will be reserved. They won’t be making any decisions during the hearing.

 

[kaz7]

When he first joined he was a lot more up front with his views, he was called out on it and disappeared for a bit.

Since he has come back, he is more measured in not being so open with his real views, make no mistake, he is just another waiting patiently for City to get fucked by the PL.

I totally agree with you

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Moreover any judgment will be reserved. They won’t be making any decisions during the hearing.

Not sure I completely agree. Most minds are made up before the speeches, but the reasons will require considerable time, so the net result is the same.

Wonder if the any of the charges fail on a point of limitation whether Pannick will request that is recorded in the decision in a particular way? You would not normally do that with a Judge, unless expressly invited, but maybe this in this forum it’s permissible?

 

[Stoned Rose]

Moreover any judgment will be reserved. They won’t be making any decisions during the hearing.

I don’t agree. They’ll make their minds up as the evidence plays out.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Where did I say that the 24/25 rule would be applied to the years in question? Indeed I thought I had made it clear that reference would have to be made to the rules in place at the time.


However since you quote the rule surely 7.1 that can only be read that the contract that is registered has to reflect the total sums paid in respect of duties carried out by in this instance Mancini at Man City by my reading the PL are clearly suggesting / claiming that the City contract lodged giving details of agreed remuneration as per the City contract but said contract doesn’t fully record all sums paid for his duties at City they are claiming ,to use others words the parallel contract is ,“ a sham”

As I keep saying the IC will be required to take a view and sorry I very much doubt it is a slam dunk as you suggest it will be down to the panels view

7.1 just states the terms have been set out and written down in proper contract. It has fuck all to do with money or how he's paid. If city had a contract with Mancini then that is it.

What's happened, and this is by clear evidence, is the Premier League, like yourself, have tried to apply 2023 rules back to 2009 to 2013. We know that happened due to the ridiculous public release statement that was rushed out. They then had to backtrack and rerelease it months later correcting the content but they still kept the original charge in, as they had to otherwise they'd look stupid but they did changed the numbers for each rule book.

They quoted

for each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2012/13 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2009/10 to 2011/12 inclusive, Premier League Rules Q.7 and Q.8; and
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules P.7 and P.8; and

which is the 2023 definition of the rules but mention Q7 and Q8 of the handbook which also states a contract is written. So for me and probably everyone else this just doesn't stand up at all legally. The Premier have 100% fucked up on this bit of the charge sheet.

I'll also add nothing illegal has happened here, a manager can have two contracts with two different organisations for tax burden reduction purposes. Which is why all of this Mancini stuff will end up being not guilty due to the statute of limitation anyway

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I don’t agree. They’ll make their minds up as the evidence plays out.

The closing speech is the most romantic function of advocacy, but the least effective. It’s rare it will turn someone round, however well delivered.