PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

Despite the LCFC ruling the PL will still have a go with "acting in bad faith", which to me is the PL saying "you should have to told us about Al Jirra". If I was on our legal team I would question the PL "If City had informed the PL about Al Jirra what precisely would the PL have done with that information?". They probably wouldn't want to reply "fuck all" but that is precisely what they did when they learnt about bacon face's racehorses given to him by the rag owners.

The Mancini contract allegation doesn't include a breach for not acting in good faith (good faith was only referred to in the tranche of allegations relating to the accounts and in the non-cooperation allegations) so they seem to be relying on the wording of the manager contract rules at the time which didn't include any requirement to report secondary contracts. New rules, implemented later did refer to secondary contracts but these can't be applied retrospectively afaik, so I am not sure why they included Mancini as a breach of those rules, tbh, other than as some attempt to apply the new rules to Mancini, which won't work especially post-Leicester.

There is a second point on the Mancini contract, though, which needs addressing imho and that is the effect on the accounts. They may be saying the Mancini AJ contract is a sham intended to reduce costs in MCFC and so include it in their assessment of whether the accounts filed were incorrect (this tranche of allegations does refer to good faith). That tranche specifically refers to understatement of expenses in the accounts and that may be due to Mancini, Toure or Fordham, or all three. I struggle to see how it could be material (I suppose it could be accumulated with other allegations) or how they could prove the contract was a sham but that is their job, not mine.

Just my twopenneth's worth on Mancini.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

You just made me think there. Does he still post?

He's still at Manchester airport waiting for Messi

 

[cheekybids]

Me too, none the wiser what he means but found this reference re his clue

The line "I sense a disturbance in the Force" (or variations of it) is often attributed to Jedi in the Star Wars franchise, but it is most closely associated with Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope.

In that film, Obi-Wan says something similar:
"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced."
This happens when the Death Star destroys Alderaan.

While the exact phrase "I sense a disturbance in the Force" is not directly spoken in the movies, it has become a widely recognized paraphrasing of the concept, especially in Star Wars fandom and extended media.

Do us a favour Tolm, knock it on the head, pls.

I’m even more confused after the explanation…..

 

[applecentral]

May the force be with us all!

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

The arrogance and stupidity of the PL, in their attempts to protect the interests of the cartel clubs only, is truly staggering.

There can be absolutely no reason for their blatant and stupid ignoring of the findings of the legality of their APT rules could not be any clearer.

The costs of these actions will be passed onto the non-favoured teams who constitute the PL, as a substantial part of their income, whilst the drivers and culprits of these actions will not be as severely affected due to their already very substantial income levels. Greed is the driver of this protracted mess.

It has needed the actions and financial clout of City to bring this to a head, whilst Nero ( the PL ) watches on as Rome burns.

The cartel needs to be brought down quickly for the sake of football in general.

 

[Shirley]

May 4th…no fixture on that date

 

[nmc]

The Mancini contract allegation doesn't include a breach for not acting in good faith (good faith was only referred to in the tranche of allegations relating to the accounts and in the non-cooperation allegations) so they seem to be relying on the wording of the manager contract rules at the time which didn't include any requirement to report secondary contracts. New rules, implemented later did refer to secondary contracts but these can't be applied retrospectively afaik, so I am not sure why they included Mancini as a breach of those rules, tbh, other than as some attempt to apply the new rules to Mancini, which won't work especially post-Leicester.

There is a second point on the Mancini contract, though, which needs addressing imho and that is the effect on the accounts. They may be saying the Mancini AJ contract is a sham intended to reduce costs in MCFC and so include it in their assessment of whether the accounts filed were incorrect (this tranche of allegations does refer to good faith). That tranche specifically refers to understatement of expenses in the accounts and that may be due to Mancini, Toure or Fordham, or all three. I struggle to see how it could be material (I suppose it could be accumulated with other allegations) or how they could prove the contract was a sham but that is their job, not mine.

Just my twopenneth's worth on Mancini.

The Mancini contract can only been shown to be a sham - IF the PL can prove on the balance of probabilities that Mancini didn’t fulfil his contractual obligations- which I think they will find impossible. If Mancini says he did how can they disprove him?

 

[KS55]

The Mancini contract can only been shown to be a sham - IF the PL can prove on the balance of probabilities that Mancini didn’t fulfil his contractual obligations- which I think they will find impossible. If Mancini says he did how can they disprove him?

Nowt to do with City.

 

[cheekybids]

The Mancini contract can only been shown to be a sham - IF the PL can prove on the balance of probabilities that Mancini didn’t fulfil his contractual obligations- which I think they will find impossible. If Mancini says he did how can they disprove him?

& we’ve seen from the many hearings that panels are unlikely to call people liars.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

The Mancini contract can only been shown to be a sham - IF the PL can prove on the balance of probabilities that Mancini didn’t fulfil his contractual obligations- which I think they will find impossible. If Mancini says he did how can they disprove him?

Weirdly the PL didn’t ask for Mancini’s version of events as he confirmed no one has spoken to him about it.