I really hate this cryptic posts from Tolmie when The outcome of 115 is still up in the air. It is ok with cryptic post when it comes to transfers, but not now. If you know Star Wars with a good luck emoj, this is bad news. Hope I am wrong.Nah, the PL is the Empire, and it's crumbling.
Does that mean if City are cleared of 114 charges but guilty on the Mancini allegation we would still pick up the tab for all the fees? Sounds like another nonsensical and unfair (unlawful) suggestion by the morons running the PL. The decision on who pays which costs is always decided by the Judge for very sound reasons. Why should City pay for the costs incurred by the PL during a malicious witchunt going back 17 years?This is interesting:
"Sources have told Football Insider the Premier League could now propose new rules are brought in [after the 115 case] to ensure the majority of its legal fees are paid for by a club if they are proven to have committed a financial breach."
Maybe they could better put themselves in a position that they don't have to keep charging clubs with "financial" offences .....
when hughes was sacked it was well reported that City were looking to bring mancini in as he was already working for ADUG in a consultancy role therefore already under contract to themThis is only from memory but wasn't Bobby Manc placed on a consultation contract for Abu Dhabi prior to joining us?
I thought he'd been sacked by Inter and City were going to appoint him the following summer to replace Mark Hughes, he was given the consultation work to stop him joining another club. Hughes was sacked earlier than expected and Bobby was appointed, I think his contract was then renegotiated and the Consultant aspect either included or paid separately for the remaining of the season.
If what I remember is correct I can't see any rhyme or reason of how it could be unlawful, he was being paid for two roles and as someone else posted he didn't physically have to be in Abu Dhabi himself, he'd have filed his tax return in the UK or Italy for the necessary financial year (I think).
This is interesting:
"Sources have told Football Insider the Premier League could now propose new rules are brought in [after the 115 case] to ensure the majority of its legal fees are paid for by a club if they are proven to have committed a financial breach."
Maybe they could better put themselves in a position that they don't have to keep charging clubs with "financial" offences .....
If I was the owner of a club that had paid honest interest on its loans over the years, I'd be looking carefully at any transactions influenced by a requirement to keep within the unlawful rules and the effect that may have had on our league position. Then I'd be considering legal action against the PL.
when hughes was sacked it was well reported that City were looking to bring mancini in as he was already working for ADUG in a consultancy role therefore already under contract to them
completely separate to any contract City would offer him when he became City manager
the '2 contracts' stuff is nonsense
No. There's nothing in the accounts (although those are apparently a pack of lies anyway).Haven't City got a loan ?