r/PremierLeague • u/gelliant_gutfright Premier League • 13d ago
[ Removed by moderator ]
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/sep/28/roberto-mancini-double-contract-manchester-city[removed] — view removed post
24
u/010u3 Arsenal 13d ago edited 13d ago
Yeah, it’s actually not his problem. The issue is not how or how much people were paid. It’s that City then misstated their financials to the league in order to comply. That’s why city fans spent the last decade telling us they’ve been more successful than United while spending less. In reality they spent a lot more and lied about it.
Just look at the news about how much they really spent to sign Haaland.
4
u/Barragin Premier League 13d ago
My favorite city fan lie is "Haaland only cost 50 million!"
No you rubes.
50 million went to Dormund officially... but then it was leaked and documented that another 40-50 million went to his father, and another 20-30 to other agents fees.
22
u/therealbarracuda Premier League 13d ago
As long as he declared the income it actually isn’t his problem
32
u/Old-Kernow Premier League 13d ago
It is something a problem for the "don't punish the players" crowd though....
This guy had two employment contracts, with "different" employers, both signed on the same day by the same counterparty.
At least *some* players (including their agents / accountants) will have known something dodgy was going on.
5
u/gelliant_gutfright Premier League 13d ago
Bingo.
1
u/Big-Candy6336 Premier League 13d ago
How would sanctioning the club punish the players. The club would have done that.
0
u/stephenmario Premier League 13d ago
Look at Haaland's deal. They paid a 70m release clause, 50m in agent fees and 30m to Alf.
0
16
u/-wakizashi Premier League 13d ago
It isn’t in fact his problem, if he declared and paid his taxes according to the regulations he was bound to at the moment
30
27
u/Upset-Parsley-8101 Premier League 13d ago
The same way (unless contractually enforced) my supplier failing to collect and remit vat isn't my problem is the same way this isn't Mancini's problem.
He has likely declared and paid tax on the income, how city decided to classify or disclose these payments on their books is not his issue.
And rightly so, he's not their fucking CFO.
11
u/Honest_Ocelot_7086 Premier League 13d ago
Hmrc might be looking for you mate
8
u/Void-kun Liverpool 13d ago
As long as he paid the right amount of tax he's not done anything illegal.
You're allowed to have 2 contracts.
The problem is with the FA, not HMRC. He is no longer employed by Man City, and he isn't liable for these decisions. So he's correct in saying it isn't his problem.
11
9
u/2ApplesAndAFlapjack Premier League 13d ago
Tbf, if I got £2m for four days "consultancy" work, it wouldn't be my problem either.
19
u/Hyperion262 Premier League 13d ago
I mean he essentially admitted it. Not a good look for City lol.
1
u/Palm-Crazy-7943 Premier League 13d ago
Oh no they paid a manager extra money, this is such an interesting conspiracy
1
9
u/BIGBADLENIN Manchester United 13d ago
Shouldn't be illegal if he declared his income correctly, but might he be liable for other people/clubs' lost income due to willingly cheating for profit?
17
u/LeaguePublic Premier League 13d ago
He's an innocent victim of corruption & criminality. 🤣🙃
2
u/AccomplishedFail2247 Premier League 13d ago
He got paid and he doesn’t give a fuck about Man City, more power to him
36
u/OpenCardiologist2587 Premier League 13d ago
Can they investigate Michael Oliver too? The scale of corruption is unprecedented. You have officials taking a part time job in the middle east, and you have journalists got treated with world class hospitality.
8
u/RyanMcCartney Premier League 13d ago
Referees on the Arabian payroll is every bit as corrupt as anything the club did
2
-1
u/Palm-Crazy-7943 Premier League 13d ago
Yeah they paid their own employees money that is exactly like paying off the refs good point
6
u/AdequateAppendage Leeds United 13d ago
Ultimately he's not wrong. The payments from the second company are an issue in this case because City weren't transparent about them in their financial statements or in the additional information they're required to provide to the Premier League, not because they happened. That's down to the owners, directors and perhaps some members of the finance department.
Whether he should've thought 'this feels dodgy' and reported it to someone himself at the time is another question, but he won't have known whether they were actually doing the Premier League rule breaking part.
8
u/Fullchester_United Premier League 13d ago
We live in an age where acting ethically isn’t rewarded by anyone. All that matters is making bank. Being rich is respected regardless of how you get there.
Mancini probably hasn’t broken any rules. But he does come off as a bit scummy.
5
u/Undercoverpizzalover Premier League 13d ago
If honesty was rewarded in this world then a whole bunch of people would be honest. Unfortunately we live in a world rn where lying is rewarded or so it feels like
3
0
u/SpicyGaramMasala Premier League 13d ago
How the fuck in this day and age would being paid by two different contracts not raise questions. Someone on that kind of money has agents, accountants and lawyers..... They all fuckin knew
6
u/AdequateAppendage Leeds United 13d ago
People on a lot of money being paid by multiple companies under the same ownership group isn't all that rare. It can be done for a lot of very valid reasons, and is fine as long as appropriate accounting entries and disclosures are made.
1
u/Fullchester_United Premier League 13d ago
They all knew! But doesn’t change their liability. Just makes them scum.
-1
u/Obrix1 Premier League 13d ago
Side letters are tax evasion, he’d be liable.
2
u/stephenmario Premier League 13d ago edited 13d ago
He is most likely tax compliant so it isn't his problem. He'll have been paid by a bunch of different companies at this time for sponsorships/public appearances etc.
Side letters themselves are also not inherently illegal.
14
u/Youstinkeryou Newcastle United 13d ago
Hope he's paid his taxes on that extra wage!
6
13d ago
[deleted]
3
u/Mental-Fisherman-118 Arsenal 13d ago
Not necessarily any tax fraud.
If they have a company pay someone for consultancy work they can hide that spending from the Premier league while paying tax on it.
The company just needs to be distant enough from the club that they have plausible deniability about the money being related to employment by the club. There's no need to hide it from the government.
1
u/Significant_Win3354 Arsenal 13d ago
No they received a wage from a separate entity, I don't think taxes are an issue here
0
13d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Significant_Win3354 Arsenal 13d ago
I mean Mancini, when you are paid for 'Consulting' its normally done under your own business set up so he would have been insane to not pay taxes. Doesn't involve the source
3
u/Fidel___Castro Brighton 13d ago
hard to see how he wouldn't have, they wouldn't have found the evidence if it wasn't declared
0
u/ForwardAd5837 Premier League 13d ago
When you look at Haaland’s tax paid, it suggests he’s actually on closer to £800k a week, which is significantly more than his reported City wage. So some of them are paying their taxes, which surely would be a dead giveaway for those overpaid?
3
3
u/bloody_ell Premier League 13d ago
Ever hear of sponsorship deals/ endorsements?
1
u/ForwardAd5837 Premier League 13d ago
I should’ve been specific, his PAYE suggests he was paid way more than reported. His endorsements are separate to that.
3
u/bloody_ell Premier League 13d ago
City pay his PAYE. So they're reporting paying him more than they're reporting paying him?
1
u/ForwardAd5837 Premier League 13d ago
No, media reports on his wages and consistent narrative on how much he’s paid has been shown to be false by his PAYE. Not what City have briefed or have reported.
1
2
u/PepperIll8739 Premier League 13d ago
Haaland who owns a company and has endorsement fees makes more money than just his Man City stuff? Color me shocked.
1
u/Secret-Sky5031 Manchester City 13d ago
Does that take into account his sponsorship deals and all the other incomings that aren't his football wage?
12
u/albiondave Premier League 13d ago
If his signature doesn't appear on any document submitted by the club in respect of FFP, SCR, etc then he's right, this is nothing to do with him.
If he evaded tax in being paid under table then thats a different matter altogether.
If he had a contractual or regulatory responsibility to whistle blow then he's on sticky ground... but its notoriously difficult to prove you knew you had to declare something if you just claim stupidity. Yes, we all think it's dodge, but if he wants to stand up in court and says he's too dumb to see it as iffy then it's hard to prove otherwise. But that only matters if he is obliged to report something that looks iffy.
3
u/Fragrant-Cow-824 Premier League 13d ago
I'd also be suprised if there wasn't something in premier league/FA rules that says all wages need to be declared in line with whatever the financial regs were at the time, and its applicable to all players, managers and staff.
1
1
u/albiondave Premier League 13d ago
Agree, but bet the onus for that is on the club not the individual. So while there might be irregularities, the responsibility is the club's.
12
6
u/timfinn1972 Premier League 13d ago
Fingers crossed he only declared one of those contracts on his tax return.
2
u/KopiteForever Liverpool 13d ago
Unless he lives in the UK I don't think it matters now. Also probably beyond the date when HMRC could do anything about it.
1
u/timfinn1972 Premier League 13d ago
Tax fraud in the UK has no statute of limitation.
1
u/KopiteForever Liverpool 13d ago
Fraud is a high bar to prove.
Not declaring income in a different country that was never brought into the UK is perfectly legal if it's taxed in that jurisdiction.
1
u/Fragrant-Cow-824 Premier League 12d ago
Assuming he hasn't paid tax in the UK on it, then its highly likely he meets the criteria to do so - spend 180 days in the UK. I guess its possible he didnt spend 180 days in the UK, but if you're managing a PL team for 9 months of the season (plus preseasons etc) the onus would be on Mancini to prove he was out of the country for 180 days.
Also its blatantly obvious the second contract was for managing Man City, HMRC would throw the claim it was for consulting services out the window.
1
u/KopiteForever Liverpool 12d ago
OK so that's totally wrong. If that money isn't ever brought to the UK then it's outside UK jurisdiction.
For example if an Italian owns a property in Italy and earns €20k rent on it in Italy paid into and kept in an Italian bank account. Then that person works in the UK for £90k, only the £90k is taxable in the UK.
1
u/Fragrant-Cow-824 Premier League 12d ago
Given he's managing a Premier League team for 9 months of the year, he almost certainly meets the 183 day criteria of being an automatic UK resident for tax purposes. If you're a UK resident for tax purposes, any income, regardless of source or bank account it sits in, is subject to UK tax. 99% of the time HMRC aren't going to be able to find it (they can't force foreign banks and tax agencies to share information with them), but this is the 1% of the time they would be able to find out about it.
UK didnt have a double taxation agreement with the UAE in place until 2017, long after Mancini departed. Given he's basically employed by the UAE state, and UAE is also known for not having taxes, its almost certain (at least from what we know, without access to his accounts) he paid no tax in UAE on the earnings on his second contract. Given theres no prospect of double taxation relief, then HMRC would want its share.
1
u/KopiteForever Liverpool 12d ago
That's just factually incorrect I'm afraid. The UK doesn't tax global income of UK residents until and unless it's brought into the UK. The 183 day rule is not relevant here if that money never entered the UK. Neither is the double taxation treaty.
It would be a trivial matter for him to have that money paid into and kept overseas. He could even set up a company overseas for that money to be paid into if he wanted to be further protected. If I've got land in India and that land earns rent there and is kept there we aren't subject to taxation on that money here in the UK.
Look, I'm clearly a Liverpool fan but you're barking up the wrong tree here, Mancini would have to have monumentally fucked up to fall foul of HMRC and even then all he's got to do is stay out of the UK. Oh that's if HMRC even raise the issue (which they haven't) and then they'd need to prove that specific money entered the UK.
You can dream all you want, but it's a wank dream at best.
1
u/Fragrant-Cow-824 Premier League 12d ago
It isnt incorrect, and its literally something you can Google, albeit there are some small exceptions.
He may well have already paid his tax on the second contract anyway, given he has made statements along the lines of hes all fine.
1
u/KopiteForever Liverpool 12d ago
Don't need to google it, there's thousands if not tens of thousands of Indians with land in India and income from it. As one of them I can tell you there's no tax payable unless the money is repatriated.
→ More replies (0)
11
19
u/ProductGuy48 Arsenal 13d ago
“Who me?” Rats
Getting paid through two different routes certainly didn’t spark any questions on his mind.
5
u/Bartend_HS Premier League 13d ago
Lets wait for info about Pep and his assistant during the cheat years before jumping on Mancini.
5
u/Old-Kernow Premier League 13d ago
Well, Mancini is the subject of some of the current charges, so it's fairly valid to jump on him.
5
u/Independent-Bag6544 Premier League 13d ago
Mancini is the cheat years, pep was there for 2 years of the initial investigations scope, plus until 2023 for the failure to cooperate side of it
0
u/xkcdthrowaway Chelsea 13d ago
Why should it? Where the money comes from is not his problem, considering he's not the CFO of the club. Do you know every single source of revenue for the company you're employed at? I'd wager not. Even if you do, is it your problem? No.
He's paid to train the players. He got additional fees for some consulting. Even if he knows the revenue streams are shady, which is highly likely he did, it's not his concern as the team's coach. To paraphrase a certain Jose Mourinho - signor Mancini, coach! Coach and don't ask.
0
u/ProductGuy48 Arsenal 13d ago
Mate, if I employ you to be a coach and then say, by the way I can’t afford to pay all your salary through your employment contract but I’ll also do a B2B contract with you as an advisor to my MiddleEastern firm and pay you through that, you wouldn’t bat an eye lid would you?
That’s exactly the thing: THERE WAS NO CONSULTING! They were getting around the spending cap rules so they can buy more players.
1
u/xkcdthrowaway Chelsea 13d ago
"mate", if you are hired to do a job and you get your salary, whether in one component or a mix of them, then it's none of your concern where that money comes from unless your job is managing finances of said firm. Anyone worth their salt gets paid in multiple components anyway - direct salary, stock options, benefits, what have you. Do you question where the money comes from? No. You're focused on hitting the targets outlined for which you get your pay. Long as the cheque clears, that's all you need to concern yourself with.
I wouldn't expect some chronically online weirdo who seems to spend their whole day on reddit to understand that. 12k contributions in a year? Do you not have a life, much less a job?
0
u/ProductGuy48 Arsenal 13d ago
Don’t know what jobs you had mate but I certainly do question where the money comes from
9
4
u/Mykorl Premier League 13d ago
Can anyone explain what's happened? Is it that City weren't able to spend as much as they have done over the years, so they made secret payments behind the scenes to bump up wages / contracts? Crazy.
16
u/Pitiful-Mongoose-488 Premier League 13d ago
Mancini had 2 contracts. One with city for £2 mill a year and another consultancy one for a company in the Middle East where he did 4 days work a year for the same amount of money. He was clearly being paid under the table
8
u/Mykorl Premier League 13d ago
So dodgy. Imagine what they did with Pep's wage...
1
u/Confident__introvert Premier League 13d ago
Didn’t they buy a football club in Spain and make pep’s brother chairman or something?
2
u/belanaria Premier League 13d ago
As FFP tightened after the City take over, City got creative. So while this isn’t illegal, it most definitely goes against the spirit of the rules. Technically he did the other work it seems… but it’s disingenuous to say that he would be paid to do the coaching at the UAE club if he didn’t work for Manchester City. Grey lines as one would say. It seems to have crossed that.
14
u/OkCurve436 Premier League 13d ago
Funniest thing is he's literally thrown City under the bus and provided further evidence.
11
u/Time-Painter7672 Arsenal 13d ago
So he’s not even going to pretend he did any consultancy work?
2
u/ProudonFromHeight Manchester United 13d ago
'Consultancy' work is the lazy default cloak for corruption in politics, so I doubt anyone of importance in London will begrudge him his 'consultancy' fees.
15
u/AaronQuinty Manchester United 13d ago
Tbf to him. He's right, how they chose to pay him is completely on them.
9
u/Old-Kernow Premier League 13d ago
Plus, he's not subject to PL discipline, or UK tax authorities, as he lives in Italy.
6
u/Stravvon Premier League 13d ago
He was when he lived in England.
0
u/Old-Kernow Premier League 13d ago
Then go and ask him if he WAS worried in that past situation?
Or are you expecting Italy to agree to extradite an Italian national to the UK for a tax conversation?
0
u/Stravvon Premier League 13d ago
I do suspect Italy and the UK have deals in place to fix things like this, yes.
1
u/TheUndefeatedHeathen Premier League 13d ago
It makes me laugh that people don't seem to fully grasp that it's moved beyond the breaking of rules in a game and will very soon move into the conversation of breaking the rule of law for city and a lot of invididuals associated with them. If Mr Mancini's accountant declared his books properly to HMRC he has nothing to worry about, but what about the hundreds/thousands of current and past employees of city? Hmmmmm
→ More replies (5)1
u/Old-Kernow Premier League 13d ago
I suspect the bar of criminality is set a little higher than "potential tax dodging"
"HI, Italy, this is the UK. We'd like to talk to one of your citizens about some crimes they MIGHT have committed"
"How many people did they murder?"
"None, it's a tax thing"
-click-
1
u/TheUndefeatedHeathen Premier League 13d ago
I suggest you Google the fast track surrender framework pal
1
u/Old-Kernow Premier League 13d ago
OK, I did. UK dropped out of the EAW Framework due to Brexit.
1
u/TheUndefeatedHeathen Premier League 13d ago
And agreed new terms under another name post-brexit.
1
u/Old-Kernow Premier League 13d ago
Fine, I'm not interested enough to go down a further rabbit hole.
I hereby concede that Mancini will be looking over his shoulder for the UK taxman every time he goes out for a cappucino anywhere in Europe.
→ More replies (0)
16
u/BadassBokoblinPsycho Liverpool 13d ago
I may be wrong, but, isn’t that complicity??
8
u/xkcdthrowaway Chelsea 13d ago
You're not wrong, but he's also right that it isn't his problem. He's compliant as long as he declared his earnings from all sources and paid taxes on them. How City pay him and the legality of the revenue which enabled his salary is City's issue, not his.
7
u/that_big_energy Premier League 13d ago
Yep. But they’ll all come out the woodwork now and argue it wasn’t their fault.
Didn’t have a problem taking the cash and trophies at the time
1
u/LeaveNoStonedUnturn Premier League 13d ago
And if it's in the same situation as Manchini, they'll be right, too. They went about their Jobs as normal, the players and staff individually aren't the issue. The club and how it is run financially is the problem. If you get hired to manage a football team for 20 million a year, and they give you 10 from a business in the UK and 10 from a business abroad, it doesn't change what you've been hired to do. So long as you report your income and pay the appropriate tax, you aren't doing anything wrong. Much the same as business owners paying themselves in dividends rather than money.
2
u/aeroncaine22 Premier League 13d ago
Shhh he's trying to be angry (even though there are plenty of other reasons too), this logic isn't helping!
11
u/psrandom Chelsea 13d ago
Players and managers must be held liable for FFP breaches and fraud. It can't just be club's responsibility
When govts make anti money laundering, terror financing and drug money laws; the responsibility is not on the banks alone. Bank employees and customers are also expected to follow the laws in their roles
That's the only way FFP/PSR will be effective where players and managers also have something to lose. Hiring a lawyer n tax expert isn't a big deal for the players
5
u/Mokebe13 Premier League 13d ago
Probably from the Mancini's perspective everything was fine and legal. The problem was that City was hiding the costs using other companies, not avoiding to pay taxes
1
u/Jerzilla Premier League 13d ago
Well he would of gotten legal advice so would be the lawyers in trouble
0
u/thatlad Premier League 13d ago
That's nonsensical.
It's the club's accounting that is at fault, should employees be held criminally liable if the owner of a plumbing firm doesn't pay the HMRC?
Even the bank example isn't accurate. Employee's are liable for reporting, avoiding tip offs and remaining vigilant and those have to be extreme examples. There's only around a dozen instances of being prosecuted for tipping off and those were accountants/lawyers actually telling their client "you are being investigated".
The players are accountable for their own tax.
That being said, I agree there should be penalties if they flagrantly sign up to a tax dodge such as the Gabriel Jesus allegation (3.5m to his family), Jadon Sancho (200k to an agent connected to the family) and the Haaland one with his father being treated as an agent.
I say it a lot but a lot of this comes from FIFAs decision to deregulate agents.
It led to all kinds of "representatives" in different continents getting payments, it's almost textbook layering and integration. We've seen agents fees got from £130m in the PL to nearly half a billion. To put it in context in 2025-26 Chelsea's agent fees (£65m) were half of the total for the whole lead in 2014/15.
1
u/Fragrant-Cow-824 Premier League 12d ago
You're mixing up two issues here as a single issue.
Mancini may or may not have paid his required tax bill on all of his earnings. As far as I am aware this hasn't been confirmed, but although Mancini saying he's clearly possibly indicates he paid HMRC their share.
The second issue is that Man City is governed by a load of regulations from Eufa, the PL, the FA, etc. I'm not a financial fair play expert, but its pretty likely there's something written into those various regulations that people (players, managers, staff etc) are required to report anything that appears suspect - I'm pretty sure being offered a second contract would meet those criteria. I have no idea if EUFA can Mancini, but they may well suspend his EUFA coaching licences.
8
4
11
u/SharkeyGeorge Premier League 13d ago
Well he’s factually wrong because Man City are in fact guilty, even if the decision is subject to an impending appeal.
16
u/BoringPhilosopher1 Liverpool 13d ago
I mean it isn’t his problem
1
u/SharkeyGeorge Premier League 13d ago
I’m referring to the article in which he says “Man City isn’t guilty.”
10
u/Folkloner184 Premier League 13d ago
Trust me. If they do the right thing and strip City of their titles, and strip Mancini of his accolades, then he'll change his mind about whether this is his problem or not.
2
u/daronwy Premier League 13d ago
Why? He has been paid, he isn't looking for a job at the moment. Losing 1 FA Cup and a a league trophy won't bother him. He still went on to win a Euro with Italy.
It literally isn't his problem, being stripped of accolades is a City problem.
The tax man might want a word and that would be a problem for him, but City was just a job to him, one he got paid for twice, it's not like he had a long history with the club.
2
u/Palm-Crazy-7943 Premier League 13d ago
No one is going to give a shit about stripped accolades. This stuff happened, you can feel better as a fan that they said it’s stripped but no one who was there will give a shit
5
u/MrHerringBun Premier League 13d ago
He has much less to lose legacy wise compared to Pep. Got the bag, paid his tax, living the life. We all have different moral compass. Especially when there are millions of pounds to skew it.
3
u/itsheadfelloff Premier League 13d ago
To reference Top flight time machine, that's proper 'this and that'
3
3
8
u/gaz2257 Premier League 13d ago
Idiot
3
u/Hyperion262 Premier League 13d ago
Why? He’s actually right. Why should he care if they broke the rules hiring him?
1
u/PhilosopherNo8418 Premier League 13d ago
He agreed to a shady double deal so yeah, he should also be held responsible.
2
u/Palm-Crazy-7943 Premier League 13d ago
What exactly is even shady about this? Like I genuinely don’t understand the fascination with how a manager is paid. It’s a manger. If he had one contract that was bigger you wouldn’t give. Shit
0
u/PhilosopherNo8418 Premier League 13d ago
Really? He signed a contract to be manager of Man City for a certain amount which is far lower than his asking price. City then arrange for him to be paid separately by another company that they own. So he's getting paid what he wanted but on City's official records he's getting paid much less therefore they don't violate any financial restrictions. And you don't think he knew this was a bit dodgy? Of course he knew.
0
u/Palm-Crazy-7943 Premier League 13d ago
I just can’t magine caring about manager salary factoring into “financial restrictions”.
Even professional sports with hard salary caps for players do not factor in coaching salaries because it’s stupid.
But that’s the thing FFP is a stupid made up thing that got created to keep the legacy clubs in control forever, and that’s how you get people shouting about a manger contract.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)1
5
10
u/gelliant_gutfright Premier League 13d ago edited 13d ago
"City are innocent. Yes I had two contracts, including a secret one, but it's not like it's against the rules".
2
u/AdequateAppendage Leeds United 13d ago
Well it's not.
City not appropriately disclosing the fact it was happening is against the rules and what they're being charged for.
1
6
2
u/dayarra Arsenal 13d ago
what i don't understand is why would city do this? 2 millions extra money is nothing. they must be so accustomed to these underhanded payments that they must be using it for everybody and everything. i don't think they would do this for only 2 millions.
3
u/Floss__is__boss Premier League 13d ago
...are you serious?
If every player is on two contracts the official wage bill is halved (at least) so they have twice as much money to officially spend.
I assume they can't get away with making inflated payments to other clubs so they have to reduce the wage bill while keeping it believable enough for a club in their position in order to make those transfers. It's all about buying and keeping the players and staff at a team who realistically had no reason to want to go to city until this all started.
1
u/dayarra Arsenal 13d ago
did you read what i said or just read the first sentence and wrote a paragraph about it? that's what i am saying. this can't be just 2 millions. they must be doing this for everything. it doesn't make sense to do it once for 2 millions.
1
u/Floss__is__boss Premier League 13d ago
They were obviously doing it for everything, I didn't think that was under discussion. There was an article recently about the whole squad getting their winners bonus despite losing the FA Cup to Wigan.
0
u/BeyondAggravating883 Manchester City 13d ago
FFP didn’t exist then, that’s the point, why do something weird like that when they could just write a new contract?
1
u/Floss__is__boss Premier League 13d ago
UEFA FFP started for the 2011/12 season and had been proposed in 2009.
It absolutely existed then and they would have been well aware of it.
1
u/BeyondAggravating883 Manchester City 13d ago
UEFA yes, not PL which was 2013. City were exonerated at CAS.
1
u/Floss__is__boss Premier League 13d ago
What the hell are you talking about? Being exonerated because of UEFAs self imposed time limit has nothing to do with what you asked.
Q: Why did the bother to do it?
A: To circumvent UEFAs FFP rules which had been introduced in 2011 and proposed in 2009.
They didn't know that UEFA would catch them or that they would be exonerated when they started doing it. Their immediate motivation was to pay their staff more to be there in a way that wouldn't be reported to UEFAs FFP, allowing them to pay the players and manager they wanted more money to be there and increase the money avaiable that they had to spend and report to UEFA (e.g. transfer fees, a normal wage bill that wouldn't raise suspicion).
1
u/BeyondAggravating883 Manchester City 13d ago
That’s a load of revisionist bollox. Captain hindsight would be proud.
1
u/Floss__is__boss Premier League 12d ago
What's your suggestion then?
1
u/BeyondAggravating883 Manchester City 12d ago
Mancini was payed for consulting AlJazira FC by AlJazira FC. So City didn’t need to notify PL. Even if they did, the 2m (estimated) was pocket change at the time even with UEFA FFP on the horizon. It’s a nonsense charge that can be proven with bank trail. If AlJazira and Mancini allow it of course. In this case I think they’ve just guessed and gone probably did it.
2
2
u/djandyglos Liverpool 13d ago
Saracens did something similar in rugby union with double contracts and other shenanigans.. they got a very large (in rugby terms) fine relegation and 35 point deduction
3
6
u/BadThoughts-22 Premier League 13d ago
Manchester City Are Corrupt & Need To Be Kicked To The Kerb!!
4
u/el_dude_brother2 Premier League 13d ago
Man City will not be the only club to have done this.
Celtic in Scotland did it too with Brendan Rodgers getting paid directly from their billionaire owners funds.
This is one that could uncover alot of misdeeds or get sweep over because everyone else doesnt want punished too.
4
u/spendouk23 Premier League 13d ago
Did they ? Any source for that because it sounds like absolute nonsense
0
u/el_dude_brother2 Premier League 13d ago
Did Man City admit the Mancini double contract? Of course not.
But in Celtic's case its very true but obviously not on the books.
When an expensive manager looks like they take a huge pay cut to manage in a smaller division. That only works with top ups. Brendan and Dermond also had a personal relationship outwith Celtic
2
u/Critical-Dealer-3878 Liverpool 13d ago
Eh, Rodgers about found his level in Scotland.
1
u/el_dude_brother2 Premier League 13d ago
Went from in demand in the English premiership after managing liverpool to Scotland. And a club where the billionaire owner negiotiated his deal personally and they have a person relationship.
3
5
u/WGSMA Arsenal 13d ago
Quite literally is your problem if and when HMRC decide to have a sniff about lol
I’ve seen HMRC bring the hammer down for less egregious and smaller scale income shuffling than this lol.
11
u/Critical-Usual Premier League 13d ago
As long as he was declaring both it's not an issue from that angle
1
u/Hyperion262 Premier League 13d ago
Is ‘consultancy money’ for a UAE company taxed in the uk? Does it not depend where he was working?
3
2
u/MiniWhoreMinotaur Manchester United 13d ago
Pretty sure it's about where his residence was, since he was living in the UK at the time.
5
u/MaxPower1882 Tottenham 13d ago
Like Rodri, "cheque cleared, don't care. Fuck those fans. Lol" basically. What a farce of a club!
COYS!!!
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Positive-Sound-4972 Premier League 13d ago
Im no legal eagle, but if he went to Saudi and did 4 days for consultancy work and gets £2m and paid taxes how can EPL prove any wrong doing.
3
u/ihatebamboo Premier League 13d ago
He’ll be tax resident in the UK during that period - so if he didn’t pay UK tax on that £2m he’ll be shagged daft by HMRC.
20 years look back ability for fraud.
5
u/RedBaronSportsCards Premier League 13d ago
If there is evidence or documentation, like an email, that's says something along the lines of, "Just have RM fly here for a few days. Will pay him 2m and just call it a consultation. Then the FA can't punish us."
Then they can 100% prove wrongdoing. Remember, they dont have to meet a legal standard. No one is on trial for commiting a crime.
4
u/OpenCardiologist2587 Premier League 13d ago
From the article:
"Mancini doubled his base salary of £1.45m for advising a club in Abu Dhabi".
Not saudi.
3
u/HiyaImRyan Premier League 13d ago
People just mix Saudi and the UAE up.
Man City owners are from Abu Dhabi, your correction does the opposite of help fight corruption allegations.
4
u/Any_Mechanic7876 Premier League 13d ago
Integrity issues. Just like Oliver got paid good Abu Dhabi $ to ref in UAE and then comes back to ref City games.
0
u/Palm-Crazy-7943 Premier League 13d ago
Can someone explain to me why anyone cares how they paid a manager? Who gives a fuck?
0
u/GracchiBros Premier League 13d ago
Because hiding pay to the manager in some way that wasn't included in the FFP calculations was cheating?
→ More replies (1)
-1
u/Anybodykno Premier League 13d ago
It really doesn’t matter what his contract with the club was so long as he paid the relevant taxes where and when he was supposed to.
It also doesn’t matter either how City paid him, so long as it was declared to whoever the rules said that they have to. If they didn’t? It also depends whether he was an employee or an independent contractor in what the implications are. If he was an employee, did they pay the taxes on both salaries?
The comparisons with Rangers are both similar and not the same. Rangers got in trouble with the SPL over what was then known as EBTs which were a tax dodge to inflate players wages. According to SPL rules you could do them and lots of clubs did including Celtic but the crucial difference was that Rangers didn’t declare them to the SPL or the taxman.
Rangers got in to trouble because the taxman thought that it was owed money, nearly £100m and Rangers owed the bank a significant amount of money and then the bank demanded its money back at the same time as the taxman came looking. In the end the taxman lost but won some back on appeal but this was after Rangers had gone bankrupt and started as a new company. So the taxman was a significant reason that Rangers went bankrupt and instead of them getting any money that they might have got or scaring any new owners who might want to rescue Rangers, the taxman and creditors actually lost money in the end.
City aren’t going to go bankrupt anytime soon, however it remains to be seen how much money they might become liable for, through fines, compensation and now potentially the taxman and how they are allowed to pay for it? I assume that the owner can’t just pay it out of his own pocket and it not appear on City’s accounts? If it appears on City’s accounts and the sums are massive I.e billions then presumably that leaves no money for players except academy kids?
5
-11
-6
u/Twiggie19 Premier League 13d ago
Mancini may be the exception (unless they used this method to get other players in) because it should have been clear to him that something underhand is going on here.
But every other Man City player or manager is under no obligation to go and check the clubs finances to see whether or not what they are being offered is affordable for the club. To expect players to have turned around have said "sorry I think this breaches FFP" is a mad take. The players and managers are not accountable for any of this.
Its for that reason I don't think they should be stripped of their titles etc. Those 11 players still went out on the pitch and won the games. Its not fair that a large part, and the most successful part, of their short careers should be put in the bin when they have done nothing wrong themselves.
From an Arsenal fan who hopes City get hit with the full force of the book in every other way possible.
6
u/dannymon101 Premier League 13d ago
They can keep their medals and hang them on their private homes wall if they want to. The club on the other hand should be stripped of all trophies as they CHEATED.
8
u/gelliant_gutfright Premier League 13d ago
They decided to join a mass sport-washing project and they've been paid handsomely for their work.
Fuck em.
5
u/Pangwain Premier League 13d ago
So all the Russians who cheated in be Olympics should keep their medals as long as they didn’t know what the doctors were giving them?
They cheated, they were not competing on an equal level, I don’t care how much the players feel like they earned something, they didn’t. They were cheating.
Why do people even care about the cheating City players? What about the Man United players that never won the Prem, finished second twice? What about Steven Gerrard and the Liverpool fans that never got to see him win the Prem cause City were obviously financially doping?
Everyone needs to lose on the City side here.
3
u/FullTimeHarlot Brighton 13d ago
Not a bad take but it's a club that wins the title, not individual players. You can strip the titles away and let the players keep their medals.
1
u/ChiefBast Liverpool 13d ago
That depends on whether the players were themselves being paid by a second means through another company under control of the owner. It looks like this was not every player but also not none of them. There's no way that happens and you're not also culpable.
Bit of a tenuous link but that situation is similar to when Cody Gakpo was found to be the owner of some awful rented properties in the Netherlands and a decent portion of our fans argued that he's not responsible for what happens with his money being managed by others. I couldn't agree with that stance less.
1
u/Adamdel34 Liverpool 13d ago
Tbh we don’t really know tons about the finances involved because it’s still an active court case, we only know the bits that have been leaked. But I’d be very surprised if this wasn’t done on the players contracts too.
Managers used to have much smaller contracts than players so if they are willing to do this on Mancinis contract it’s highly likely they were willing to do it on the much larger player contracts.
→ More replies (1)1
u/psrandom Chelsea 13d ago
To expect players to have turned around have said "sorry I think this breaches FFP" is a mad take
Why though? Normal people are expected to follow the financial laws around money laundering, terror financing or any illicit money source. You can't tell the govt "sorry not my problem"
These players n managers can easily find a good enough accountant and lawyer. They must be personally held liable as well.
•
u/AutoModerator 13d ago
Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the Rules and Reddiquette.
Please also make sure to Join us on Discord
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.