terraloon

Interesting Seems the fee was the same but wages around €2.5m Pa which was significantly more than Inter offered

It’s interesting because I too know a couple of City fans and they have blind faith that Maresca is going to be a huge success. I tried to remind them of what we were told by Leicester fans when he left them and of course what we witnessed but no they simply believe that with better players they will carry on regardless. I hate saying this but SAF was a genius in terms of longevity and the way he rebuild and to a degree that’s where I see Pep but to quote Python “ Maresca isn’t a Messiah he is…..” you get my drift.

I have to be honest I am not watching a lot of the WC but reading a couple of reports following Argentinas latest game the press view is that he is far too good for Chelsea and is a star. I don’t think his club performances are as bad as some on here suggest but I certainly don’t see a world star in him. His fee would have been one of the last both from a PL and UEFAs perspective that allowed amortisation over 5 years so there would still be at around 2/3 of his fee on the books. So we need to get around £70-75 million to wave him good bye.Will we recoup the £100+ million we paid ? What is becoming the norm is that very mediocre players are now being talked about as being in the £100m range so as I say I don’t see him as world class but if my assessment is wrong and the pundits are right than it’s quite possible that there will be an actual and not just accounting profit.

As I said in my earlier post we can only join up the dots. We simply don’t know if he is still on the clubs payroll which would tell us a lot more in my opinion If as is now being reported he resigned or should I say tried to resign but did the club didn’t accept? Then there is the matter of his contract obligations and of course the clubs obligations to him. Judgment of the owners in terms of players may be one thing but I would be pretty confident that on top of the standard manager contract there would be significant protection of the “ clubs” investment made when they paid Leicester.

Morning \ Evening Still very much a case of us joining up the dots but my take on all this that Meresca, when he reported those meetings , did so for two reasons 1) he was contractually bound (I would imagine meetings like this happen all the time ) &2) In effect been told the job was him but his contract with Chelsea was an issue so he and I guess City hoped he would be given his marching orders. How things played out in late December probably weren’t how City or Meresca expected. It was too late to put the genie back in the bottle , Meresca clearly didn’t get his way hence the comment about a terrible 24 hours. If you read the views of many Man City supporters re their 115/130 charges they are all in to soft signals. For instance they believe that the North Stand expansion ( planned years before charges) is a signal that they know that the charges are not proven. Ironically Pep’s early resignation ( still a year on his contract) isn’t even mentioned any longer yet when he signed a two year deal they were advocating that was proof that they were being cleared. There are mumblings coming out of PL that they are confident as to the outcome. Why I mention that is a tapping up charge if proven would be an aggravating factor in any sanction so my guess would be that City couldn’t risk that we took the matter any further. On top FIFAs changes the question of compensation or come to that costs when it comes to engaging and or sacking a manager are going to be a challenge. As I read it these costs have to be a factor in SCMP not so much an issue I guess when you employ in terms amortisation but sacking will accelerate the accounting of any residue and likewise compensation paid to the manager to terminate a contract early as potentially huge sums could become accountable immediately as would any compensation to hire a new incumbent. Its all a big mess

Seems from what has been reported is that he hadn’t been given permission at all .The “ un sanctioned “ meetings were it seems were reported by Meresca. We will have to wait for confirmation but if the €20m is accurate that’s not shabby.

When he was first appointed I was told by a good mate who had a ST at Leicester that even though they won the league Merescas brand of football was the most boring he had ever seen as a result he had planned not to renew his ST but once he came to us he reversed his decision. To recover the sum said to have been paid to LC is incredible but to get even more suggests that City were panicking re an illegal approach charge.

It seems that his contract tied him in knots should he be approached ( tapped up ) without the clubs authority and one of the reasons why the relationship broke down around Christmas last because he met with City on two or three occasions without the clubs authority. Meresca reported the meetings . I would guess that he hoped the club would sack him but they didn’t and Meresca subsequently resigned. The suggestion is that the club were looking to recover the money paid to Leicester and whilst tapping up is unlikely to be pursued it put Chelsea in a very strong position when numbers were discussed.

Seems that the compensation is €20m

Morning / Evening. You all good ? Far from sure of the numbers but from what I have read if Chelsea’s claim is validated the numbers in his contract are significantly in excess of the £12 m was paid to Leicester. I know that City have far more established and yes better players but I can’t see who replaces Pep and keeps them at their current level . I know that some call Meresca Pep light but I just can’t see it he is David Moyles in disguise as far as I am concerned. The real possibility is that we may have ,no would have, finished in a higher position had he stayed but the reality is that the vast majority thought his style and decisions left a lot to be desired. To be honest, and yes hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I wonder if we would have achieved the same had Mc Farlane been given a longer term as interim. He , Mc Farlane, from what I saw seems to have had a better rapport with the whole squad and not as it seems was evolving under Meresca where it is strongly rumoured he encouraged cliques. There is claimed to have been a strong preference toward Spanish speaking .

We left bang on the final whistle. The 8.15 KO meant that by the time we got back to our car it was 10.30pm. The sat nav said we would be at our hotel ( just by Heathrow) at 10.50pm but we knew that didn’t factor in the fact that the M4 was due to be closed at 10.00pm for road works. We were diverted onto the A4. Even on the A4 there were several hold ups due to traffic and at one junction the traffic lights weren’t working. We eventually got to our hotel room at 11.45pm. I don’t ever hang around for a lap of appreciation which supposedly isn’t the players seeking applause but them applauding the supporters. Had we stayed my guess we would probably still be in traffic ! I know it goes against the tide of opinion but I actually quite enjoyed the game. I was impressed with the likes of Hato( he is going to be a very good player) and Josh who I didn’t know if it came over on the TV coverage but he is a very decent defender taking intelligent positions and an impressive turn of pace. The team was basically made up from the players that were available . It’s pretty obvious that Delap is like a rabbit in the headlights but that team setup and game plan was almost certainly put together on Monday whereas Spurs had over a week to work on shape and recovery following their last game. You can see why the finished last season in 17th and hopefully will finish one place lower come Sunday. I was more than happy with the result and that for me was the main focus.

Dorset LiveRare Only Fools and Horses photos show little known Dorse...Unseen photos for the show's 40th anniversary reveal that Del Boy and Rodney shot scenes in Dorset more than once

Should have been a red SENDING OFF Sending-off offences include (but are not limited to): physical or aggressive behaviour (including spitting or biting) towards an opposing player, substitute, team official, match official, spectator or any other person (e.g. ball boy/girl, security or competition official etc.)

The regulations are simply that all payments can only be made to four parties - player, agent, exempt legal counsel and selling club. The payments Abramovich made were commissions, reimbursements and 'finders fees' made to family and other intermediaries. It used to be legal until FIFA took a strong stance on outlawing third-party player ownership (remember the Tevez/Mascherano saga). The examples were made nearly 5 years after the rules were introduced though, so Abramovich clearly knew what he was doing. There's no clear evidence of tax evasion, unlike say the Neymar transfer where the fee was deliberately underreported so that payments could be made to avoid tax. In that context some of the payments seem stupid, like an extra 7m paid to Hazard's agent John Bico directly by Abramovich. That said, with Abramovich and others unable to defend themselves, we won't be able to get an alternate explanation. Maybe Roman was short on his round at the bar and he had to pay back Bico, who knows. I agree. The club had a much stronger position for negotiation once it had worked out many of the charges would never meet standard of proof but has also resulted in the club accepting blame where none could be proved, and importantly, on the basis of mere assumption. The affected parties could not explain their side of the story. The charges will follow to the individual, we saw this with Fabio Paratici at Spurs. Flipside of that is that none of the other people (including the 'unauthorised' agents mentioned) are within the PL or FA's jurisdiction. Given that they could not be compelled to participate in the investigation they have not been investigated and absent any statue of limitations or double jeopardy rules, you'd think it would be open to the PL/FA to investigate if they worked in football again. Of the names I speculated only Neil Bath would be affected as the others are unlikely to work in PL/England ever again anyway. The FA regulate agents and clubs' use of agents, so in fact the primary investigation about the use of 'unauthorised' parties is actually theirs. The PL's jurisdiction is limited to competitive advantage, third-party ownership and essentially administrative/procedural offences for not following the PL's prescribed rules. It's a big fine for essentially a bunch of bookkeeping offences, nearly double the 5.5m dished out to West Ham for their egregious third-party ownership debacle. The sanctions agreement does confirm that any FA breach warranting a transfer ban will trigger our suspended transfer ban so I expect to have a one-window ban at least. The funny part is that it has been documented that around 100m cash has been set aside to pay the impending fines so between the UEFA, PL and potential FA settlements the accountants are actually going to be looking at a spare 50m bonus! Interesting. I might be 100% wrong but I take the view that both UEFA and now the PL recognised that without access particularly to RA then it was always going to be incredibly difficult to meet the levels of comfortable satisfaction or beyond reasonable doubt. For me it made sense for the club to in effect take a caution but to do so they had first to accept culpability( even if they did with their fingers crossed ) so whilst we have to take it on the chin I for one don’t read too much into the club accepting the PLs published version of events.One thing for sure it’s made good press. Put another way save a couple of the minor issues if the PL had been sure they would have put their evidence to an IC . Thinking something is so and being able to prove it aren’t one and the same that’s for sure! Why it surprised me that both the PL and the FA are proceeding is that in the PL rules there is a clear route for investigations that potentially breach the two jurisdictions will be transferred to the FA. I too agree we are likely to get a sporting sanction of some sort from the FA . It may as you say be a transfer ban could even be squad limit or something of that sort. I still wouldn’t rule out a points deduction. Theres one thing for sure the FA will indeed be licking their lips at that significant sum still in reserve.

Good read . In terms of accreditation of agents is one thing but love it or hate it there are strict rules around that and by using third parties the club knew exactly what they were doing. I would add that although no proof I am 100% certain we aren’t the only club that an acted / acts in such a way. What pisses me off with all this is if it wasn’t going to impact on PSR , which as we know is clearly the case, why didn’t the club just put it through the normal and correct process ? It surely can only have been because RA and his team knew the payments wouldn’t be in accord with regulator bodies regulations I am conflicted about the self reporting . On one hand I wonder if they really had to self report but on the other the consequences of non reporting and an investigation further down the line digging up the issues probably outweighs all concerns . Too many knew about those skeletons and just as in the Luton case it only takes one whistleblower or the like of the Cypress Files On balance I think they had no option but to self reporting and following the speed in which UEFA acted to settle for me their was a belief in BlueCo that matters couldn’t be proved even to a standard of beyond reasonable doubt. It does tell us why so many senior officials resigned that’s for sure and the timings of those resignations I suspect tells us quite a lot . Particularly as none are named and as they are no longer in football or I assume will ever be able to work in football again. In the academy player ruling it’s common place for charges to follow to the individual that committed the offence. Far too many are minimising the size of the fine / sanction it’s the biggest ever. As you say there seems to be a suggestion around the FA Charges but what I am still unsure of is why the PL and FA in effect have both investigated when the norm usually is that it would only be one of them .

If you go back to the days of the maximum wage it was common that close season players who were paid the maximum wage suddenly were employed by directors for a 5-6 week period in the summer . I know a chap who eventually found his way to non league, where there wasn’t a wage cap, who when a league player was given a job one close season to paint the stadium. He was very well paid and never actually ever picked up a paint brush ! Don’t loose sight that none of the payments were not made from Chelsea FC accounts and whilst it may seem obvious to many that these were payments should have been made by Chelsea or maybe not(non registered intermediaries ) made at all from everything I read from official sources there wasn’t conclusive evidence to prove what many seem to be alleging and when you read that the club admitted the charges that’s not actually the case here . Chelsea have simply not provided any evidence of wrong doing they have provided certain information and accepted that indiscretions may have happened but the onus was on the PL to prove and that despite everything that’s been put out there that simply isn’t what has happened here.

Admitted by who ?

In one. Had RA still been the owner there is absolutely no doubt that the sanction would have been far far worse. I have included the sanctions agreement . It really is worth a read particularly 17b iv and v. It may not seem it but the owners had absolutely no option but to self report far too many professional accredited individuals were involved in the due diligence knew the facts. I know that few will give the owners any credit but they have to a large degree manipulated both the PL and UEFA into settlement agreements where sanctions in reality are meaningless ( can’t believe I am saying that about a £10m fine) wher had they not reported, not engaged etc sanctions would have been far more draconian.

Your comment is I guess on the basis that they were dismissed as opposed to leaving with their reputation intact and probably a few bob in the bank. It really is worth reading the PLs/ Chelsea settlement agreement in full it’s quite revealing

There are still the 74 charges that the FA are pursuing. There is significant crossover in the PL and FA investigations and hopefully double jeopardy rules will apply in some of the charges The suggestion in the PL settlement is that we will receive significant sanctions from the FA I would imagine that means financial as opposed to points / active transfer bans if for no other reasons is that in these type of matters it is highly unlikely that either of the regulatory bodies would work without significant input from the other. I would imagine , hope, that the FA commission were waiting for the resolution of the leagues investigation and settlement and I would expect the FA to publish their commissions findings in days as opposed to months.

Lord Finklestein isn’t an investor as such he is simply a director. He almost certainly is “ richer” than most on here his wealth and income isn’t close to being even of the magnitude required to even be included in any conversation re ownership . Clearlake are highly unlikely to sell up the likelihood is that it will be Bohley group who sell. Just on the PL settlement it’s worth reading the full text. What is clear is that the club was left massively exposed and clearly some individuals that were in the leadership group at the time had no option but to fall on their swords . I may be wrong but I wonder if part of the concessions that were made by the club included agreeing that all those that were in positions of authority had to leave. We still have the FA charges to resolve. Hopefully this settlement will enable an early resolution to that process because it’s been a millstone around the club and from a snippet leaked by a FA Council member it is highly likely that the delay in releasing the City ruling is that the IC needed a steer in terms of precedent. It’s worth bearing in mind that the PL agreed that there was significant mitigation in reality bought about by self disclosure and indeed the clubs actions in facilitating resolution. City certainly won’t be getting any discount if the IC rule against them. I would also add at this time the FA haven’t charged City I wonder if any charges will follow the PL outcome.

I am waiting till we see the CFC accounts for 24/25 as opposed to what I suspect were the BlueCo numbers for 23/24. It’s worth noting that the BlueCo loss to a significant degree was paper transactions . For instance a sum of in excess of £100m in those 23/24 losses was in respect of Goodwill impairment.

Don’t have Twitter don’t intend to. Was the tapping up on there prior to the palace game?

As I said when it came to the rumours re Meresca leaving and how a chap who we see at away games gave the heads up before he departed as to the reasons for the falling out. I saw the same chap at the Palace away game and whilst I am sceptical he told me that there had been a major falling out with Dortmund and yes part of it was re tapping up but it went wider than that although he wasn’t able to put any meat on the bone. As for Sarr other than the fact his development has been rapid and he is said to be a lump of a lad and a full blown Senaglise international and part of their AFCON team.

That’s fair comment. Sterling would never have triggered the option to end his contract claims” sporting just cause” wish he had. We still wait for FIFAs response to the Diara ruling will it be in time for the 15 day period come seasons end ?