22 minutes ago, terraloon said:

Try reading the statements from City and Maresca

Having read the statements:

• No concrete admission of 'tapping up' or legal inducement by City. It's unlikely to pass muster because Chelsea knew that Maresca was talking to City as early as October, which he could easily argue as consent. The fault is entirely Maresca's. However, there are limited rules against managers breaking their contract other than PL and FA rules against any party inducing a breach, which allow the PL/FA to apply sporting sanctions against both club and manager. This was the sticking point for City because now Chelsea had a prima facie case that they could take to the PL, sporting sanctions would likely be imposed, and that would delay Maresca's appointment. The timings made the risk untenable for City even if they had done nothing wrong (as is likely).
  

• The above is how the rules are meant to work. By imposing a sporting sanction, clubs are deterred from inducement and must negotiate compensation in good faith to avoid action. If there was no sporting sanction avaiable, then Maresca would be able to simply walk and any compensation would need to be chased by Chelsea after-the-fact (likely years).
  

• Two compensation payments happen because Maresca owes the residual on his contract as compensation for the breach, and City agreed to pay a fee so that we don't seek sporting sanctions.
  

• Maresca did us dirty twice. The negotations in October might have been permitted or ignored but if he was on gardening leave then I'd bet he was supposed to inform Chelsea and didn't.
  

• With money from UECL, CL qualification, CWC and now these kind donations from City and Maresca himself, Maresca might well be Chelsea's highest revenue-grossing manager in history. If he can take Fernandez and Gusto with him to City, Winstanley and Stewart will owe him a statue for saving their financial mess.

What a distasteful end. Maresca was a nobody before this club gave him an opportunity, and he even received unjustified support right until the very bitter end. He won't be at City past January, is my bet.

Edited 10 hours ago10 hr by SydneyChelsea

1 hour ago, BolaBall said:

So you think he should not meet city at all and keep leading Chelsea on a winless run? because had he stayed, results unlikely to get much better. Or you think he should meet city in secret? How should the whole situation unfold ideally in your mind? Remember that you want him gone and not paying a dime. For that to happen, there is a need for a taker and the meeting needed to take place somehow somewhere.

On Mutu case, wait until you found out his petulant entitled response to the fine he got saying the punishment should be just him doing a public service work in, of all places, his own country. Very convenient for him, what a genuine prick. Btw, what does mutu case have anything to do with this?

Met City in Summer. Met City in winter. Winless run starts in winter.

The correct thing to do was to notify Chelsea that City had made an approach and let the clubs negotiate compensation at which point Maresca can then meet with City.

Mutu had a contract and broke the obligations of that contract and owed Chelsea compensation. No different to this case.

I understand there is a sexual attraction to Maresca amongst some fans, similar to that of Jorginho and Sarri and no sense of reasoning can break those undying bonds of love and infatuation.

Maresca fanboys are really something special 😅

44 minutes ago, GarnachoCheese said:

Met City in Summer. Met City in winter. Winless run starts in winter.

The correct thing to do was to notify Chelsea that City had made an approach and let the clubs negotiate compensation at which point Maresca can then meet with City.

Mutu had a contract and broke the obligations of that contract and owed Chelsea compensation. No different to this case.

I understand there is a sexual attraction to Maresca amongst some fans, similar to that of Jorginho and Sarri and no sense of reasoning can break those undying bonds of love and infatuation.

He did let Chelsea know about the talks while he was here. Chelsea confirm they were notified in October so it's tough to argue we didn't consent. At a guess, he walked away with the club understanding that nothing should resume until the summer, which he proceeded to ignore.

That said - the club's statement is far too generous to him because it suggests the 'disruption' started after he left. In fact, Maresca was the problem and the football was a problem long before any of this came to light. While Rosenior's naivety cost us, the three or four games after Maresca's sacking were the only time football became enjoyable all season.

1 hour ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Having read the statements:

• No concrete admission of 'tapping up' or legal inducement by City. It's unlikely to pass muster because Chelsea knew that Maresca was talking to City as early as October, which he could easily argue as consent. The fault is entirely Maresca's. However, there are limited rules against managers breaking their contract other than PL and FA rules against any party inducing a breach, which allow the PL/FA to apply sporting sanctions against both club and manager. This was the sticking point for City because now Chelsea had a prima facie case that they could take to the PL, sporting sanctions would likely be imposed, and that would delay Maresca's appointment. The timings made the risk untenable for City even if they had done nothing wrong (as is likely).
  

• The above is how the rules are meant to work. By imposing a sporting sanction, clubs are deterred from inducement and must negotiate compensation in good faith to avoid action. If there was no sporting sanction avaiable, then Maresca would be able to simply walk and any compensation would need to be chased by Chelsea after-the-fact (likely years).
  

• Two compensation payments happen because Maresca owes the residual on his contract as compensation for the breach, and City agreed to pay a fee so that we don't seek sporting sanctions.
  

• Maresca did us dirty twice. The negotations in October might have been permitted or ignored but if he was on gardening leave then I'd bet he was supposed to inform Chelsea and didn't.
  

• With money from UECL, CL qualification, CWC and now these kind donations from City and Maresca himself, Maresca might well be Chelsea's highest revenue-grossing manager in history. If he can take Fernandez and Gusto with him to City, Winstanley and Stewart will owe him a statue for saving their financial mess.

What a distasteful end. Maresca was a nobody before this club gave him an opportunity, and he even received unjustified support right until the very bitter end. He won't be at City past January, is my bet.

Sorry think you are wrong re consent. The code of conduct contained in the PL rules ( Appendix 7) states clearly that consent has to be given. In this context assuming consent had been given wouldn’t in my view satisfy that requirement. I can’t immediately find it but I believe either in a standard managers contract, the FA or indeed to LMA it states that the consent has to be in writing.

As for admission re tapping up whilst City haven’t stated categorically that was the case think they went as close to admitting it as their legal team admitted.

As I said all along I have no doubt tapping up happens all the time and I very much doubt that we would ever have reported City but the club were well and truly pissed with Meresca

He's a pompous pseud and I wish him nothing but failure.

BALD

2 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

He did let Chelsea know about the talks while he was here. Chelsea confirm they were notified in October so it's tough to argue we didn't consent. At a guess, he walked away with the club understanding that nothing should resume until the summer, which he proceeded to ignore.

That said - the club's statement is far too generous to him because it suggests the 'disruption' started after he left. In fact, Maresca was the problem and the football was a problem long before any of this came to light. While Rosenior's naivety cost us, the three or four games after Maresca's sacking were the only time football became enjoyable all season.

I dont see any possibility we consented to the contact, based on the way we have "forced" the payments and humbling statement from City.

4 hours ago, terraloon said:

Sorry think you are wrong re consent. The code of conduct contained in the PL rules ( Appendix 7) states clearly that consent has to be given. In this context assuming consent had been given wouldn’t in my view satisfy that requirement. I can’t immediately find it but I believe either in a standard managers contract, the FA or indeed to LMA it states that the consent has to be in writing.

As for admission re tapping up whilst City haven’t stated categorically that was the case think they went as close to admitting it as their legal team admitted.

As I said all along I have no doubt tapping up happens all the time and I very much doubt that we would ever have reported City but the club were well and truly pissed with Meresca

For Maresca, the relevant Code of Conduct is Appendix 7, but there are no rules about breach of contract or obligation to seek consent for managers. Annexe 2 of the FIFA RSTP duplicates the contract rules for players to apply to coaches, applying the post-Diarra rules this would explain why Maresca would be compelled to pay back any sign-on fee + residual value.

For City, it's different. Appendix 8 is the relevant Code and there are clear rules about approaching managers under contract without consent. However, there is no clear definition of consent and post-Diarra the RSTP Annexe 2 does not presume joint and several liability for breach of contract without just cause.

@dkw - just like player transfers under the old rules, this is a matter where the mere threat of sporting sanction (suspension) is enough to force a club to settle with compensation.

City's statement shows they believe they had permission to talk to Maresca, but Chelsea argue it was not unconditional. They would have the right to contest this at tribunal but that would come at the cost of the PL imposing a sanction immediately on Maresca and/or the club if Chelsea pursued a complaint. Given the timing it would be unlikely to be resolved by the time Maresca would be expected to commence training duties.

The actual facts don't matter, we had them over a barrel thanks to Maresca's stupidity/arrogance. He'll go down in history as our most profitable manager, and their most expensive failure.

20 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

For Maresca, the relevant Code of Conduct is Appendix 7, but there are no rules about breach of contract or obligation to seek consent for managers. Annexe 2 of the FIFA RSTP duplicates the contract rules for players to apply to coaches, applying the post-Diarra rules this would explain why Maresca would be compelled to pay back any sign-on fee + residual value.

For City, it's different. Appendix 8 is the relevant Code and there are clear rules about approaching managers under contract without consent. However, there is no clear definition of consent and post-Diarra the RSTP Annexe 2 does not presume joint and several liability for breach of contract without just cause.

@dkw - just like player transfers under the old rules, this is a matter where the mere threat of sporting sanction (suspension) is enough to force a club to settle with compensation.

City's statement shows they believe they had permission to talk to Maresca, but Chelsea argue it was not unconditional. They would have the right to contest this at tribunal but that would come at the cost of the PL imposing a sanction immediately on Maresca and/or the club if Chelsea pursued a complaint. Given the timing it would be unlikely to be resolved by the time Maresca would be expected to commence training duties.

The actual facts don't matter, we had them over a barrel thanks to Maresca's stupidity/arrogance. He'll go down in history as our most profitable manager, and their most expensive failure.

Sorry but there are in the PL rules about this.

See attachment.

Had we given permission for the contact then Maresca wouldn’t have needed to tell the clubs hierarchy.

I do think at a date post his resignation that City would have spoken to get permission hence why city use the word “ context”

If city weren’t worried he would have been appointed earlier but we had them over a barrel and I agree the threat of us lodging a complaint was enough to bring them to the table

I'm staying out of this tussle of the heavyweights.