PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Dribble said:
So the points deduction is purely discretionary, & not mandated in their rules?
Click to expand...
Yes!

Masters recommended a 10 point deduction to the panel. He used the EFL criteria as a basis for the recommendation. It was something like 6 points fixed for the breach and 1 point for each £5mil over. CBA looking that bit up.

The panel told him to fuck off because it wasn't in the rules and then went ahead using their discretion and came up with the same 10 point deduction.
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
Yes!

Masters recommended a 10 point deduction to the panel. He used the EFL criteria as a basis for the recommendation. It was something like £6mil fixed for the breach and £1mil for each £5mil over. CBA looking that bit up.

The panel told him to fuck off because it wasn't in the rules and then went ahead using their discretion and came up with the same 10 point deduction.
Click to expand...
Mmmmm.... So essentially a team would have to weigh up if it was a price worth paying?

I ask because I think as long as all bills were paid & the club had no outstanding debt, a move like that could signal the end of FFP or whatever it's being called this week.

It could then promote secure owner investment with the monies deposited into an escrow account, & counterbalanced by a fairer wages to turnover ratio rule.
 
Dribble said:
Mmmmm.... So essentially a team would have to weigh up if it was a price worth paying?

I ask because I think as long as all bills were paid & the club had no outstanding debt, a move like that could signal the end of FFP or whatever it's being called this week.

It could then promote secure owner investment with the monies deposited into an escrow account, & counterbalanced by a fairer wages to turnover ratio rule.
Click to expand...
Note I've edited that post you've - getting mixed up between points and pounds :)

Should read:
Masters recommended a 10 point deduction to the panel. He used the EFL criteria as a basis for the recommendation. It was something like 6 points fixed for the breach and 1 point for each £5mil over. CBA looking that bit up.

The panel told him to fuck off because it wasn't in the rules and then went ahead using their discretion and came up with the same 10 point deduction.

I've now looked it up and that is what Masters proposed. If it was in the rules that would mean 6+20 points for a breach of £100 million and not neccessarily relegation
 
Pezzer2 said:
Funny seeing the likes of Everton and Villa fans teaming up on the likes of Twitter having a go at the top 6 including City regarding FFP. Is it not sinking in with other fans that we’ve been calling out FFP for years. Trying to explain to them just falls on deaf ears
Click to expand...
Any port in a storm.

Can't possibly be their own fault.

Selfish people think that way and will distort factual history to find a scapegoat.

Explaining things simply causes them to RE examine their version of fact so they dismiss it to prevent being wrong.

Leave them in their version of reality.
 
Dribble said:
Mmmmm.... So essentially a team would have to weigh up if it was a price worth paying?

I ask because I think as long as all bills were paid & the club had no outstanding debt, a move like that could signal the end of FFP or whatever it's being called this week.

It could then promote secure owner investment with the monies deposited into an escrow account, & counterbalanced by a fairer wages to turnover ratio rule.
Click to expand...

It is a dangerous game to play but, yes, a club could weigh up if it was a price worth paying.

Projectriver's case theory for Chelsea was they regarded a financial penalty as a "cost of doing business" and was what they likely expected for a breach.

The Everton case has potentially thrown that out of the window because the expectation now is a points deduction.
 
Dribble said:
As far as I'm aware, all inward revenue counts towards FFP, & Sheikh Mansour can spend what he likes on everything at City, apart from anything directly related to the first team squad, which tells you all you need to know about FFP.

This is what they did so City couldn't challenge the elite on the pitch. Take Newcastle for instance. They need to bolster their squad but can't because they're apparently nearly up to their FFP limit.

There's even talk of them having to sell one from Guimarães, Isak or Botman, so they can use the funds to bolster their squad.

However, if PIF wanted to spend £2bn rebuilding St James' Park, that's perfectly fine. But if they spent a few million more on their first team squad, they're in danger of falling foul of FFP.

This is why FFP's so unfair. How're Newcastle supposed to compete with the elite clubs, when they have to sell their best players to the elite clubs, so they can invest in other areas of their squad?

This was one of the points City made when UEFA were telling us to take our time & build our squad organically.

Because FFP limits an ambitious club from making the necessary first team squad investment to challenge the elite clubs, they're in danger of the elite clubs picking off their best players, which will keep the chasing clubs right where they are as FFP intended.

Clubs like Newcastle will essentially become a feeder club for the big boys. This is the unfair logical conclusion of FFP.
Click to expand...
They voted for it though so tough shit. Ditto with Everton.
Fuck then all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.