PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

I think concentrating on the two red clubs up here is a bit of a red herring , I’m convinced this starts and stops with the two London clubs - especially bitter boy Levy. The two red clubs up here are the real establishment of football , and I take no joy in saying that. United are what they are - will always have money to compete , Liverpool is slightly different, Klopp has fuelled the “Oil money” narrative because he’s come very close -and failed to deliver titles at the expense of City’s superb manager. Tottenham and Arsenal on the other hand are a different kettle of fish - they know damn well they will never shift the two red clubs , but us however have firmly pissed on their chips for the top 4 CL money , funny how Chelsea have never fallen under scrutiny isn’t it from there neighbours? Is that why Pep specifically named Levy ? And let’s not forget the signed letter from Arsenal either ? I’d say this stems from London if you want my opinion.
 
abu13 said:
Im really confused with how much an owner can put into a club, it;s the situation at Chelsea that is throwing me, how can RA have loaned them in the region of £1.5Billion and then it just be written off?
Click to expand...

From a FFP perspective, because it was counted in the accounts as it was loaned. Loan 100M? Put 100M on the accounts as owner investment. If Abramovich wanted to run a company with a loan out of 1.5B, that's up to him.

The writing it off makes no difference to FFP.
 
Win our next two and we are top… that puts not only the pressure on but shuts them all up and sends a message at the same time. C’mon Pep, get them pumped and c’mon blues let’s raise the noise levels and show we are behind the team.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
From a FFP perspective, because it was counted in the accounts as it was loaned. Loan 100M? Put 100M on the accounts as owner investment. If Abramovich wanted to run a company with a loan out of 1.5B, that's up to him.

The writing it off makes no difference to FFP.
Click to expand...
And this is why I am baffled, why would we need to supposedly inflate sponsorship when we could have just asked the owner for a loan of £100 million.
 
Fuzzy80 said:
I’m sure others will have different views, but Paddy Power take the absolute piss out of everyone and are normally pretty funny with it.

Out of all the media, at least they are consistent
Click to expand...
Yeah I have no problem with paddy Power doing something.
If the rags or Liverpool were in the same situation they would do it to them too.
 
abu13 said:
And this is why I am baffled, why would we need to supposedly inflate sponsorship when we could have just asked the owner for a loan of £100 million.
Click to expand...
Or even better. Why did we not just flood the club with debt. It is acceptable after all.

Oh no we would rather create a nationwide scandal and deceive the accounts. The accusations get sillier and sillier under any sort of scrutiny.
 
giphy.gif
 
Bazzmand Show said:
Ultimatley this is what FFP aims to do, block over investment from an owner - none of us agree with it and its a load of shit.

However if the club is proven to have breached the FFP laws which we signed up to, theres not a lot we can do.
Click to expand...
"Breeched" or worked tirelessly with progressive and creative ways to generate revenues? I firmly believe the cartel clubs thought they had it on lockdown and we proved that to not be the case. If what City did was a breech then why the need to change and implement new rules upon Newcastle being bought? Because City proved their restrictions weren't great enough for the cartel's needs thus the need to implement further restrictions. So we basically "breeched" rules that did not actually exist otherwise why exactly were "new" rules needed to ensure Newcastle could not do the same thing. Any of these negative legal experts on here care to explain that?
 
abu13 said:
And this is why I am baffled, why would we need to supposedly inflate sponsorship when we could have just asked the owner for a loan of £100 million.
Click to expand...
I've never understood this either. Biggest legit loophole there is because neither uefa or pl can deal with debt because it will hit the old guard. Rather than all the faff with sponsorship and 'fair values' we could have just been 'loaned' a billion in perpetuity like abramnovitch and just recently the Leicester owner has done.
 
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