flb
Well-Known Member
Boom !
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
flb
Well-Known Member
Haha ! Brilliant, I thought about Gow but went for FLB ( Francis Lees bellybutton) and old username from posting on the MEN years and years ago !That goal is the reason for my username ;-)
Barcon
Well-Known Member
78 for me mate (would have been the end of 80 had I not moved).Haha ! I left failsworth school in 85 , Mr Potter and Fitzsimons , and Tyrell !
Lord lane massive ; )
Jimmieblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 908
When Pep took over, I bet he was advised by the owners/staff etc of the culture of envy and disquiet of certain clubs. Even in the early days of the present owners Fergie was doing his utmost to undermine us. Pep’s ethos has always had to be ‘we’ll do it on the pitch’ and he has certainly done that. They’ve tried all sorts, it has been hilarious in a way, but Karma will triumph I am sure. CTID
flb
Well-Known Member
Haha ! Don’t remind me , I turned my car over on the sharp bend at St Mary’s church !78 for me mate (would have been the end of 80 had I not moved).
Lord lane massive ; )
flb
Well-Known Member
The undermining of City goes way before Ferguson mate , think of a particular incident in the 50’s for your answer.When Pep took over, I bet he was advised by the owners/staff etc of the culture of envy and disquiet of certain clubs. Even in the early days of the present owners Fergie was doing his utmost to undermine us. Pep’s ethos has always had to be ‘we’ll do it on the pitch’ and he has certainly done that. They’ve tried all sorts, it has been hilarious in a way, but Karma will triumph I am sure. CTID
Only time?The same club who deliberately made sure their new stadium had a slightly bigger capacity than The Emirates so they could brag about it.
The only club in the Premier league era to be found guilty of fraud.
Two faced, small time deluded spivs.
Fuck Off Spurs, Elvis was in the army last time you won the league.
Can you have a loan even if on commercial terms with a Related party, eg Todd Boehly ?They have a credit facility but doesn’t mean they have drawn on it yet.
It may also be a loan on commercial terms with a third party, like United have when the Glazers bought the club, all allowed under FFP
If it’s an owner loan they will only be able to use the set amount per season allowed under FFP, If they make a loss this season
Blueboy73
Well-Known Member
They've won it twice 1951 & 1961Only time?
Barcon
Well-Known Member
Not far from my house mate. Up by Brierley ave.Haha ! Don’t remind me , I turned my car over on the sharp bend at St Mary’s church !
flb
Well-Known Member
And they haven’t come close since ? Didn’t we finish runners up twice in the 70’s to Liverpool ? Or is that my mind playing tricks on me ? Older blues will know !They've won it twice 1951 & 1961
Len Rum
Well-Known Member
I struggle to understand this one.My recollection was that there was a sale of image rights that would have been shown in the accounts but it was alleged that the company buying the rights did not do anything with them. No idea if that was correct.
IF we sold the image rights to Fordham for (say) X million, then I assume the deal was that we would pay back to Fordham over an agreed period of time all actual image right payments that Fordham made ( subject to a minimum of X million) plus some kind of handling fee to make it worth their while and then charge these operating costs to the accounts?
That's the only way I can make sense of it.
@Prestwich_Blue
Ahh wasn’t sure. So we won before them and after them.They've won it twice 1951 & 1961
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
Can you have a loan even if on commercial terms with a Related party, eg Todd Boehly ?
A loan from Boehly would count towards any owner investment.
The numbers can be misleading - it may be that much will be paid off immediately the season ticket money comes in, or the TV money. Temporary loans are common, City have done it several times in the recent past.
Also, the UEFA FFP rules have changed and now the figures are based on income/expenditure
where:
income - revenue and player sale profit
expenditure - wages and amortisation on contracts.
The bottom line with Chelsea is that no-one knows what their figures will look like after the forced takeover and transfer extravagance.
Charlesfarsbar
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2016
- Messages
- 1,549
Yes, but it will subject to the same restrictions under FFP as owner investment would beCan you have a loan even if on commercial terms with a Related party, eg Todd Boehly ?
The PL will not disappear, it’s just that their regulatory function will be curtailed. Still need someone to sell those tv rights.What’s really going to be interesting is the timescale on replacing the PL with an independent regulator. It could conceivably cross over during the life of this case. The previous interested club agenda then disappears and an independent regulator reviews everything and states charges dropped no case to answer.
Ok, thanks. Appreciate the reply. Something just doesn't quite stack up with it all, sure it will all come out in the wash at somepoint….A loan from Boehly would count towards any owner investment.
The numbers can be misleading - it may be that much will be paid off immediately the season ticket money comes in, or the TV money. Temporary loans are common, City have done it several times in the recent past.
Also, the UEFA FFP rules have changed and now the figures are based on income/expenditure
where:
income - revenue and player sale profit
expenditure - wages and amortisation on contracts.
The bottom line with Chelsea is that no-one knows what their figures will look like after the forced takeover and transfer extravagance.
Blueboy73
Well-Known Member
Runners up by 1 point in 77.And they haven’t come close since ? Didn’t we finish runners up twice in the 70’s to Liverpool ? Or is that my mind playing tricks on me ? Older blues will know !
Finished 4th in 72 behind winners Derby by 1 point, same number of points as Leeds and Victimpool.
I can't recall Spurs putting in a serious and sustained challenge for the league in my lifetime, they were there abouts under Pochettino but fell away when it came down to the business end of the season.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
I struggle to understand this one.
IF we sold the image rights to Fordham for (say) X million, then I assume the deal was that we would pay back to Fordham over an agreed period of time all actual image right payments that Fordham made ( subject to a minimum of X million) plus some kind of handling fee to make it worth their while and then charge these operating costs to the accounts?
That's the only way I can make sense of it.
@Prestwich_Blue
My recollection is that:
Fordham (or whatever the name was at the time) paid City XX million for the image rights, giving an immediate boost to our figures. I think it was about 25-30M, which was a big percentage of the club income.
Image rights then were handled by Fordham in their entirety - PB has said earlier (I think I have this right) that image rights aren't wages, and the club don't have to include them.
The trouble is that Fordham are an ADUG company, and as no-one had done this before in English football, it could be viewed as owner investment, or exceeding fair value. I don't know if it's known what the repayment plan was, if any.
What ended up happening was that UEFA changed the rules of what was covered by FFP, and the revised version included related companies like Fordham; City brought the rights back in-house and collapsed the company.
I don't know how it feeds into the charges.