PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

jamielowndes said:
They won't strip any titles.

This is not something that is genuinely in play, it's just fantasy nonsense from rival dickheads who want a bus parade for Steven Gerrard because he fucked up their one genuine shot in his career.

There's no legal precedent, there's too many moving parts for other teams to start claiming reparations.

Other fans want trophies stripping now. I want Shakira. The Stones were right, you really can't always get what you want.
Click to expand...
Shakira…who does he play for?
 
I’m hoping with Newcastle peoples eyes open a bit and it doesn’t become poor them/ big bad City.

It’s a very interesting situation and perfectly demonstrates the glass ceiling.

Newcastle have invested well and not been silly, if they where to be able to continue to invest in this way they could become a real threat to top 4/5 and move from there.

However despite a year of CL money (unlucky not to progress at the expense of PSG). They are now having to sell a star player to balance the books.

Whereas the owner I’m assuming would prefer to cover these costs leaving Newcastle in a better position.

During this time Chelsea have spent a fortune, United the same with nowhere near the success per pound spent.

There is a situation where United could buy Isak or Bruno G etc.

This for me shows the anti-competitiveness that exists in these rules.

I agree there needs to be something as it could go too far the other way, if Newcastle had drawn up a 25 man squad and spent billions on whatever it took to bring them to the club in transfer fees and wages, this would have been interesting but not our game.

However, them spending the same amount as the clubs they wish to compete with should be allowed. This would not result in a 1 sided competition but increase it.
 
Dribble said:
View attachment 104844View attachment 104845

Spurs rise above rivals​

The brand of football that is being delivered under Ange Postecoglou this season has undoubtedly quelled some of the anger that had been sent the way of Tottenham Hotspur chairman Daniel Levy in recent years. The fact that Spurs are one of the few clubs to be engaging in the market this month, with £26m spent on Genoa’s Radu Dragusin and a loan deal for RB Leipzig striker Timo Werner, which could turn into a £15m permanent deal if all works out as hoped, has hinted that the tide may be turning in Spurs’ favour.

Figures presented by football finance expert Swiss Ramble last year looked at the potential PSR position of each Premier League club, and just how much they could lose before being in breach of the regulations.

For some the margins were fine, but for Spurs, through a considered transfer strategy and the fact that much of the losses that the club has incurred can be attributed to the building of the £1bn new stadium, with such costs an allowable deduction when it comes to PSR, the picture was rather serene when compared to the rest of the League. Liverpool, a club that has a similarly cautious approach to spending and a strong balance sheet, also fared well.

Spurs emerged as the club with the best PSR position in the Premier League, with allowable losses of £276m, a figure aided by the fact that much of the losses attributed to the club can be linked to the building of the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium (THS), with stadium and infrastructure costs not factored in when it comes to PSR calculations. Liverpool were the next best with an allowable loss of £156m, with Manchester City next on the list at £139m.

Speaking to University of Cambridge students at the Cambridge Union in March last year, Levy said: “Debt isn’t really a problem for anyone that understands finance, providing you can match long-term income streams with long-term debt. As long as it is financed properly it isn't a problem.

“It is effectively a 30-year mortgage at a very low interest rate. It’s not a problem at all. When you are building a club and building long-term value there are a number of ingredients. One is profitability; some clubs are valued at a lot of money that aren’t profitable, therefore revenue becomes important. Physical assets, success on the pitch; there is no one asset, you need them all to come together.”

The lack of on-pitch success and perceived lack of investment in the playing squad has been a major bone of contention of Spurs fans when it comes to assessing Levy’s time as chairman. Of the ‘Big Six’, Spurs have operated on the fringes, flirting with the odd spot of glory before being hamstrung by a lack of consistency on the playing side. The tide may be about to turn, though, and there is little that some of their rivals can do about it.

Spurs have been getting their ducks in a row for quite some time. The new stadium, the extra revenue deals with the likes of the NFL and the Formula One Experience, as well as a rigid pay structure and lack of willingness to engage in paying inflated prices in the transfer market, all form part of a plan that is likely to see the club head into the next 10 years with one of the healthiest outlooks in the Premier League.

It looks like Spuds are leading the race to the bottom for the PL, where they spend relatively little on players so are unable to sustain title challenges, but are now happy to drag the rest of the League down with them for the "Net spend on the cheap" trophy aka PSR.

Not being willing to spend, Spuds are happy for the chasing pack in the Premier League being unable to spend to level up the playing field & challenge them for the coveted fifth Champions League spot.

It used to be the Italian League, then the Spanish League, now it's the Premier League which dominates European football. Which league stands to gain because the PL are prepared to slay the goose that laid their golden egg, as long as it hammers Manchester City, & stops the likes of Newcastle, Villa & Everton from joining the top five CL qualification challenge?

News is breaking that Newcastle maybe forced to sell Almiron, Wilson & Trippier by the end of the season, & are facing an austere summer transfer window, so as to avoid PSR sanctions like Everton.

Other reports are saying even this may not be enough, which is casting doubts on Newcastle's most saleable assets in Botman, Guimarães & Isak.

Newcastle could be pecked to the bone by their rivals as they try to avoid Everton's fate, & with PSR in play, not even being the richest club in the world can help them.

The Red Top Mafia & Spuds have finally done it. They're killing the dreams of other football fans, that they could win the lottery & become the next Manchester City or Newcastle.

It's now evident that you can have the richest owner in the world, but you can barely spend a penny of those riches to compete, just because the Red Top Mafia & Spuds don't think it's fair on them to be challenged.

Unless something is done to end this madness, the PL will be fucked. How long will the other 16 PL teams stand by & watch the destruction of the most competitive & richest league in the world, just because it suits the four founding members? ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

https://www.football.london/tottenh...iel-levy-masterplan-leaves-tottenham-28479054
Click to expand...
The other clubs won't care. Owners below the Rags, Dippers, Tarquins and Spuds are happy to just get the revenue from the PL. They'll agree to any set of rules as long as the money is still there. Don't forget how happy they all were with the Rags hoovering up all the trophies for 20+ years and being able to outspend everyone - we would 100% be watching another Bayern Munich situation where the club just outspend every other club and buy any young talent and everyone is happy with the odd club chasing them close. If it wasn't for Abramovic I'm sure they'd now be on 30+ titles and the Piss Can would still be in charge.
 
wolviedinho said:
Million dollar question. It might be because the owners of the other clubs don’t actually want to spend money and are quite happy to hang off the rags/dips coat tails. Whatever the reason you can be sure money and jealousy is involved.
Click to expand...
Nail on the head , the Yank owners want rules and sanctions in place so they can invest the bare minimum and financially rape their club whilst using the ready made excuse of FFP for the reason they cannot buy players.
The only surprise is the gullibilty of the Rag/Dipper/Goon/Spuds supporters , they just cannot see the bigger picture through the blind hate for our club.
 
KS55 said:
Yes Barada has a big job to turn their culture round.
Click to expand...
Who bar Sir Jim will buy into his culture change?
Classical buyout change is brought about by bringing in one's own team rather than allowing time to identify those who refuse to change.

Perhaps I am out of date but in my day in other business sectors Change Masters gave time limits to these change areas.
I think Mr Clough gave Leeds about 5 minutes before leaving.
 
the plasterer said:
As I can't be arsed reading back through hundreds of pages, any kind soul out there care to tell me what's happening??, what's with the confidence of a not guilty all of a sudden??, thought we were doomed and certs for relegation of a few leagues
Click to expand...
We've all decided the PL are bent and it's run by Neville and Carragher. People have mentioned Boris Johnson being bent as it's BM and the Tories are obviously to be blamed - surprised Trump hasn't been mentioned yet.

Anyway, a lot of people appear to be confident that all's well. Also something about it not being 115 charges but 5 and that it's equivalent to being in a fight and being charged with assault for every punch you've thrown - I think. Some funny reply to a Collymore Tweet has been mentioned in reference to punching Ulreka Johnson and only being charged once.......
 
jimmygrimblesboots said:
Unfortunately our magnificent achievement will always be tainted , it was the only way the Rags and Dippers could fight back , with their off the field antics because we have totally outclassed them for a decade or more on the field
Click to expand...
Not in my eyes.
The trophies were won fairly with sweat and sometimes, blood on the pitch.
 
meltonblue said:
They’re both from the same chambers and Lewis is very well renowned in his own right, it’s not as if it’s a David vs Goliath story.

Lewis has represented the PL several times before including the appeals about our investigation that went to court so that’s all it is. There’s nothing to be read into him taking the case aside from if we’re found not guilty, anyone arguing it’s down to us spending money on the best lawyers is a moron - the PL has access to them too and is using one.
Click to expand...
I’m certainly not trying to belittle Lewis in any way and he has an excellent reputation as a sporting lawyer and importantly is the PL‘s KC of choice. Pannick is however arguably our Country’s leading advocate and as an aside who wouldn’t want to cross swords with him. Anybody who’s anybody in life enjoys taking on the best. That was the point I was trying to make in response to a poster who keeps banging on that Lewis would only take on winning positions…which is ridiculous.
 
Rory Bluelow said:
I’m certainly not trying to belittle Lewis in any way and he has an excellent reputation as a sporting lawyer and importantly is the PL‘s KC of choice. Pannick is however arguably our Country’s leading advocate and as an aside who wouldn’t want to cross swords with him. Anybody who’s anybody in life enjoys taking on the best. That was the point I was trying to make in response to a poster who keeps banging on that Lewis would only take on winning positions…which is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Difficult to argue with that.
 
Colin Bell (genuine name) said:
In theory Newcastle could buy a squad of 22 Mbappes and Haalands at £200m each and pay them £1m a week for 10 years at a total cost of £12.5b. They could then do it again a further 24 times before they would start to feel the pinch and yet the current PSR is forcing them to sell to avoid failing the spending regulations.

My proposal would be that teams are limited to a maximum net spend over 3 years rather than limiting losses over 3 years. If it is set at say £500m for clubs with established owners who have been there for a set period and maybe £750m for the first 3 years for new ambitious owner.

It would allow for the transfer market to remain fluid and limit transfer spending at the same time.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the money involved is at multi-billionaire/state level. Our owners put in around £1.5b and in addition could influence sponsorship deals from Abu Dhabi to add a significant sum on top of that. But Liverpool, for example, have three times the revenue that had in 2008.

If a team from mid-table, even a big city one with the fans/infrastructure, wanted to compete, then they could need £4b+ invested. That's absolutely crazy - and way above even your suggestions.

Even then, Newcastle could afford whatever they want - but Everton could quite easily bankrupted themselves well before they got anywhere near the lower figures you suggested.

The only way you're going to get competition back in any meaningful way, is to reduce the revenues of the richest clubs. Either football is a sport, or it's a business, but it can't be both.
 
bluenova said:
The problem is that the money involved is at multi-billionaire/state level. Our owners put in around £1.5b and in addition could influence sponsorship deals from Abu Dhabi to add a significant sum on top of that. But Liverpool, for example, have three times the revenue that had in 2008.

If a team from mid-table, even a big city one with the fans/infrastructure, wanted to compete, then they could need £4b+ invested. That's absolutely crazy - and way above even your suggestions.

Even then, Newcastle could afford whatever they want - but Everton could quite easily bankrupted themselves well before they got anywhere near the lower figures you suggested.

The only way you're going to get competition back in any meaningful way, is to reduce the revenues of the richest clubs. Either football is a sport, or it's a business, but it can't be both.
Click to expand...
Throughout the history of football rich people have bought football clubs, made investments , club wins trophies, I don't have a problem with that.
The sport has been hijacked by anti competitive businesses, rags and dippers etc to financially enrich themselves. It's wrong.
 
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