PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Keeper!]

ceferin looks like a dehydrated cock.

What is he going to say?

It was a witch hunt.

He has to say what he did to keep hisjob.

 

[Chi-town blues]

What is he going to say?

It was a witch hunt.

He has to say what he did to keep hisjob.

Was it necessary ?

 

[Shirley]

Thanks mate. Just to be clear I'm not messaging with Nick himself. Two Liverpool fans. Ha. What am I doing... ;)

Careful you could end up a victim

 

[RACHACE]

Although I like Forest, perhaps they overspent in recent windows. Yet still...

So what? If the owner can afford these expenditures... so what?

FFP regulations currently in place in the P/L were voted upon by club ownership.

What FFP is actually for, is to prevent clubs with new wealthy ownership from preventing ownership to spend enough to challenge club leadership.

Bullshit I say.

Let a club spend what they will so long as it doesn't put the club into irrecoverable debt.

Newcastle have unlimited funds due to their owners.

Perhaps some sort of investment cap needs to be placed on ownership - otherwise Newcastle will simply buy the league.

TL/DL - FFP needs to be abolished. Instead, an investment cap, very high, should be imposed, alongside a rule not to place a club in dire financial straights.

I agree.

Also, football is supposed to be entertaining and there's nothing entertaining about preventing the expenditure of clubs who can afford to spend money improving their squads.

Look at this transfer window, it's non existant.

Using Forest as an example. They get promoted and go on a spending spree that created a lot of interest from everyone who follows football. It created excitement and possibly even trepidation if you're a Forest fan but either way it's more entertaining than what say Norwich City or Sheffield United generally do once promoted.

I'm not advocating spending money you've not got and if Sheffield United and Norwich want to bank the windfall that getting into the Premier League brings to secure their future, that's fine too but clubs that have the financial backing shouldn't be hamstrung, especially if they can show proof of being able to soak up any loss that the club might make in the short to medium term.

If the PL looks at a clubs spending and is concerned about the long term future of the club due to its spending then of course, they should have some power with regard forcing the slowing down of said spending and that could probably be done via temporary transfer bans or wage caps etc.

But we know that these spending restrictions are absolutely nothing to do with saving clubs from oneself and are more to do with giving the more established clubs a leg up with regard finishing in the more lucrative positions in the league.

 

[Keeper!]

Was it necessary ?

It's a news story at this time and he was asked, he is not going to say we made a huge mistake and were wrong in charging City, is he?

It's what you would expect an executive to say and the same will be said of the PL when we are cleared.

 

[Gone for a Burton]

I agree.

Also, football is supposed to be entertaining and there's nothing entertaining about preventing the expenditure of clubs who can afford to spend money improving their squads.

Look at this transfer window, it's non existant.

Using Forest as an example. They get promoted and go on a spending spree that created a lot of interest from everyone who follows football. It created excitement and possibly even trepidation if you're a Forest fan but either way it's more entertaining than what say Norwich City or Sheffield United generally do once promoted.

I'm not advocating spending money you've not got and if Sheffield United and Norwich want to bank the windfall that getting into the Premier League brings to secure their future, that's fine too but clubs that have the financial backing shouldn't be hamstrung, especially if they can show proof of being able to soak up any loss that the club might make in the short to medium term.

If the PL looks at a clubs spending and is concerned about the long term future of the club due to its spending then of course, they should have some power with regard forcing the slowing down of said spending and that could probably be done via temporary transfer bans or wage caps etc.

But we know that these spending restrictions are absolutely nothing to do with saving clubs from oneself and are more to do with giving the more established clubs a leg up with regard finishing in the more lucrative positions in the league.

No other industry I know of places restrictions on self financed owner spending.

Self made successful builder uses overdraft to buy development land to build out and become more successful employing more labour.

His Federation doesn’t prevent him !!

A revolution is coming,started by CITY & I like it .

 

[Chi-town blues]

It's a news story at this time and he was asked, he is not going to say we made a huge mistake and were wrong in charging City, is he?

It's what you would expect an executive to say and the same will be said of the PL when we are cleared.

Easy option would’ve been “ no comment” like any sensible executive would normally respond.
The end of news story .

 

[Keeper!]

Easy option would’ve been “ no comment” like any sensible executive would normally respond.
The end of news story .

No comment is no good for either party, it creates suspicion.

The simple fact remains, UEFA charged us and found us guilty but CAS overturned in our favour , end of story and nothing to be seen from here.

It was a headline and a non story.

 

[Skrastins]

i know that Simon Jordan has hearing loss and early dementia, but why tf he has thick glasses?

 

[Eric Hitchmough]

Thanks mate. Just to be clear I'm not messaging with Nick himself. Two Liverpool fans. Ha. What am I doing... ;)

Tell them we apologise in advance for whatever they’re planning to be offended by next.

 

[Damanino]

still no development on our case as per last week's suggested "leak".

has to come today or tomorrow morning to be able for media to run it up in the news just before the Spurs game.

 

[LeroyChickenSane]

Thanks mate. Just to be clear I'm not messaging with Nick himself. Two Liverpool fans. Ha. What am I doing... ;)

Always wondered who he supported? So Nick Harris is a scouse rat? Explains alot

 

[mancboy]

just curious but why has ffp or psr or whatever they are calling it today never been challenged under the uk anti-competion law because quite clearly thats what it is trying to prevent, if an owner wants to invest their own money into a club and not load the debt onto that club then by not allowing that surely you are not allowing competition to the established few, isnt it the same as if ford, bmw and volkswagen said that tesla wasnt allowed to invest in new factories or better machinery?

 

[whipper]

still no development on our case as per last week's suggested "leak".

has to come today or tomorrow morning to be able for media to run it up in the news just before the Spurs game.

As it was the Telegraph who said it, I'd guess it was the Ceferin interview in their paper yesterday.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Sky will be complaining about this ffp stuff if the transfer window carries on like this!
It’s currently the 21st lowest January spend out of the last 22 and makes their ‘transfer show’ effectively redundant.
What football fans should be reflecting on is that, instead of Everton, Forest and the rest wailing “but what about City”, that Newcastle, allegedly the ‘richest club in the world’ are not only unable to buy anyone (they couldn’t afford a loan for Phillips ffs), they are actively looking to sell, in order to meet ffp.
What is really happening is that any threat to the established order is, effectively, over. Well done everyone, you appear to have got what the red shirts wanted you to get and, rather brilliant I suppose, persuaded you to vote for.
If they can now somehow finish off City and Chelsea, their hegemony will be forever protected, and things can go back to how they always were in the PL era.
I get that football is tribal, but that ‘what about city’ question really is the biggest distraction going, hence why it’s actively encouraged. Other fans talking about ‘the top 6’ cartel, this lumping us in there as well, are also being wilfully ignorant about what City fans (and M Samuel, to be fair) have been saying for over 10 years.

Finally, the PL and UEFA seem to be the most corrupt of organisations, in many people‘s eyes, unless they’re talking about City, and then they morph into bastions of high moral authority! Mind you, the discredited media, who will tell lies about literally anything, are also viewed as honest brokers when discussing City, so I don’t suppose we should be surprised……

 

[Manchester_lalala]

If I remember right, UEFA picked one, City picked one, then City suggested the 3rd and UEFA agreed it was a good choice. If they couldn't have agreed themselves, on the 3rd judge, CAS would have stepped in and chosen someone for them. So, Nick needs to think about that properly, before making anything of it.

It’s a complete non story which has been fabricated to make CAS and City look bent. They also tried to tie in the third judge that was picked to Etihad. Apparently he had been based in one of Etihads office in Abu Dhabi, or something along those lines.

 

[come-on-barney]

If anyone says we shouldn’t boo the anthem then the quote above should be all the justification required.

It’s clear they don’t want us to do it, therefore we also know it inflicts even the smallest amount of pain or discomfort on the shower of deplorable bastards.

I shall be booing even louder in 2024.

I think he’s just help to ensure it will be louder than ever now.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

I think that is the most likely outcome too, it will be a re-run of UEFA’s but more proof needed.

They won’t be able to prove fraud, then everything will become time barred and we will have got away with it (it seems slightly predictable if we have both read it right).

The 115 charges has worked well for them rather then just charging us for FFP, has really played out in the public as they would have wanted.

My advice to blues is to wear it once this is all over, 115, got of on a technicality, time barred etc. I know we want everyone to know we are innocent but nothing we will say will ever change some opposing fans mind who listens to Simon Jordan all day.

So go the opposite, United did it back in the day when everyone was accusing them of having FA/ refs in their pocket.

They sung we do what we want…Was a frustrating chant when they where successful.

That should be City fans response, really wind up the opposition once we are cleared on this technicality as they will no doubt claim.

Were Man City, we’ll spend what we want

City, City, the best lawyers in the land and all the world

Long away trip…

There was 115 charges by the Premier League, 115 charges by the Premier League and if Lord Pannick was to get 1 time barred, there would be 114 charges by the Premier League.

This last one is a joke, as I don’t think anyone would want to sing all those verses

Time barred my lord, time barred.

 

[lonestay]

still no development on our case as per last week's suggested "leak".

has to come today or tomorrow morning to be able for media to run it up in the news just before the Spurs game.

Probably today, Thursday so it can gain some momentum before Fridays game .

 

[ysmsa]

Lucky bastard.
I got a Grifter.

If you had got a Chopper when Grifters were vogue you'd have been laughed out of Town :-)