PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

bobbyowenquiff said:
I think Jordan is toxic as far as City are concerned. He is close to Levy and Parry and they are obviously feeding him lines. He also knows there is money to be made from peddlling an anti-City agenda. There are a lot of LFC and MUFC fans out there.
Click to expand...
The show with Stefan caused quite a few ripples. Even though the head line writers did their job with the 'City - relegated' stuff, that show garnered a huge number of hits compared to usual TS clips, and within it was the opinion that the PL will be unlikely to prove their case.
Afterwards, although not a total sea change, there's been a mellowing of opinion on various podcasts, commentaries etc that there is the possibility the case will not be proven against City.
Also public opinion is slightly swinging against FFP/PSR because of Everton, Forest and Newcastle situations.
As you say, Jordan is doing the dirty work for his mates Levy & Parry etc to try swing the needle back against City and distract from the absolute mess that FFP/PSR has become.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Agree with you on Ceferin / UEFA but if you permit me to swim against the tide, I don't agree about FFP. This is a sport after all and it shouldn't just be the team with the most money winning everything (yes I know 'twas ever thus and that, at the moment, we have the "most" money).

The trick is balancing competition and sporting "hope" with sustainability, community asset protection and financial responsibility. It's a tremendously difficult issue and, personally, I have no answer. Except that there must be one :)
Click to expand...
I respect your views but no business should be stopped from investing.

I would be more than happy to see some sort of wage cap in terms of percentage of turnover, players wages are out of hand and need sorting.
 
Keeper! said:
I respect your views but no business should be stopped from investing.

I would be more than happy to see some sort of wage cap in terms of percentage of turnover, players wages are out of hand and need sorting.
Click to expand...
UEFA have their wage to turnover reduction from 90% to 70% over the next three seasons, which the PL are looking to adopt.

As per the video featuring Txiki & Berrada, City have long since had a wage to turnover ratio averaging 60%, with our target being 55% & the recent maximum being 65%.

Only City & Spuds currently meet this criteria in the "Big Six", with ManUre, ArseAnal, Chavs & Dippers already near UEFA's current 90% maximum.

However, these facts & our far lower net transfer spend is never mentioned by those claiming we're FFP/PSR cheats & have bought our success, whilst the legacy clubs have earned theirs.
 
Last edited:
Keeper! said:
I respect your views but no business should be stopped from investing.

I would be more than happy to see some sort of wage cap in terms of percentage of turnover, players wages are out of hand and need sorting.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But a wage cap stops clubs investing? In players, anyway.
 
Opposition fans - We drink your tears still. we drank them when we won your trophies and now we drink them because you think we've cheated.
When the verdict comes in we will drink even more. Your piss is truly boiling isnt it.
Literally City have ruined your lives :)



*No need for Likes guys I just post this every now and then on here for rival fans.
 
Keeper! said:
I respect your views but no business should be stopped from investing.

I would be more than happy to see some sort of wage cap in terms of percentage of turnover, players wages are out of hand and need sorting.
Click to expand...
Its a mad world where at the top end of the league you have clubs spending close to £700m and yet have rules to cap investment at clubs spending £250m to £300m to stop them closing the gap and label it fair play. Disagree on the wages issue - I know the wages are mad but market forces will out and as long as you force owners to cover the spending with investment I have no problem with it.

What I do agree with is an overall spend cap which could be set based on total league revenue so the sector itself is protected from spinning out of control and remains competitive even if one clubs revenues outstrip all others. So Maximum spend overall could be say £600m to £650m. Newcastle and the like could up there spend to compete if the owners are willing to invest. Infrastructure investment could be excluded and would adjust the spend cap in some way based on ticket pricing adhering to some basic rules to protect fans from being priced out.

None of this will happen though as greed and self interest will win hands down in every board room.
 
Ste68 said:
Its a mad world where at the top end of the league you have clubs spending close to £700m and yet have rules to cap investment at clubs spending £250m to £300m to stop them closing the gap and label it fair play. Disagree on the wages issue - I know the wages are mad but market forces will out and as long as you force owners to cover the spending with investment I have no problem with it.

What I do agree with is an overall spend cap which could be set based on total league revenue so the sector itself is protected from spinning out of control and remains competitive even if one clubs revenues outstrip all others. So Maximum spend overall could be say £600m to £650m. Newcastle and the like could up there spend to compete if the owners are willing to invest. Infrastructure investment could be excluded and would adjust the spend cap in some way based on ticket pricing adhering to some basic rules to protect fans from being priced out.

None of this will happen though as greed and self interest will win hands down in every board room.
Click to expand...
I've an issue with this aspect, as it merely goes back to the throttling of squad spending which is the basis of Financial Unfair Play & the Profit & Sustainability Rules.

Far be it from me to agree with the Poisoned Dwarf Levy, but if you spend £500m on a new stadium & have a 25 year mortgage on it, the annual repayments will only account for £20.6m of turnover, which should be achievable for a responsible PL club.
 
Ghandi's Flip Flops said:
The show with Stefan caused quite a few ripples. Even though the head line writers did their job with the 'City - relegated' stuff, that show garnered a huge number of hits compared to usual TS clips, and within it was the opinion that the PL will be unlikely to prove their case.
Afterwards, although not a total sea change, there's been a mellowing of opinion on various podcasts, commentaries etc that there is the possibility the case will not be proven against City.
Also public opinion is slightly swinging against FFP/PSR because of Everton, Forest and Newcastle situations.
As you say, Jordan is doing the dirty work for his mates Levy & Parry etc to try swing the needle back against City and distract from the absolute mess that FFP/PSR has become.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I don't think the Ceferin story got as much traction as it would have done six months ago. I think there is a growing sense in the media that the PL have fucked up, whatever the result of their action against City. Opposition fans are starting to see that the current financial rules are preventing investment but doing nothing about debt. If Newcastle were spending big in this window there would be more money circulating around the selling clubs which would stimulate the market. Meanwhile the new City narrative has moved towards: "City will get away with it." rather than: "City are getting relegated."
 
Last edited:
Screenshot_20240125_115838_Chrome.jpg0_GettyImages-1801860020.jpg

When addressing the charges, which include allegations the club misrepresented their finances for nine whole seasons, Aguero was careful not to comment too much.

But he did tell Stake.com: "I can say that our achievements as a team, on the field, were won with effort and sportsmanship, fair and square."

Now they're hounding our club legends by trying to besmirch their achievements. Bastards! :-/

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ews/sergio-aguero-breaks-silence-man-28508685
 
Keeper! said:
players wages are out of hand and need sorting.
Click to expand...

Why?

The players are the sport. They are the reason tv companies pay billions and the reason I pay sky £30 a month to watch.

Where else should the money go? To the owners? Television companies? Transfer fees?

Money is not coming back to the fans if you cap wages.

The only problem with wages in football is unscrupulous agents take too much.
 
wolviedinho said:
Chelsea didn’t do a treble and rub the red noses in it.

Chelsea didn’t have Pep.

Chelsea haven’t stopped Liverpool dominating.

Chelsea didn’t make the rags look like amateurs.

City did and the hate followed -:)
Click to expand...
Chelsea's owners and ultimate owner often find their enemies or dissenters fall off balconies or or eat radioactive sandwiches.
 
wolviedinho said:
FFP/P&S has killed skys transfer window lol.

Brilliant.

Always look on the yellow side of life…

Finally a positive to the financial “get city” controls!
Click to expand...
Not too fast wolf boy!
"If City hadn't inflated the market we would be having a busy transfer window right now - discuss"
 
In the late 1970s Peter Swales embarked on a period of very high, debt financed spending in an aim to make City the most glamorous and successful club in the land. The policy took time before it proved to be disastrous on the pitch and catastrophic off it. By the time we saw the full effects of the approach City were in the third tier and was surviving courtesy of the banks. Later we saw Leeds follow a similar approach to try and replace Manchester United as the country's leading club with possibly even more disastrous consequences. Loans were not guaranteed by an owner but secured on club assets. Nevertheless Leeds were dumped into the third tier and broke. There were no FFP or P&S regulations in place to stop either club's "kamikaze spending". The question is actually whether the regulations would have stopped either club's trolly dash and there is some doubt. Another point to make is that neither club went bust, both are still in business and in City's case .... Both appear to have been kept going by the normal mechanisms of the market. It is hard to see that the situation of either club would have been helped by a ten point deduction, or even more by repeated points deductions.

Many on here will reply that both City and Leeds relied on loans, on the great villain DEBT to finance their recklessness and this is true. And in the 1980s &1990s some clubs got into considerable trouble by taking out loans to finance ground improvements, most often new stands. Chelsea and Wolves were two that I remember and both suffered from it, Wolves spectacularly so, almost dropping out of the league. These are, however, projects requiring large capital investment and loans/debt has always been the obvious way to raise capital. Indeed FFP allows it subject to the proviso that the club can pay the interest on the loans. This is certainly not a ridiculous regulation but it is nullified to some extent by the proviso that this must be paid out of "normal" revenue, which excludes anything owners/shareholders might want to put in. Even before FFP was introduced a number of clubs built impressive new grounds and since their introduction Spurs have built a very impressive one. new stadia were certainly needed when the disgraceful standard of some was considered but whether FFP has made it easier or harder to finance is the question.

I think I want to put forward several points arising out of what I've written. The first is that FFP does not ban investment but it does limit it. It certainly doesn't ban debt but it insists that the interest must be paid out of "normal" revenue but limits the owner's ability to pay the interest severely. Many clubs find that their scope for improvement is severely constrained while others who thrived before the introduction of the regulations are left to spend, spend, spend and pile on the debt in the manner of Swales and Leeds! IF (and a big if) FFP had a noble aim I suspect it was to force clubs into good business practice. It hasn't done this. It has allowed clubs at the top when the regulations were introduced to spend and borrow more while the others find that however good their business model or however rich their owners their scope for improvement is limited. I can't think why UEFA and the PL have introduced such restrictive, protectionist regulations.
 
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