PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Brightwell Bros.]

Let’s get it right
Jordan had changed his time since Stefan went into talksport a as max schooled him.

His backtracking is in full motion.
Now all of a sudden he thinks a back room deal will be done…..
what he means is basically that we will be cleared and his response can’t be that he was totally wrong so he will do what the I’ll educated rags and dippers on Twitter do - he will claim conspiracy

For the record if any deals get made it’s quite clearly because the premier league can win their case

I did notice he has started saying that City fans are full of conspiracy theories while trotting one out in the same segment. Either soft power can force the PL's hand or can't force the PL's hand, but it's unlikely that only City can do it.

 

[Phoenix900000]

Oh my God!

Some United YouTuber just said the capture of Omar from City is the best transfer United have made in years lol.

Destroyed FC!

City what have you done to this club! Someone put the lid on the coffin and drop them 6feet under. Game over!

Shows they haven't had anything to cheer about. But I think getting Omar (as good as he does his job) still won't change much as they need major changes at their club.

Not that I really care :)

 

[Rochdale Blue]

I’m all for hung,drawn and quartered ..

I’m all for hung,drawn and quartered ..

I'm with you. A good slap on the wrist never did anyone any harm.

 

[citizen_maine]

S

Momentum is definitely heading towards a change in FFP rules,they just need to find a way where any team can spend what they need,to compete with City,…and City are only allowed to invest the money that they make from the match day chips!That should keep them happy!…wankers.

Sheikhy would just buy them all

 

[meltonblue]

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.

Don’t think that’s right about stadium investment, any interest on loans for infrastructure is exempt from ffp, it’s capital expenditure.

 

[Chi-town blues]

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.

Your wish will come true soon;) salary cap next and next musical chair picking other club‘s academy prospects. Next you’ll be lucky to see 35 year old washed up designated player from saudi .
Welcome to EMLS.

 

[silva_is_gold]

Shows they haven't had anything to cheer about. But I think getting Omar (as good as he does his job) still won't change much as they need major changes at their club.

Not that I really care :)

Spot on!
Omar's no good with poundshop pep in charge lol

 

[domalino]

This only works in the US though, because their franchises/teams don't operate in European/World markets too

Neither revenue sharing nor a minimum and maximum wage cap would be impacted by the world markets.

Different leagues already share different % of their revenue with the PL’s old 1.4:1 ratio of money being given to #1 and #20 often being cited as a reason for the PL’a growth, and the PL is so rich that no one can compete with its maximum salaries outside 4 clubs (Real, Barca, PSG, Bayern) who all face their own limitations.

I like the MLB/NBA system where there’s a max cap and for every penny you spend over that you pay a tax.

So set it at say £300m wages and/or £100m net transfer spending per year, if we want to have a squad earning £400 and spend £300m in a window, we can, but we have to pay a tax, and that is then distributed to the other teams.


You put all the money spent by all clubs over the maximum into a pot. Set up a scale so the money is distributed primarily to the lower table clubs. For example clubs 17-20 get 9% each, 9-16 get 6% each, 5-8 get 4% each and 1-4 get 1.5% each. Those numbers were off the top of my head I’m not sure they even add up to 100% (doesn’t have to, you could allocate 5-10% of the total to the football league or grass roots). Someone much smarter than me could work out the perfect splits.

You’re still allowed to spend what you want, but you’re not incentivised to spend significantly more than your opponents, because you’re just subsidising them.

And because it sends so much more money to the bottom of the table it allows you to raise the minimum spending, increasing the average quality across the league and narrowing gap from #1-#20. Imagine if Luton, Burnley and Sheffield United had an extra 30m each to spend on players, would they be so far away from the rest?

It also means that owners would be less fearful of super rich new owners coming in. PIF spending £1Bn over the next few years isn’t so scary for American owners when they are paying you for the privilege.

 

[jrb]

Probably worse than the Daily United for the amount of pro-United stories it publishes online.

Was the Daily Express reporter at the confidential United meeting?

Daily Express.

Concerns over the French-Moroccan's involvement are eased by the fact he wasn't called as a witness to the Court of Arbitration for Sport hearing that overturned City's two-year Champions League ban in 2020.

Berrada's name didn't feature in the leaked emails published by German magazine Der Spiegel, which led to the UEFA ban, earlier that year.

During an all-staff meeting on Wednesday, interim United chief executive Patrick Stewart tabled questions about Berrada potentially getting caught up in the investigation into City.

Employees were reportedly assured that the Red Devils had conducted the appropriate due diligence on their new CEO. They are confident he will arrive in the summer with no dark clouds hanging over his head.

 

[domalino]

Probably worse than the Daily United for the amount of pro-United stories it publishes online.

Was the Daily Express reporter at the confidential United meeting?

Daily Express.

Concerns over the French-Moroccan's involvement are eased by the fact he wasn't called as a witness to the Court of Arbitration for Sport hearing that overturned City's two-year Champions League ban in 2020.

Berrada's name didn't feature in the leaked emails published by German magazine Der Spiegel, which led to the UEFA ban, earlier that year.

During an all-staff meeting on Wednesday, interim United chief executive Patrick Stewart tabled questions about Berrada potentially getting caught up in the investigation into City.

Employees were reportedly assured that the Red Devils had conducted the appropriate due diligence on their new CEO. They are confident he will arrive in the summer with no dark clouds hanging over his head.

Sounds pretty good to me if our head of commercial partnerships leaves the club accused of inflating and misreporting commercial deals with no dark clouds over his head.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Oh my God!

Some United YouTuber just said the capture of Omar from City is the best transfer United have made in years lol.

That's not setting the bar very high, given some of the utter shite they've bought.

 

[waspish]

What all these clubs signed up for with FFP is being the whipping boys for the established elite.

Never again will there be a blackburn, chelsea or manchester city fairy tale.

And under these rules there would never have been a liverpool fairy tale (moors family) , a united fairly tale(various sugar daddys), an arsenal fairytale (buying half the huddersfield team and poaching their manager) , an everton fairytale (moores family again) etc etc etc

This Newcastle will get there we keep hearing reading from the media! It's a pat on the head with them knowing they won't get there..

 

[waspish]

Neither revenue sharing nor a minimum and maximum wage cap would be impacted by the world markets.

Different leagues already share different % of their revenue with the PL’s old 1.4:1 ratio of money being given to #1 and #20 often being cited as a reason for the PL’a growth, and the PL is so rich that no one can compete with its maximum salaries outside 4 clubs (Real, Barca, PSG, Bayern) who all face their own limitations.

I like the MLB/NBA system where there’s a max cap and for every penny you spend over that you pay a tax.

So set it at say £300m wages and/or £100m net transfer spending per year, if we want to have a squad earning £400 and spend £300m in a window, we can, but we have to pay a tax, and that is then distributed to the other teams.


You put all the money spent by all clubs over the maximum into a pot. Set up a scale so the money is distributed primarily to the lower table clubs. For example clubs 17-20 get 9% each, 9-16 get 6% each, 5-8 get 4% each and 1-4 get 1.5% each. Those numbers were off the top of my head I’m not sure they even add up to 100% (doesn’t have to, you could allocate 5-10% of the total to the football league or grass roots). Someone much smarter than me could work out the perfect splits.

You’re still allowed to spend what you want, but you’re not incentivised to spend significantly more than your opponents, because you’re just subsidising them.

And because it sends so much more money to the bottom of the table it allows you to raise the minimum spending, increasing the average quality across the league and narrowing gap from #1-#20. Imagine if Luton, Burnley and Sheffield United had an extra 30m each to spend on players, would they be so far away from the rest?

It also means that owners would be less fearful of super rich new owners coming in. PIF spending £1Bn over the next few years isn’t so scary for American owners when they are paying you for the privilege.

PSR is working now just look at the January transfer window and we all know why it's starting to work! Fear

 

[Eric Hitchmough]

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Neither revenue sharing nor a minimum and maximum wage cap would be impacted by the world markets.

Different leagues already share different % of their revenue with the PL’s old 1.4:1 ratio of money being given to #1 and #20 often being cited as a reason for the PL’a growth, and the PL is so rich that no one can compete with its maximum salaries outside 4 clubs (Real, Barca, PSG, Bayern) who all face their own limitations.

I like the MLB/NBA system where there’s a max cap and for every penny you spend over that you pay a tax.

So set it at say £300m wages and/or £100m net transfer spending per year, if we want to have a squad earning £400 and spend £300m in a window, we can, but we have to pay a tax, and that is then distributed to the other teams.


You put all the money spent by all clubs over the maximum into a pot. Set up a scale so the money is distributed primarily to the lower table clubs. For example clubs 17-20 get 9% each, 9-16 get 6% each, 5-8 get 4% each and 1-4 get 1.5% each. Those numbers were off the top of my head I’m not sure they even add up to 100% (doesn’t have to, you could allocate 5-10% of the total to the football league or grass roots). Someone much smarter than me could work out the perfect splits.

You’re still allowed to spend what you want, but you’re not incentivised to spend significantly more than your opponents, because you’re just subsidising them.

And because it sends so much more money to the bottom of the table it allows you to raise the minimum spending, increasing the average quality across the league and narrowing gap from #1-#20. Imagine if Luton, Burnley and Sheffield United had an extra 30m each to spend on players, would they be so far away from the rest?

I think one of the problems at present is that the longer a club is in the Premier League, the more they are separating themselves from clubs in the Championship. What that means is that it is increasingly difficult for teams to come up and stay up.

What is needed is for UEFA to have a series of initiatives and incentives, such as a transfer cap, based on some criteria such as age, international appearances, etc.

Beyond that, there could be a wage tier structure, where each club could have X number of players making €150-200K per week, Y number making €100-150K and Z number in the sub €100K range, possibly 3 “protected players” who had either no limit or a high limit. Much as squad make up helps determine who can and cannot move somewhere based on nationality & development, so too could you do this based on wages. It would have the effect of distributing top players across more clubs without instituting a hard salary cap.

There are obviously many ways to skin the cat. My biggest issue is that the players and staff creating the revenues should be the ones who reap a significant portion of those revenues. Indeed, a salaries versus revenues could be one way of doing that, but it would still have more money sloshing through the biggest clubs.

As was stated, smarter people than me will have to figure it out, but there has to be a way. Firstly, though, we have to all know, understand and agree on on what we are trying to achieve, and at what cost!

 

[kaz7]

View attachment 105111

Pep must get really pissed off with these questions , ask the club for a comment and stop hounding pep all the fucking time

 

[halfcenturyup]

Neither revenue sharing nor a minimum and maximum wage cap would be impacted by the world markets.

Different leagues already share different % of their revenue with the PL’s old 1.4:1 ratio of money being given to #1 and #20 often being cited as a reason for the PL’a growth, and the PL is so rich that no one can compete with its maximum salaries outside 4 clubs (Real, Barca, PSG, Bayern) who all face their own limitations.

I like the MLB/NBA system where there’s a max cap and for every penny you spend over that you pay a tax.

So set it at say £300m wages and/or £100m net transfer spending per year, if we want to have a squad earning £400 and spend £300m in a window, we can, but we have to pay a tax, and that is then distributed to the other teams.


You put all the money spent by all clubs over the maximum into a pot. Set up a scale so the money is distributed primarily to the lower table clubs. For example clubs 17-20 get 9% each, 9-16 get 6% each, 5-8 get 4% each and 1-4 get 1.5% each. Those numbers were off the top of my head I’m not sure they even add up to 100% (doesn’t have to, you could allocate 5-10% of the total to the football league or grass roots). Someone much smarter than me could work out the perfect splits.

You’re still allowed to spend what you want, but you’re not incentivised to spend significantly more than your opponents, because you’re just subsidising them.

And because it sends so much more money to the bottom of the table it allows you to raise the minimum spending, increasing the average quality across the league and narrowing gap from #1-#20. Imagine if Luton, Burnley and Sheffield United had an extra 30m each to spend on players, would they be so far away from the rest?

It also means that owners would be less fearful of super rich new owners coming in. PIF spending £1Bn over the next few years isn’t so scary for American owners when they are paying you for the privilege.

May have merit, but the one good thing about FFP / PSR is that it is easy to understand. God knows what a pig's breakfast the PL would make out of complicated rules like that with their incompetence and obsession with secrecy.

 

[mexico1970]

View attachment 105111

In 5 years time if we don't fight this tooth and nail and get other clubs on board then the 1992 status quo will return, manufactured in all of its glory.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Pep must get really pissed off with these questions , ask the club for a comment and stop hounding pep all the fucking time

It would be nice to see them answer the call and relieve him of that burden, wouldn’t it? It’s not going away, and they should make a definitive statement.

Thereafter, simply omit reporters who don’t stop pestering the manager. Problem solved.

 

[dadnlad]

I like the MLB/NBA system where there’s a max cap and for every penny you spend over that you pay a tax.

So set it at say £300m wages and/or £100m net transfer spending per year, if we want to have a squad earning £400 and spend £300m in a window, we can, but we have to pay a tax, and that is then distributed to the other redshirt teams.

sounds fair this as they havent got enough money as it is