PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

eastmanc said:
Newcastle don't get it as much as we do because they are not the threat that we are yet.
Click to expand...
Obviously and they wont be directly linked with United's decline like City were. Still though, we're not seeing as much anti-Saudi stuff, is what I meant or Newcastle are state owned rants. Even on the basics(ie how they were when they weren't taking City that seriously), they are getting off light. I have said it before but it shows how much of the crusading against City was done in bad faith, how many were just hiding their true motivations behind virtue signalling.
 
Dribble said:
This is post-covid. I'm pretty sure the one I vaguely remember was 22/23. Regardless, the original point I was making is I think percentages of revenue should be used to control debt, rather than arbitrary figures like £105m over three seasons.

£105m is completely different to Manchester City, than it is to Luton Town. How can that be fair on the Premier League minnows?
Click to expand...
I think thus would be the latest one, as clubs have only recently released their 22/23 accounts. Deloitte released their update yesterday for 22/23, but I've not seen Liverpool's accounts come out yet. The ones for Liverpool in this chart (21/22) only came out 11 months ago.

Percentages are probably a good idea to control debt, but surely they bake in the advantages of the rich clubs even more than FFP did? I don't know the exact rules, but clubs grow revenue by success, so wouldn't this stop them making any investments?

The clubs at the top probably don't need that £105m as they're rolling in CL and sponsor money already. It's the smaller clubs that want to close the gap who want to invest more than they earn.
 
Whilst I agree with you and @Centurions, he could have just brushed the question off with a quick he can’t comment as it’s an ongoing EPL case currently.

I am sure he along with the rest of Europe know how vile the press are in this country and they would use any words from him on this subject to push their own agendas.
 
Brightwell Bros. said:
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.
Click to expand...
Funny how all the conspiracy theories on here turned out to be true with the CAS case and the media called it wrong throughout.
 
They couldn't beat us on the pitch so they introduced FFP and now PSR.
They've messed up big time, they wanted to curb our spending and destroy our reputation, well guess what, it affects them aswell, they're now struggling to stay within the regulations they signed up for.
Tough shit, we're now the best run club in world football, we didn't just break into the cartel, we're sat top of the table, some of the less successful teams signed there own death warrant, turkeys voted for xmas to keep the red shirts happy.
Fuck em all.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Nope. The true amount from the point of view of the audited accounts is the amount in the contract between the two parties, as long as it is at fair value, the one party has provided services to the value of the contract and the other party has paid in full. How the paying party is funded, is irrelevant to the accounts in my view.

The only reason this is an issue is because of the PL rules. The annual accounts don't have to take the PL rules into account.

Don't get me wrong, the allegations can meet the legal definition of fraud, but imho the accounts give a true and fair view just as they are. And the alleged misstatement of the accounts is the most serious allegation by a long way.

All in my opinion as an accountant, not a lawyer, so I am quite happy to be blasted again.
Click to expand...
I bow to your superior knowledge just don’t see how it can be accurate to say that you could have sponsorship for any amount funded any legal way (not from drugs etc) from one party to another and the owner to pay it back or pay part of it and it would be not only legal but ok. If that was the case google could sponsor someone for a billion quid and get all the money back and it would be fine and both parties would boost there revenue and look better ok costs would be insane unless it was funded by the owner or another party etc instead of the club or whoever was being sponsored
 
bluenova said:
I think thus would be the latest one, as clubs have only recently released their 22/23 accounts. Deloitte released their update yesterday for 22/23, but I've not seen Liverpool's accounts come out yet. The ones for Liverpool in this chart (21/22) only came out 11 months ago.

Percentages are probably a good idea to control debt, but surely they bake in the advantages of the rich clubs even more than FFP did? I don't know the exact rules, but clubs grow revenue by success, so wouldn't this stop them making any investments?

The clubs at the top probably don't need that £105m as they're rolling in CL and sponsor money already. It's the smaller clubs that want to close the gap who want to invest more than they earn.
Click to expand...
The percentages point I'm making is let's say ManUre have a total debt of £1.25bn, but rules are brought in to say if your total amortised debt exceeds 25% of your annual turnover, you have a transfer ban & a wage cap introduced, meaning you may have to do a Barça & ask players to reduce their wages, or sell them & reduce staff to either meet or fall below the 25% level, I think this would be fairer.

However, the likes of ManUre & Spuds would immediately come into the spotlight because of their huge debts. Now if their club debts could be restructured to ensure they meet this 25% of annual turnover figure, with the rest being levied personally on the club's owners, this would be a far fairer & more sustainable way forward than the arbitrary £105m in losses over three seasons, which puts ManUre in the same financial boat as Luton Town.

This way, it also wouldn't limit owner investment, whilst protecting clubs from ambitious owners who're willing to Levy all the risk on the clubs themselves, as Leeds Utd did.
 
marco said:
TBH i actually think were in there heads now, thats all of them from the PL down to the journo's and its eating them from the inside, the PL will fall on there own sword with this, there comical and amatuerish and pathetic, its only going in one direction and thats our way
Click to expand...
I want you to be the one who announces our exoneration when the time comes Marco. Neatly bookmarking your legendary post about the takeover all them years ago! :)
 
marco said:
TBH i actually think were in there heads now, thats all of them from the PL down to the journo's and its eating them from the inside, the PL will fall on there own sword with this, there comical and amatuerish and pathetic, its only going in one direction and thats our way
Click to expand...
1000008227.gif
 
I know the breaches are a hot topic and will be a monumental story if we are found guilty, but I find it kinda strange that not one single person (well not to my knowledge anyway) has ever come onto any station to try and explain to the public the reasons why we could be innocent?? You know just to show some semblance of impartiality at least?? We know there's guys on here who are doing a sterling job of explaining to us our finances, and I see them on twitter defending us to the hilt with facts, but there's not a single high profile person in the media who has actually tried to be logical/impartial to try and explain how we "could" be completely innocent. Sly sports could easily dig out the info and get some charts and graphics up too show the world. It's kinda criminal that we aren't being supported or at least given some exposure of how we could just well be a fucking amazingly run club??!!! If the shoe was on the other foot and united or Liverpool were under investigation, you can bet your bottom dollar spitty and nev and co would be constantly on the box in defense of their club, but we get fuck all!!!
 
adr2.8i said:
I know the breaches are a hot topic and will be a monumental story if we are found guilty, but I find it kinda strange that not one single person (well not to my knowledge anyway) has ever come onto any station to try and explain to the public the reasons why we could be innocent?? You know just to show some semblance of impartiality at least?? We know there's guys on here who are doing a sterling job of explaining to us our finances, and I see them on twitter defending us to the hilt with facts, but there's not a single high profile person in the media who has actually tried to be logical/impartial to try and explain how we "could" be completely innocent. Sly sports could easily dig out the info and get some charts and graphics up too show the world. It's kinda criminal that we aren't being supported or at least given some exposure of how we could just well be a fucking amazingly run club??!!! If the shoe was on the other foot and united or Liverpool were under investigation, you can bet your bottom dollar spitty and nev and co would be constantly on the box in defense of their club, but we get fuck all!!!
Click to expand...
It's not a good story is it? Not to mention way too complex for the average Talkshite/Sky viewer to understand.
 
Dribble said:
This is post-covid. I'm pretty sure the one I vaguely remember was 22/23. Regardless, the original point I was making is I think percentages of revenue should be used to control debt, rather than arbitrary figures like £105m over three seasons.

£105m is completely different to Manchester City, than it is to Luton Town. How can that be fair on the Premier League minnows?
Click to expand...

Surely if you linked it to percentage of revenue it would be even less fair for a club like Luton?
 
WRicko said:
I bow to your superior knowledge just don’t see how it can be accurate to say that you could have sponsorship for any amount funded any legal way (not from drugs etc) from one party to another and the owner to pay it back or pay part of it and it would be not only legal but ok. If that was the case google could sponsor someone for a billion quid and get all the money back and it would be fine and both parties would boost there revenue and look better ok costs would be insane unless it was funded by the owner or another party etc instead of the club or whoever was being sponsored
Click to expand...

Fair point, but I said sponsorship at fair value and, as far as I know, the fair value of the club's sponsorships isn't disputed by UEFA, the PL or anyone else with half a brain any more.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Nope. The true amount from the point of view of the audited accounts is the amount in the contract between the two parties, as long as it is at fair value, the one party has provided services to the value of the contract and the other party has paid in full. How the paying party is funded, is irrelevant to the accounts in my view.

The only reason this is an issue is because of the PL rules. The annual accounts don't have to take the PL rules into account.

Don't get me wrong, the allegations can meet the legal definition of fraud, but imho the accounts give a true and fair view just as they are. And the alleged misstatement of the accounts is the most serious allegation by a long way.

All in my opinion as an accountant, not a lawyer, so I am quite happy to be blasted again.
Click to expand...

Yep that’s what I thought too io, At least for us. If we’re found guilty then any allegations of fraud I’d have thought would have been potentially more against Etihad and Etisalat.

That’s also why I think some of the allegations are completely unprovable though, at least by a premier league independent commission.
 
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