PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Gorton_Tubster said:
Same feeling here. There's definitely a story to be told. Shows me how everyone are sheep much more than I ever thought.
Something else that surprises me is that we are obviously treated differently in their coverage of City, the posion they must speak to each other about our club before they go on air stinks across the whole broadcast. Why has no reporter, pundit, anyone, reported on, written about etc. Its blanket hatred, its a story in itself.
Click to expand...
The really annoying thing is that there is one journalist who could have done this, David Conn, who is (supposedly) a Blue. He's made a career out of exposing the corrupt and dodgy side of football.

But sadly Conn's clearly been got at. And we know the Guardian line is that Arab investors who want to put money into their clubs are shifty and bad for football, whereas American owners, including hedge funds, who want to spend as little as possible and take out as much as possible are good for the game.
 
Last edited:
JewelZee said:
What am I missing? We took Ceferin and UEFA to CAS and we won. Why would the words of Ceferin represent anything more than the words of a sore loser? The highest court in Europe for sport has already ruled in our favor. His opinion is not only parochial but lacks any validity. But somehow him saying he thinks we were guilty is treated like some big revelation by the press and these mutts on social media. It's outright comical. There's not an ounce of common sense being applied and it's deliberate.

Last week the big headline was City to be relegated. Never mind the FACT that Stefan Borson's main point on his Talk Shit appearance was that he believed the Prem could not prove their case. Relegation was only mentioned as a possibility if were we to lose. How is that news?

This Terry Flewers on his The Football Terrace stream on YouTube took an email that Nick Harris posted on Twitter relative to our bringing Brahim Diaz to City and spun it into City "trafficking" underage players into our academy. The email says nothing except that we need to be careful to ensure we basically dot our I's and cross our T's in terms of his parents establishing themselves as living in Manchester. How the fuck does this guy have the balls to use a term like trafficking? He goes on to call that demented fuck Nick Harris a very credible journalist several times and he concludes with a statement that this invalidates our entire academy set up and all the benefits we've derived in terms of players and profits from sales.

You can't make this up in terms of the public gaslighting going on day in and day out both in the press and on social media. It does make me wonder if all these assholes were so sure City were guilty of all the things they're being accused of doing why do all this piling on of obvious misrepresentations, exaggerations, and slurs? The lack of objectivity speaks volumes to the fact that they HATE us, simple as. Truth and justice hold no place in any of this for them whether we are guilty or not. It's a disgusting public shaming that's unwarranted and unethical even if we were actually guilty of some misdeeds. But if we are eventually cleared there has to be a reckoning. What that is I don't know, buy I know it can't be forgive and forget, not for me...
Click to expand...
Remember what CAS reported after they found City not guilty. The panel felt like there was an element of a witchhunt being waged against our club or words to that affect.
 
TinFoilHat said:
FSG: Jürgen...Rick tells us City are going to be found not guilty and they are on the warpath. Might be a good idea to manage you're exit, along with your staff to protect the club. We'll get our best marketing men on it and make sure the fans canonise you before the shit hits the fan. Any future action by City is then mitigated as "We've learned from our mistakes." When do you want to do the interview on LTV? They are currently in reception.
Click to expand...

Getting a lot of use out of that hat aren't you haha.
 
Rochdale Blue said:
Weren't there posters on here claiming City's relationship with UEFA had improved hugely with Ceferin being in charge? Same with apparently friendlier relations with the Liverpool board. It's about time they learned that none of these snakes can be trusted...EVER.
Click to expand...

It's politics. You do what you have to to get what you want. I am pretty sure the club's higher-ups understand what is going on.
 
Leeds did indeed have to sell their stadium. I assume that it has now been bought back. Usually football stadia will be protected by planning issues from being demolished for redevelopment so they were able to continue to rent Elland Road.

In Scotland, Clydebank wanted to sell their ground for redevelopment and relocated to Falkirk after buying East Stirlingshire FC. This was ultimately rejected by the football authorities and they were demerged moving back to Kilbowie Park. Many years later the ground was again sold and they remained homeless before becoming Airdrie United.

The mismanagement of Leeds such that failure to qualify once for the Champions League was sufficient to start a chain of events that led to administration (if not liquidation?).

However FFP does not seem appropriate to deal with this sort of situation. It certainly would not have prevented the Glazers using a leveraged buy-out for United and loading the cost onto the club's debt.
 
Last edited:
meltonblue said:
Ah I thought you were saying limit any losses rather than limit debt. So you’re saying allow any losses as long as they’re covered by equity and any debt must be limited to a percentage of revenue?

Not averse to that. I would say not all debt is equal though, particularly as the asset growth in football has been so huge in the last couple of decades.
Click to expand...
I hate to agree with Daniel Levy, but if you borrow £500m to build a new & bigger stadium on a 25 year mortgage, that will add £20.6m per season to your long-term amortised debt.

When Southampton were relegated, even they received £128m from the PL, & they had additional match-day, sponsorship, TV appearance & any prize money added to that figure.

Southampton's turnover in their last PL season was £151m, so hypothetically taking £20.6m per season out of that with more revenue from the bigger stadium, would be perfectly manageable, as they'd have roughly a £33m amortised annual debt ceiling, with any other debt being levied against the owners personally.

This would leave Southampton £118m to cover wages, operating costs & for transfers. If they need a cash injection to compete in the transfer market, so be it. It would have to come from an owner equity injection.

This should be acceptable to everyone, APART FROM the Cartel Clubs, who fear owners like Sheikh Mansour & PIF who they deem as having limitless state funds, & who wouldn't care about huge annual personal losses.

However, this is a whole other discussion altogether, & leads us back to the creation of FFP/PSR. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
It's politics. You do what you have to to get what you want. I am pretty sure the club's higher-ups understand what is going on.
Click to expand...
I'm sure they know far more than either us or the media, but this is sport. Going out of your way to unjustly destroy another club, whether it's the ruling bodies, the red top parasites, the media or the lunatic fringe in other fan bases is not how it should be and if it was City acting like this, I would walk away. At least this week will give us something to laugh at as rawk has a meltdown.
 
give it to gordon said:
This has been an odd week. First theres meant to be a leak about some news on Citys 115
Than the City hating bbc show a nice documentary on Pep. Now klopp is leaving just at a time when he could dominate the pl when City are relegated ;)
Click to expand...
Let's hope he doesn't take over at the Dog & Duck, we could be playing them in a few months.
 
JGL07 said:
Leeds did indeed have to sell their stadium. I assume that it has now been bought back. Usually football stadia will be protected by planning issues from being demolished for redevelopment so they were able to continue to rent Elland Road.

In Scotland, Clydebank wanted to sell their ground for redevelopment and relocated to Falkirk after buying East Stirlingshire FC. This was ultimately rejected by the football authorities and they were demerged moving back to Kilbowie Park. Many years later the ground was again sold and they remained homeless before becoming Airdrie United.

The mismanagement of Leeds such that failure to qualify once for the Champions League was sufficient to start a chain of events that led to administration (if not liquidation?).

However FFP does not seem appropriate to deal with this sort of situation. It certainly would nothave prevented the Glazers using a leveraged buy-out for United and loading the cost onto the club's debt.
Click to expand...
The crazy thing is under the first iteration of FFP, Leeds, Portsmouth, Rangers & Fiorentina would've passed. Go figure! \0/

It was always about stopping City & never about stopping reckless owners willing to gamble their clubs' very existence with a throw of the dice.
 
Dribble said:
I hate to agree with Daniel Levy, but if you borrow £500m to build a new & bigger stadium on a 25 year mortgage, that will add £20.6m per season to your long-term amortised debt.

When Southampton were relegated, even they received £128m from the PL, & they had additional match-day, sponsorship, TV appearance & any prize money added to that figure.

Southampton's turnover in their last PL season was £151m, so hypothetically taking £20.6m per season out of that with more revenue from the bigger stadium, would be perfectly manageable, as they'd have roughly a £33m amortised annual debt ceiling, with any other debt being levied against the owners personally.

This would leave Southampton £118m to cover wages, operating costs & for transfers. If they need a cash injection to compete in the transfer market, so be it. It would have to come from an owner equity injection.

This should be acceptable to everyone, APART FROM the Cartel Clubs, who fear owners like Sheikh Mansour & PIF who they deem as having limitless state funds, & who wouldn't care about huge annual personal losses.

However, this is a whole other discussion altogether, & leads us back to the creation of FFP/PSR. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯
Click to expand...

So just to clarify are you saying you wouldn’t limit the 118m in that scenario, you’d allow Southampton to make any loss as long as it’s covered by equity?
 
meltonblue said:
So just to clarify are you saying you wouldn’t limit the 118m in that scenario, you’d allow Southampton to make any loss as long as it’s covered by equity?
Click to expand...
There's long-term debt & there's operating costs underpinned by owner equity injection.

If the owner does one, unlike Leeds etc, the club only has a manageable 25% long-term amortised debt liability to service.

Any operating cost debts go with the owner. This means clubs are protected from crippling debt & owners aren't hamstrung from investing to grow their clubs.
 
Dribble said:
There's long-term debt & there's operating costs underpinned by owner equity injection.

If the owner does one, unlike Leeds etc, the club only has a manageable 25% long-term amortised debt liability to service.

Any operating cost debts go with the owner. This means clubs are protected from crippling debt & owners aren't hamstrung from investing to grow their clubs.
Click to expand...

Got it. So that’s basically exempting infrastructure spend and allowing any losses on the operational side.

I agree. It’s pretty much the exact same rules that used to be in place pre PL.
 
Rochdale Blue said:
Pound to a pinch of shit he will change his mind and say he's been rejuvenated if they win the title this season.
Click to expand...
Would expect its a similar situation to when Pellers left and we had agreed with Pep to take over we would have rather kept quiet but had to announce as Bayern would leak so I assume Klopp is leaving and his replacement has been sourced but they are controlling the narrative.
 
meltonblue said:
Got it. So that’s basically exempting infrastructure spend and allowing any losses on the operational side.

I agree. It’s pretty much the exact same rules that used to be in place pre PL.
Click to expand...
Any long-term commercial lending, mortgage etc comes under the 25% amortised annual debt limit.

There's also an argument to limit wages to 50% of total annual turnover. This leaves 25% of turnover for operating costs/transfers etc, which owner equity investment can top up to what they see as necessary.

Obviously this approach needs refining, but it takes care of the reckless owner issues & allows for responsible owner equity investment, which the owner stands personally responsibility for.
 
ganganvince said:
Would expect its a similar situation to when Pellers left and we had agreed with Pep to take over we would have rather kept quiet but had to announce as Bayern would leak so I assume Klopp is leaving and his replacement has been sourced but they are controlling the narrative.
Click to expand...
We will soon find out, meanwhile, rope sellers will be making a fortune on miseryside.
 
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