PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Gordyola]

This is not my idea but I’ve heard it several times over the years. FFP was obviously brought in to stop the old Cartel being overthrown and like Newcastle are now learning investment is very difficult and anti competitive.

To make it fairer, owners should be allowed to invest as much they like up to the value of the highest grossing club in the league, with adjustments for operating expenses (the more a club turns over, the more costs they incur).

So as an example Newcastle last season had a 250m turnover, City 727m. There would need to be a formula but let’s say it means Newcastle (and any other club) could invest without incurring FFP violations. The wage bill would need to be taken into account and perhaps the transfer budget would need to be regulated but the main thing is it would allow clubs to invest and encourage competition without the spectre of failing FFP.

The money generated also helps other clubs as spending on transfers filters down to other clubs, admittedly sometimes the money goes abroad but that’s a consequence we live with currently .

I realise there’s also the UEFA FFP rules to contend with but in any other line of business no problems are insurmountable. In the case of football and the old G14 they’ve made up their own rules to try and keep the Status Quo but something needs to change.

Agree with this and also to protect a club any owner investment has to be duplicated into a escrow account along with any operating losses protected for a rolling 3 years

 

[Hoghead]

Apologies if this has been posted previously but this is an extract of the governments position regarding the regulator but in particular, Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer, who was speaking at the FT Business of Football Conference said.....

Regulator to have 'limited powers'​

Frazer said the regulator will have 'limited powers', which would not involve having a view on whether nation states are the right bodies to own Premier League clubs.

"All the regulator is doing is looking at financial stability," she said. "That is appropriate. Foreign investment is part of the economy and makes the game competitive.

"The Premier League is a massive cultural export. We don't want to do anything to damage that. Whether a foreign state should own the club is not in this bill. We want people who run clubs to run them well."

This is all good noise but there will be a change of Administration this year and though they say they are supportive of the regulator they will not be able to help themselves in politicalizing the role especially the view on human rights in the Middle East (IMO). So as they say, watch this space.

EFL deal could be 'imposed' on Premier League clubs

Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer warns Premier League clubs that if if they fail to reach a funding deal with the EFL, it will be imposed on them.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[uwe rosler 28]

My idea of a fairer way of ffp would be that the balance sheet at the end of year had to show at least a level return or profit. So if a club with a £50m turnover spent £200m the owner would therefore then have to give the club a cash injection of £150m to keep it level for the year. No debt allowed and only if a club goes into debt and/or the owners are unable to to cover the loses then the club would recieve sanctions with fines and points deductions that are already set.

 

[SilverFox2]

That’s a fair comment but I believe Khaldoon has integrity and will keep his position. City have always stressed they relish competition and I would be surprised if they did a U-turn on FFP in its current format. They may support a revised fair version though.

Surely he retains his integrity by pointing out that his BP accepted the initial FFP rules but the rule changes after accounts submitted amounted to bad faith.
He accepted a settlement to enable our current BP maturity despite numerous routine bad faith changes.

I think our red shirt enemies are the ones who now want a radical rethink or change of their self destructive compound changes.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

FFP that reflects what an owner can invest with cash in hand rather than what the banks will allow you to lend on a business loan. Also how much debt a club has should be a considering factor, don’t think the rags will go for any of that though.

Agreed. The key factor must be preventing reckless debt and that should always have been the main part of any FFP regulations.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Surely he retains his integrity by pointing out that his BP accepted the initial FFP rules but the rule changes after accounts submitted amounted to bad faith.
He accepted a settlement to enable our current BP maturity despite numerous routine bad faith changes.

I think our red shirt enemies are the ones who now want a radical rethink or change of their self destructive compound changes.

I think City would support a fair regulatory regime which prevents excessive debt and allows owners to invest in a sustainable way which also helps to support the local communities the clubs are based in. It is clear that the Government (and Opposition) both like what City have done in Manchester. It also clear that City are supporting the Government's policy to bring in independent regulation.

 

[willipp]

The lack of spending by PL clubs in the January window was pretty scarey...not for the PL clubs, but for all other clubs down the English pyramid. The lack of cashflow is going to cause issues next year for them, and if, by the looks of it this summer PL spending is also reined back considerably by FFP/P&S, then it's going to be disastrous for the English leagues. longterm planning for X number of players to be lost to other higher up clubs for profit, goes out the window, and cut backs will start having to be made... I think we'll see a wave of clubs going into administration and possibly bankrupt.
The complete bogus premise of Financial Fair Play and it's not fit for purpose (and indeed worded as against a trades description act! - Fair play my arse) implementation for the benefit of the generally US owned cartel clubs and their blinkered hanger-ons fighting for their scraps.... and who will get the blame for the absolute shambles... City...
Blinded by the media and spouted bollox, the fans of clubs facing zero player spending, administration and bankruptcy will roll out the 'what about City' trope, and ignore the instigators of this complete fiasco, The unitid's, the Liverpool's, the Arse and their fellow pig headed trough gougers.

I think it will also start to impact the PL directly as well. The PL is clearly the most popular and best league in the world over the last 10/15 years. This is purely down to money and clubs ability to invest in the best players in the world, not just the top 2 or 3 clubs, but right down the league clubs can invest 100's of millions into the best players.

In the past 13 years there have been 5 different winners of the PL. Compare that to Spain 3, Germany 2, France 4, Italy 3 in that same period and in each of those leagues they are mainly dominated by Bayern, Juve, Barca / Madrid and PSG. Doesn't take a genius to see who's driving the whole Uefa FFP and correlation to who dominate their own domestic leagues where they are won by the same sides every year.

This is what makes the PL so good. Teams like Villa, Spurs, Arsenal, West Ham, Brighton, Wolves, Newcastle and many others have spent huge sums and have had great seasons and periods, and on any day in the PL anyone can beat anyone. You only then look at what City and Guardiola have done (at great expense) and how we have completely changed what it takes to win the league. The standards have been raised and are incredible now which can only be a good thing for the league.

If this trend to limit investment and spending continues and the only clubs who can spend are those with the very highest income, the PL will turn it into the bundesliga or La liga where the PL get their way and its won by united every season. When we switch on super sunday every weekend we may as well not bother as we all know the outcome before its started. Maybe that's what the PL wants, but in 5/10 years time when the TV deals shrink and the global owners all go somewhere else as there is no point investing in the PL, we will be back to united, arsenal and liverpool fighting it out every year and the rest can dream of better days.

 

[halfcenturyup]

This is not my idea but I’ve heard it several times over the years. FFP was obviously brought in to stop the old Cartel being overthrown and like Newcastle are now learning investment is very difficult and anti competitive.

To make it fairer, owners should be allowed to invest as much they like up to the value of the highest grossing club in the league, with adjustments for operating expenses (the more a club turns over, the more costs they incur).

So as an example Newcastle last season had a 250m turnover, City 727m. There would need to be a formula but let’s say it means Newcastle (and any other club) could invest without incurring FFP violations. The wage bill would need to be taken into account and perhaps the transfer budget would need to be regulated but the main thing is it would allow clubs to invest and encourage competition without the spectre of failing FFP.

The money generated also helps other clubs as spending on transfers filters down to other clubs, admittedly sometimes the money goes abroad but that’s a consequence we live with currently .

I realise there’s also the UEFA FFP rules to contend with but in any other line of business no problems are insurmountable. In the case of football and the old G14 they’ve made up their own rules to try and keep the Status Quo but something needs to change.

Just get rid of the PL FFP. Let any club invest what it wants to compete for the PL prize money. If they are successful and can compete in Europe, then they have to comply with UEFA FFP. That way the PL is more competitive and the clubs getting the UEFA (and now CWC) windfall can't monopolise.

 

[cheekybids]

Just get rid of the PL FFP. Let any club invest what it wants to compete for the PL prize money. If they are successful and can compete in Europe, then they have to comply with UEFA FFP. That way the PL is more competitive and the clubs getting the UEFA (and now CWC) windfall can't monopolise.

Clubs have also gone bust since the start of time & no one gave a fuck but those fans impacted so if it happens, they go bust & start again like Bury.

 

[chaddblue]

Just get rid of the PL FFP. Let any club invest what it wants to compete for the PL prize money. If they are successful and can compete in Europe, then they have to comply with UEFA FFP. That way the PL is more competitive and the clubs getting the UEFA (and now CWC) windfall can't monopolise.

stop making sense