PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Gone for a Burton said:
Interesting.

Unless someone is prepared to financially underwrite such a campaign, or an 'agency' will take it on on a ' no fee' basis, enthusiastic amateurs are unlikely to proceed.

It'll be a very expensive drip, drip,drip of case copy.

Happy to help.
Click to expand...
PR & Marketing companies rarely put their names to campaigns, & the nature of this alternative FFP/PSR campaign should be more organic than in your face, so as to not make it obvious it's come from City.

It can be a combination carefully placed suggestions with friendly journalists, & organically created social media threads across several platforms which could then be picked up & disseminated by fans.

Trust me, for a relatively small investment, we could seriously change the FFP/PSR narrative from the shitshow it currently is, to a workable one.

We've several accounting & legal experts amongst us who could help sort the FFP/PSR alternative wheat from the chaff, to formulate a viable alternative.

No one else is going to do this for us, so why aren't we doing this for ourselves?
 
Dribble said:
PR & Marketing companies rarely put their names to campaigns, & the nature of this alternative FFP/PSR campaign should be more organic than in your face, so as to not make it obvious it's come from City.

It can be a combination carefully placed suggestions with friendly journalists, & organically created social media threads across several platforms which could then be picked up & disseminated by fans.

Trust me, for a relatively small investment, we could seriously change the FFP/PSR narrative from the shitshow it currently is, to a workable one.

We've several accounting & legal experts amongst us who could help sort the FFP/PSR alternative wheat from the chaff, to formulate a viable alternative.

No one else is going to do this for us, so why aren't we doing this for ourselves?
Click to expand...
Dribble said:
PR & Marketing companies rarely put their names to campaigns, & the nature of this alternative FFP/PSR campaign should be more organic than in your face, so as to not make it obvious it's come from City.

It can be a combination carefully placed suggestions with friendly journalists, & organically created social media threads across several platforms which could then be picked up & disseminated by fans.

Trust me, for a relatively small investment, we could seriously change the FFP/PSR narrative from the shitshow it currently is, to a workable one.

We've several accounting & legal experts amongst us who could help sort the FFP/PSR alternative wheat from the chaff, to formulate a viable alternative.

No one else is going to do this for us, so why aren't we doing this for ourselves?
Click to expand...
You may be right.

It needs a mixed speciality action group, NOT a COMMITTEE

'One volunteer is better than nine pressed men'.

I'll help if I can.
 
Dribble said:
PR & Marketing companies rarely put their names to campaigns, & the nature of this alternative FFP/PSR campaign should be more organic than in your face, so as to not make it obvious it's come from City.

It can be a combination carefully placed suggestions with friendly journalists, & organically created social media threads across several platforms which could then be picked up & disseminated by fans.

Trust me, for a relatively small investment, we could seriously change the FFP/PSR narrative from the shitshow it currently is, to a workable one.

We've several accounting & legal experts amongst us who could help sort the FFP/PSR alternative wheat from the chaff, to formulate a viable alternative.

No one else is going to do this for us, so why aren't we doing this for ourselves?
Click to expand...
Your entire point is predicated on your belief that our hierarchy want and alternative to FFP/PSR. I don't think they care what rules are in place - they will comply and win
 
I was thinking earlier about this "fair and market value" comment, as i understand it lets assume we sign a deal for £50 million but the PL say it should only be £25 million then we dont lose the money coming in, it just means there will be an adjustment to reduce the difference.

So how does it work if the Rags get government funding towards a new stadium? Surely and club who has developed their own stadium at their own cost would have a valid claim against the "fair and market value".
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
You have to laugh. Gary Neville cannot understand how Citys revenue can be higher than uniteds. So let me get this straight Gary, the most publicised, Investigated, commented on sponsorship contract deals in World football, where the values for the major sponsors contracts were openly discussed and stated in court findings.

Where new shirt manufacturers sponsorship deal values are openly available on the Internet along with revenue from all competitions and you can include TV revenue in with that too.

Better still open sources like Swiss Ramble who do a fantastic job of laying it all out for you. Your rags have won next to fuck all in a decade where City have hoovered up silverware after silverware. Yet you still cannot understand? I'd suggest you're thick as a pisstone then Gary. Either that or you're lying through your back teeth to appease and confirm the conspiracy theorists amongst your dickhead twitter following and other morons who listen to your utterings on social media platforms. I suspect its the latter so just fuck off Gary, you're fucking boring us with your uninformed bullshit.
Click to expand...
best rant on BM for some time, take a bow sir
 
abu13 said:
I was thinking earlier about this "fair and market value" comment, as i understand it lets assume we sign a deal for £50 million but the PL say it should only be £25 million then we dont lose the money coming in, it just means there will be an adjustment to reduce the difference.

So how does it work if the Rags get government funding towards a new stadium? Surely and club who has developed their own stadium at their own cost would have a valid claim against the "fair and market value".
Click to expand...
Stadia costs are not included in ffp.
 
citizen_maine said:
Your entire point is predicated on your belief that our hierarchy want and alternative to FFP/PSR. I don't think they care what rules are in place - they will comply and win
Click to expand...
City already made alternative suggestions as far back as 2012 & the G14 Cartel Clubs fucked us off.

There's now a growing realisation that these rules are fucked & will only work for those at the top.

What's lacking, & would put the cat amongst the FFP/PSR pigeons is a fully thought-through football finance alternative. Surely this has got to be better than us being like sitting ducks waiting for our enemies to conjure up more ways to crush us?
 
Gone for a Burton said:
You may be right.

It needs a mixed speciality action group, NOT a COMMITTEE

'One volunteer is better than nine pressed men'.

I'll help if I can.
Click to expand...
Here's one for starters.

New owners can attain loans, but only as a percentage of their turnover. If they want to borrow more they can, but it can't be levied as debt against the club.

If they want to invest their own wealth, they can but it has to be converted into equity.

This will stop reckless owners gambling their club's futures away, & wouldn't limit ambitious but sensible owners from investing their personal wealth into their clubs.

The nonsense UEFA told us in 2012 has proved unworkable bollocks. They suggested that we invest in youth & grow our playing squad organically over a number of seasons until we could challenge.

Absolute bollocks! Look at Leicester. Within 2 seasons of winning the PL, they were asset stripped. Kanté & Drinkwater went the Chelsea, Maguire to ManUre, Mahrez to City, with only Vardy resisting Arsenal's advances to remain & Chilwell also moving to Chelsea but a bit later.

Seven years after their unlikely PL win, Leicester were relegated to the Championship. That says all we need to know about building a squad organically.

You either become a nursery, or a feeder club for the CL chasing clubs as Leicester found out, & similar to what's happening to Brighton now.

It only takes a couple of bad seasons & a weakened, underdeveloped squad until those clubs could be scrapping against relegation rivals for PL survival.
 
Dribble said:
City already made alternative suggestions as far back as 2012 & the G14 Cartel Clubs fucked us off.

There's now a growing realisation that these rules are fucked & will only work for those at the top.

What's lacking, & would put the cat amongst the FFP/PSR pigeons is a fully thought-through football finance alternative. Surely this has got to be better than us being like sitting ducks waiting for our enemies to conjure up more ways to crush us?
Click to expand...
Do you think they'll leave us alone if we come up with an alternative? You've already said we did and they fucked us off. City is the issue for the others, not FFP
 
citizen_maine said:
Do you think they'll leave us alone if we come up with an alternative? You've already said we did and they fucked us off. City is the issue for the others, not FFP
Click to expand...
Perceptions are changing. We've spent the last 12 years bellyaching about how unfair & unworkable FFP/PSR is. It's time we went on the front foot & started offering up viable, workable solutions which are fair for all, protect clubs from reckless owners, but doesn't stop responsible owner investment.

Do you have any suggestions to put forward which others can add to as an alternative to the current shitshow that is FFP/PSR? I've offered up a couple above in the hope of kick-starting a solutions based conversation.

We've already discussed the negatives of FFP/PSR to death, yet here we are facing another 115 breaches of the PL's/UEFA's bullshit rules.
 
Dribble said:
Perceptions are changing. We've spent the last 12 years bellyaching about how unfair & unworkable FFP/PSR is. It's time we went on the front foot & started offering up viable, workable solutions which are fair for all, protect clubs from reckless owners, but doesn't stop responsible owner investment.

Do you have any suggestions to put forward which others can add to as an alternative to the current shitshow that is FFP/PSR? I've offered up a couple above in the hope of kick-starting a solutions based conversation.

We've already discussed the negatives of FFP/PSR to death, yet here we are facing another 115 breaches of the PL's/UEFA's bullshit rules.
Click to expand...
Get rid of it from the PL.
The clubs qualifying for UEFA competition are restricted from spending to comply with their FFP, and the lower half clubs can spend as much as their owners want.


...but that's not what the cartel want, which is why we have this shit show in the first place, and why it's ultimately pointless discussing alternatives
 
abu13 said:
I was thinking earlier about this "fair and market value" comment, as i understand it lets assume we sign a deal for £50 million but the PL say it should only be £25 million then we dont lose the money coming in, it just means there will be an adjustment to reduce the difference.

So how does it work if the Rags get government funding towards a new stadium? Surely and club who has developed their own stadium at their own cost would have a valid claim against the "fair and market value".
Click to expand...

Iirc, the PL wants to approve sponsorships before they are signed, so they can be concluded at the PL's fair value. If a club wants to take the risk of signing a contract before approval, then there must be clause that it can be amended post-signature to the PL's fair value. And if monies have been received before approval over the PL's fair value, then that excess should be repaid to the sponsor. They don't want to amend the FFP accounts for their fair values, the PL want the actual signed, audited accounts to reflect their fair values, and this is where they will have problems legally, I think.

As already mentioned, stadium infrastructure costs are not deducted from revenues for FFP purposes, so it doesn't matter how they are funded.
 
citizen_maine said:
Get rid of it from the PL.
The clubs qualifying for UEFA competition are restricted from spending to comply with their FFP, and the lower half clubs can spend as much as their owners want.


...but that's not what the cartel want, which is why we have this shit show in the first place, and why it's ultimately pointless discussing alternatives
Click to expand...
but but Henry Winter said this morning we cant have owners spending 1 billion then ditching the club
now i know money shrinking but who would invest a billion then walk off
 
halfcenturyup said:
Iirc, the PL wants to approve sponsorships before they are signed, so they can be concluded at the PL's fair value. If a club wants to take the risk of signing a contract before approval, then there must be clause that it can be amended post-signature to the PL's fair value. And if monies have been received before approval over the PL's fair value, then that excess should be repaid to the sponsor. They don't want to amend the FFP accounts for their fair values, the PL want the actual signed, audited accounts to reflect their fair values, and this is where they will have problems legally, I think.

As already mentioned, stadium infrastructure costs are not deducted from revenues for FFP purposes, so it doesn't matter how they are funded.
Click to expand...
why not just share excess out amongst the cartel just like their fines
 
citizen_maine said:
Get rid of it from the PL.
The clubs qualifying for UEFA competition are restricted from spending to comply with their FFP, and the lower half clubs can spend as much as their owners want.


...but that's not what the cartel want, which is why we have this shit show in the first place, and why it's ultimately pointless discussing alternatives
Click to expand...

Only this. No FFP break even or squad cost rules in the PL to allow all clubs to invest to compete for the top places, but when they get into Europe they have to comply with UEFA FFP. Evens everything up. Supported by better F&P owner tests and a debt limit based on cash generated annually. Anything over that limit has to be equity.
 
Dribble said:
Here's one for starters.

New owners can attain loans, but only as a percentage of their turnover. If they want to borrow more they can, but it can't be levied as debt against the club.

If they want to invest their own wealth, they can but it has to be converted into equity.

This will stop reckless owners gambling their club's futures away, & wouldn't limit ambitious but sensible owners from investing their personal wealth into their clubs.

The nonsense UEFA told us in 2012 has proved unworkable bollocks. They suggested that we invest in youth & grow our playing squad organically over a number of seasons until we could challenge.

Absolute bollocks! Look at Leicester. Within 2 seasons of winning the PL, they were asset stripped. Kanté & Drinkwater went the Chelsea, Maguire to ManUre, Mahrez to City, with only Vardy resisting Arsenal's advances to remain & Chilwell also moving to Chelsea but a bit later.

Seven years after their unlikely PL win, Leicester were relegated to the Championship. That says all we need to know about building a squad organically.

You either become a nursery, or a feeder club for the CL chasing clubs as Leicester found out, & similar to what's happening to Brighton now.

It only takes a couple of bad seasons & a weakened, underdeveloped squad until those clubs could be scrapping against relegation rivals for PL survival.
Click to expand...

Bring the division 2 PSR rules into the premier
 
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