PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Blue.Roys.Son said:
Hahahaha....Leicester have just announced they are taking legal action against the Premier league and the EFL.

The whole thing is a farce and surely must collapse sooner or later.
Click to expand...
I expect they are questioning whether the PL has jurisdiction over a non member.
 
I'm beginning to wonder if this shit show is now being done internationally.
Masters and the rest of his shit cunts have backed themselves into a corner with seemingly no way out.
That is unless the independent regulator takes it out of their hands and then the PL can say "well we tried but it was taken out of our hands"
Saving face in the process.
As it stands it doesn't look like they could run a bath.
The whole thing is a mess and they are destroying the PL from within.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
This is actually absurd.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing for PSR, but I thought the argument for not uprating with inflation was that they didn't want clubs losing money.

The £105m isn't a figure that they've decided is a fair level to lose/invest in a club, it was there to give some flexibility when the rules were introduced. Ten years on, clubs have had plenty of time to make sure their finances are compliant.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Being owned by Swales must be a close approximation.
Click to expand...
I did a ground tour of Maine road the last year we were there, my dad took me and my brother at the time when we were in are teenage years, when we got to the trophy cabinet all the other dads were kicking off. There was no replica of the 68 leauge title and there was no FA Cup replica, no leauge cup replica or cup winners cup replica, I actually felt sorry for the young man taking us on the tour as there was a few disgruntled customers.Anyway he eventually explained that Peter swales wife took the replica trophies with her after the bad fall out with the club, he said the last he heard is they were put in a security vault in altrincham somewhere. She took them out of spite and claimed they were swales property.
 
bluenova said:
I'm not arguing for PSR, but I thought the argument for not uprating with inflation was that they didn't want clubs losing money.

The £105m isn't a figure that they've decided is a fair level to lose/invest in a club, it was there to give some flexibility when the rules were introduced. Ten years on, clubs have had plenty of time to make sure their finances are compliant.
Click to expand...
But the £105 million, by any measure, is plainly anachronistic
 
Joe Donachie said:
I did a ground tour of Maine road the last year we were there, my dad took me and my brother at the time when we were in are teenage years, when we got to the trophy cabinet all the other dads were kicking off. There was no replica of the 68 leauge title and there was no FA Cup replica, no leauge cup replica or cup winners cup replica, I actually felt sorry for the young man taking us on the tour as there was a few disgruntled customers.Anyway he eventually explained that Peter swales wife took the replica trophies with her after the bad fall out with the club, he said the last he heard is they were put in a security vault in altrincham somewhere. She took them out of spite and claimed they were swales property.
Click to expand...
Probably sat In his front room stuffed with all the cash the **** skimmed off the gate money.
 
bluenova said:
If the idea is for clubs not to make losses, then a figure that is relatively generous when the rules are brought in, but is gradually reduced over time due to inflation, is perfectly logical.
Click to expand...
The idea plainly isn’t for clubs not to make losses, or losses wouldn’t be manifestly allowable.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
The two aren’t mutually exclusive and in my estimation he is unquestionably useless.

Firstly, he was picked after others were appointed and subsequently inexplicably resiled from taking the role. That is very telling imo, given the profile and responsibility attached to the job. Being offered a such a job then walking away is highly unusual. For it to happen more than once, truly exceptional. This demonstrates that he wasn’t objectively the ‘best’ candidate and also that he was likely prepared to operate in a way the others weren’t - but that doesn’t stop him being useless,

Secondly, he has spectacularly miscalculated with regards to these charges against City and has placed the PL in a wholly unnecessary and invidious position. This demonstrates extremely poor judgement and lack of vision, both loudly proclaiming his uselessness.

Thirdly is the wider way the financial rules are currently playing out within the most successful sporting brand in human history, on his watch. He is presiding over a farce in relation to financial restrictions within the most commercially successful sporting product on the planet. That is actually absurd and further underlines his uselessness.

Fourthly, I’ve seen and heard him talk. A conspicuously unimpressive and uncharacteristic man. Not someone who I think it remotely suited to a role that is palpably considerably above his talents.

In short, he is a useless ****.
Click to expand...
Your first five paragraphs , whilst illuminating , well put and extremely interesting , are actually superfluous.
Your final five words were all that was needed .
 
Didsbury Dave said:
If you want to sound less silly you need to stop using an exclaimation mark after every single sentence.

Although the above post amused me because the only sentence you didn't use one (the last one) was the only one that actually merited one.
Click to expand...
Oh no your one of them Cheshire flat caps in the Colin bell stand.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
The idea plainly isn’t for clubs not to make losses, or losses wouldn’t be manifestly allowable.
Click to expand...
But the idea isn't to encourage losses - it's to accept that they may occur, but to try and minimise them.

It makes sense for it to be higher when the rules are introduced, as clubs will have contracts with players, outstanding transfer fees etc.

Increasing the amounts involved would suggest that losses are fine.

To put the £213m that Kieran Maguire mentions in context; while it's not enough to help any club compete with the top Premier League clubs, it's still a significant amount to lose. There are only twenty football clubs in the World with yearly revenues higher than that figure.
 
bluenova said:
But the idea isn't to encourage losses - it's to accept that they may occur, but to try and minimise them.

It makes sense for it to be higher when the rules are introduced, as clubs will have contracts with players, outstanding transfer fees etc.

Increasing the amounts involved would suggest that losses are fine.

To put the £213m that Kieran Maguire mentions in context; while it's not enough to help any club compete with the top Premier League clubs, it's still a significant amount to lose. There are only twenty football clubs in the World with yearly revenues higher than that figure.
Click to expand...
Good points there.

I actually don't give a rats arse about clubs that are falling foul of PSR as they couldn't care less about our club. We don't have a PSR problem unless the actual charges we are facing are proven - namely that our owner injected large sums into the club via fraudulent means. I doubt that but if it were the case then we would have a much bigger problem than a few points deducted.
 
bluenova said:
But the idea isn't to encourage losses - it's to accept that they may occur, but to try and minimise them.

It makes sense for it to be higher when the rules are introduced, as clubs will have contracts with players, outstanding transfer fees etc.

Increasing the amounts involved would suggest that losses are fine.

To put the £213m that Kieran Maguire mentions in context; while it's not enough to help any club compete with the top Premier League clubs, it's still a significant amount to lose. There are only twenty football clubs in the World with yearly revenues higher than that figure.
Click to expand...
I never said the idea was to encourage losses, that would (somehow) be even more absurd than the current rules.

I was merely responding to what you said (whilst citing logic) namely that the idea of the rules is for clubs not to make losses, when the rules expressly allow losses. If the idea was for clubs not to make losses, then that it surely (and logically) what the rules would provide for.

The idea is plainly to limit losses, and that limited losses are actually ‘fine’ in certain circumstances - and on that basis it is logical and warranted to increase those allowable losses to reflect inflationary changes in wages and transfer fees etc... especially given the period involved, namely 11 years.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I never said the idea was to encourage losses, that would (somehow) be even more absurd than the current rules.

I was merely responding to what you said (whilst citing logic) namely that the idea of the rules is for clubs not to make losses, when the rules expressly allow losses. If the idea was for clubs not to make losses, then that it surely (and logically) what the rules would provide for.

The idea is plainly to limit losses, and that limited losses are actually ‘fine’ in certain circumstances - and on that basis it is logical and warranted to increase those allowable losses to reflect inflationary changes in wages and transfer fees etc... especially given the period involved, namely 11 years.
Click to expand...
I'm not disagreeing with you, just suggesting that there's a logical argument for the amounts involved not to increase with inflation.

I think we both agree that the PL doesn't want to encourage losses, even if it tolerates some. I also agree that you can make a case for increasing the allowable losses with inflation.

I'm simply saying that there is also a logical argument for the original figure being high (to give clubs time to comply), while gradually being eroded. At some point the £105m may become problematically small, but given that the only clubs to fall foul of it, are the obvious basket cases of Everton and Forest, and repeat offenders Leicester, I'm not convinced it's too low*.

*while accepting it is too low if you want clubs to compete with the top 6.
 
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