Everton execs have no faith in the system.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Doesnt answer my point, though, which was about the process not the rules.There's a more fundamental issue involved here. Getting back to basics, why can't an owner spend his/her/their own legally acquired money how they wish on their business?
Where the PL & UEFA should step in is if the owner loans money to the club & it's on the books as a repayable debt, or commercially borrows the money & levies the debt against the club, & it's at an unsustainable level which the club can't repay without the owner's wealth keeping the club afloat.
If the owner stands for this debt personally, what's the issue? What the PL & UEFA should also do is ensure annually that total club debt (outside of long-term infrastructure costs like a mortgage, but including repayment costs) shouldn't be more than 25% - 30% of the club's gross annual turnover.
This approach would encourage football investment & grow the brands involved, whilst protecting clubs against reckless, profligate owners willing to gamble a club's existence in pursuit of success.
What the PL & UEFA are doing isn't protecting the clubs from themselves or reckless owners, they're protecting the elite cartel clubs from outside competition, whilst stifling investment from ambitious, but responsible owners.
What flummoxes me is why the clubs in the chasing pack can't see the sense & nonsense in any of this? It's not like City haven't been warning them for the last decade...
Last edited:
The control up to the 1960s was the maximum wage and the retain and transfer system, the illegality of which rather illustrates that, unless the rules genuinely create better competition and protect the clubs financially, they are fundamentally flawed.Well Remember football had spending controls into the 60's.
Are you telling me you've not heard a million FOCs on here tell everyone how much better the football league was when teams came and went at the top of the table and United/Liverpool didn't dominate the top of the table for 40 years? It's not a coincidence that competitiveness decreased rapidly as soon as clubs' spending became unregulated.
We know from decades of data that the biggest predictor of league position at the end of the season is how much is spent. We all see for ourselves every year how the major compeititons boil down to 3/4 clubs in the world who can spend enough to compete, and the number is shrinking every decade.
There's only 4 relevant countries in European football these days because unless you're from a TV market with 30m+ people, you can't afford to compete.
Why is that better than a level playing field again? Because we're one of the lucky few? How quickly people forget...
spider blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 417
I think you’ve summed it up perfectly.And it has done a lot of good since its introduction, hasn't it?
Not like we have:
Chelsea effectively asset stripped (sale of hotel) to meet arbitrary target;
Everton forced into a sale to 777 Partners and an increased chance of ultimate insolvency;
Clubs at the bottom threatening to sue one another for alleged rule-breaking;
A 6 year investigation into the audited accounts of a leading club and accusations of accounting fraud which appear to have limited evidential credibility; and
Continually changing rules to prevent aspirational clubs competing at the top.
Is there anything else I'm missing?
Dribble
Well-Known Member
So cutting to the chase, no more Manchester City's, & those ensconced at the top will remain there unchallenged in perpetuity?Is there a popular professional team sport without financial controls?
There's a reason that football, cricket, rugby, baseball, basketball, fomula 1, NFL, Hockey etc. all have cost controls , and it's because sport isn't actually that fun to watch when it devolves into a competition of who spends the most. It's only a minority view on here only because we're one of the 5 highest spending clubs in the world and the assumption is that because of our owners we'd win any financial arms race.
If someone doesn't want to have limitations on the amount they invest, they can buy a football club in a league that has no restrictions, or a team in a sport without them. The argument was only slightly convincing when owners who had invested in clubs pre-2011 were made to sign up to financial controls, but that argument was pretty quickly lost whn they all agreed to it (for self serving purposes) instead of challenging the introduction of controls in the subsequent 15 years.
The PL was ALWAYS a competition of who spent most, & everyone was fine with that model as long as ManUre, Chavs, Dippers & ArseAnal retained their hegemony over the league. Did you have an issue with "Cost Controls" then? If not, why?
Our owner DID buy a club in a league without cost controls. The fear of HRH challenging the Cartel Clubs, brought about the very cost controls you're so in favour of.
There's a HUGE difference between financial prudence & cost controls. Financial prudence is sensible business. You control costs within your business NOT across an entire industry, which stifles competition & innovation.
Cost controls (whether higher or lower) create cartel monopolies, hence why there are laws against it.
Last edited:
Excellent responseSo cutting to the chase, no more Manchester City's, & those ensconced at the top will remain there unchallenged in perpetuity?
The PL was ALWAYS a competition of who spent most, & everyone was fine with that model as long as ManUre, Chavs, Dippers & ArseAnal retained their hegemony over the league. Did you have an issue with "Cost Controls" then? If not, why?
Our owner DID buy a club in a league without cost controls. The fear of HRH challenging the Cartel Clubs, brought about the very cost controls you're so in favour of.
There's a HUGE difference between financial prudence & cost controls. Financial prudence is sensible business
& you control costs within your business NOT across an industry, which stifles competition & innovation.
Cost controls (whether higher or lower) create cartel monopolies, hence why there are laws against it.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
And the agreement to share ticket revenues, which helped maintain a more level playing field when that was virtually the sole source of income.The control up to the 1960s was the maximum wage and the retain and transfer system, the illegality of which rather illustrates that, unless the rules genuinely create better competition and protect the clubs financially, they are fundamentally flawed.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
It's like discussing the decor of the main ballroom on the Titanic, instead of bailing into the lifeboats.Doesnt answer my point, though, which was about the process not the rules.
I knew bits about FFP, but there seemed no coherent explanation about our specific situation until @Prestwich_Blue took part in a discussion on YouTube.
Using his take on matters, I did my own detailed research & tried to simplify it for the FFP lay-members amongst our fans.
Essentially, UEFA & the PL are accusing us of fraud, but daren't use the word for fear of the legal can of worms it would open.
When we as fans get entangled with all the innuendo, nods & winks from the governing bodies which are designed to damage our reputation & public image, & ultimately stunt our challenge to their cherished cartel clubs, we lose sight of what all these alleged breaches are really about & designed to do.
They've failed to stop us on the field, so now they're trying to stop us from the boardroom. That's the tall & short of it.
Cutting to the chase, I repeat they're essentially accusing City of fraud. If this is the case, it's long past the time that the PL & UEFA should come out & say so, or shut the fuck up.
Personally, I'm done playing their idiotic games. The more we try to unpick their 115 breach bollocks, the more we add fuel to the fire they started.
This is why when faced with vitriolic opposition fans, I keep it simple & basic. "If you're calling City cheats, this implies fraud. So where's your proof?". This for me is the beginning & end of the matter.
CAS have already ruled UEFA had no evidence, so why the fuck are the PL picking up their baton & coming at us using the same breaches which have already failed?
It's all bollocks mate. They need to call our alleged breaches what they keep hinting at, & suffer the consequences. The thing I keep highlighting to all is why aren't/don't they?
Outside of this, I'm not getting dragged any deeper into their bullshit rabbit hole about processes, rules or whatever, which are plainly the only mechanisms they have left to stop Manchester City Football Club.
Last edited:
Good response. I think in City's case that the owners have spent what £1.5 billion? but the club(business) is now valued at £5 billion. That is not spending that is investing. Without that investment then you will get stagnation and no improvement.So cutting to the chase, no more Manchester City's, & those ensconced at the top will remain there unchallenged in perpetuity?
The PL was ALWAYS a competition of who spent most, & everyone was fine with that model as long as ManUre, Chavs, Dippers & ArseAnal retained their hegemony over the league. Did you have an issue with "Cost Controls" then? If not, why?
Our owner DID buy a club in a league without cost controls. The fear of HRH challenging the Cartel Clubs, brought about the very cost controls you're so in favour of.
There's a HUGE difference between financial prudence & cost controls. Financial prudence is sensible business
& you control costs within your business NOT across an industry, which stifles competition & innovation.
Cost controls (whether higher or lower) create cartel monopolies, hence why there are laws against it.
no more Manchester City's, & those ensconced at the top will remain there unchallenged in perpetuity?
No, you’ve fallen into the trap of thinking “financial controls” means the current system. There’s a million ways you could use them like every other sport - to increase parity.
Hahaha you really believe that?Chelsea would have had their legal team look over this transaction and how it would have met the PSR rules. I say kudos for them for finding a loop hole, every club is at it and City have had a good go at it in the past. FFP was brought in to stop clubs going bust, this will not happen to Chelsea with a billionaire owner. It’s daft that clubs are resorting to shenanigans to get round rules that are only resulting with clubs spending less which means a lack of trickle down to teams in the lower leagues.
That’s. not quite right. The biggest predictor is wages not transfer costs. The reason is obvious.
I didn’t say it was transfer costs? It’s total spending.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
That is exactly what good businesses do, & Manchester City's meteoric rise from almost bankrupt in 2008, to the highest turnover in football history epitomises your point exactly.Good response. I think in City's case that the owners have spent what £1.5 billion? but the club(business) is now valued at £5 billion. That is not spending that is investing. Without that investment then you will get stagnation and no improvement.
We all need to stop being blinded by the surrounding FFP/PSR bullshit which was only designed to damage & stop us, & instead focus on the breathtaking achievements made possible by our owner, Chairman, CEO, Director of Football, coaching staff & our playing squad.
feedmpenzaandhewillscore
Well-Known Member
It's like discussing the decor of the main ballroom on the Titanic, instead of bailing into the lifeboats.
I knew bits about FFP, but there seemed no coherent explanation about our specific situation until @Prestwich_Blue took part in a discussion on YouTube.
Using his take on matters, I did my own detailed research & tried to simplify it for the FFP lay-members amongst our fans.
Essentially, UEFA & the PL are accusing us of fraud, but daren't use the word for fear of the legal can of worms it would open.
When we as fans get entangled with all the innuendo, nods & winks from the governing bodies which are designed to damage our reputation & public image, & ultimately stunt our challenge to their cherished cartel clubs, we lose sight of what all these alleged breaches are really about & designed to do.
They've failed to stop us on the field, so now they're trying to stop us from the boardroom. That's the tall & short of it.
Cutting to the chase, I repeat they're essentially accusing City of fraud. If this is the case, it's long past the time that the PL & UEFA should come out & say so, or shut the fuck up.
Personally, I'm done playing their idiotic games. The more we try to unpick their 115 breach bollocks, the more we add fuel to the fire they started.
This is why when faced with vitriolic opposition fans, I keep it simple & basic. "If you're calling City cheats, this implies fraud. So where's your proof?". This for me is the beginning & end of the matter.
CAS have already ruled UEFA had no evidence, so why the fuck are the PL picking up their baton & coming at us using the same charges which have already failed?
It's all bollocks mate. They need to call our alleged breaches what they keep hinting at, & suffer the consequences. The thing I keep highlighting to all is why aren't/don't they?
Outside of this, I'm not getting dragged any deeper into their bullshit rabbit hole about processes, rules or whatever, which are plainly the only mechanisms they have left to stop Manchester City Football Club.
If they accused a senior member of the UAE government of fraud all hell will break lose from a legal and also a political stand point. It’s going to be a brave member of the three man panel who wants to deliver that verdict within the forum the case is heard in.
No not just according to City fans but according to the City exec team that have faced these accusations before & prevailed.
It’s very hard to have a grown up conversation about anything on here when people are this dishonest from the outset.
The city executives have not faced these accusations before, that is a lie, and it’s a shit lie because everyone in this thread knows it’s a lie.
They faced accusations of breaking different rules written by a different organisation over a different time frame and most likely (we can’t know because it’s not been revealed) for different points of fact.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
I'm responding to exactly what you wrote. If you mean something different, say so & I'll respond accordingly.No, you’ve fallen into the trap of thinking “financial controls” means the current system. There’s a million ways you could use them like every other sport - to increase parity.
I'm responding to exactly what you wrote. If you mean something different, say so & I'll respond accordingly.
Oh really? Point to where I endorsed or even mentioned ffp or psr?
I specifically said financial controls and not FFP/PSR precisely because I was talking about all other sports and other systems.
Newman Noggs
Well-Known Member
Surely the most distorting financial factor in domestic football is income from the Champions League.
If the entirety of a club's income was from the domestic league, disparity of spending power could be easily controlled simply by an equitable distribution of collective income.
However, the PL does not stand in isolation. 4 clubs each season have a very material income stream from an external competition, the CL. That income stream ensures that the clubs in the CL have always been able to spend more than the others, and gain every advantage over those that aren't.
Therefore unless an owner of a non-CL participating club can invest, they simply are either not going to be able to access that income stream or will be unable to maintain that income stream long enough to establish themselves as a regular recipient of CL money.
PSR does nothing to address that position, indeed, it consolidates it.
If the entirety of a club's income was from the domestic league, disparity of spending power could be easily controlled simply by an equitable distribution of collective income.
However, the PL does not stand in isolation. 4 clubs each season have a very material income stream from an external competition, the CL. That income stream ensures that the clubs in the CL have always been able to spend more than the others, and gain every advantage over those that aren't.
Therefore unless an owner of a non-CL participating club can invest, they simply are either not going to be able to access that income stream or will be unable to maintain that income stream long enough to establish themselves as a regular recipient of CL money.
PSR does nothing to address that position, indeed, it consolidates it.
Last edited:
It’s very hard to have a grown up conversation about anything on here when people are this dishonest from the outset.
The city executives have not faced these accusations before, that is a lie.
They faced accusations of breaking different rules written by a different organisation over a different time frame and most likely (we can’t know because it’s not been revealed) for different points of fact.
That's pretty dishonest as well.
The two are very similar, are linked, and they cover the same set of accounts and the same people at the club.
That's pretty dishonest as well.
The two are very similar, are linked, and they cover the same set of accounts and the same people at the club.
There’s nothing dishonest about it.
They do not cover the same set of accounts - or timeframe. PL is 2010-2019, UEFA/CAS was 2014-2019.
They do not cover the same events. Nothing about not disclosing manager or player remuneration in UEFAs investigation,
They did not involve the same parties. UEFA not PL.
They do not relate to the same rules.
Those are indisputable facts.