PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Dribble]

if the wider world of business had adopted the financial controls that some, ahem, City fan(s), are so in favour of, and arguing so vigorously in favour of, in this of all places, Marks and Spencer would still be a market stall in the East End. As would Tesco. As would J Sainsbury and we would all be buying our groceries on a daily basis from the local shopkeeper.
We wouldn't have fridges to store them in as the fridge manufacturers would have found it impossible to invest in their businesses and develop the technology and would have been legislated out of existence. We wouldnt have cars for the same reasons - the blacksmiths would have legislated the car makers out of existence.
We wouldnt have fitted kitchens, fitted bathrooms, 4k TV's, or very much of anything at all.
29 of the last 30 titles would have been won by the old money redshirts, infact probably 30 of 30 as Leicester would have been kept in the championship for 'cheating FFP'.
It is backward thinking, adopted by backward people.

An remember when reading this thread Blues:

If it looks like a rag twat, writes like a rag twat, and argues like a rag twat, it almost certainly isnt a City fan.

Bravo... Nail on the head!

 

[terraloon]

We're currently governed by FFP/PSR. If you've mean something else, or have an alternative to offer, fill yer boots. I'm all ears...

I don’t really want to intrude but the bulk of the charges aren’t using PSR rules they fall elsewhere in the wider PL rule book.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Got to say myself with regards to spending and richer clubs, there needs to be a level; playing field and I dotnt like the idea that some clubs pay a luxury tax.. Thats pay to win. Fuck that. Fuck that if it was utd, lfc or City

It's a tricky problem to solve.

Fwiw, I favour no cost control in the PL as long as there is FFP at UEFA level (so that the top 7/8 must comply), but then a proactive monitoring of losses (you expect to make losses next year, put the equity in now) together with some proactive controls of debt/cash generation ratios, and on "community" assets.

Enough of these ineffective and dangerous retrospective rules.

 

[domalino]

So, what would you propose?

I think you have to start from the destination.

What do we want football to be?

I could write about ways to make it be competitive and have 3/4/5 way title, European and relegation battles, regularly rotating which teams are at the top and winning beyond “the top 4” but I feel like I’d get 20 comments from people who don’t want that and the whole thing would get derailed like the first post.

If you do want that then you have to narrow the gap between richest and poorest somehow, which means changing the revenue distribution, I’d definitely bring back ticket rev sharing because it would get rid of the arms race to exploit fans (5% ticket increase is less attractive when half is going to the other teams). Then you have to address the CL money problem, you’re always going to get a top 4 when 4th gets £60m extra a year to defend that position against 5th.

The ideas are easy, the difficulty is that you’re trying to bring in a system that benefits the poorer smaller players in the sport and hurts the big players by taking away their advantages.

 

[Dribble]

I don’t really want to intrude but the bulk of the charges aren’t using PSR rules they fall elsewhere in the wider PL rule book.

Agreed, which are governed by FFP/PSR.

Also they're not charges, they're allegations of rule breaches.

Cutting to the chase, they're essentially accusing City of industrial scale fraud. The question is, why've they never used the term, & as per the CAS ruling, where's their evidence?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I don’t really want to intrude but the bulk of the charges aren’t using PSR rules they fall elsewhere in the wider PL rule book.

But they have been instigated purely with the desired outcome (for the PL) of the club failing FFP.

They want to restate the accounts for Etihad's and possibly Etisalat's "disguised equity funding", the fair value of those and other AD sponsorships, Mancini's salary, the Fordham expenses, the sales of IP and the rest so that the club fails FFP.

I thought that was pretty clear.

 

[lancs blue]

Got to say myself with regards to spending and richer clubs, there needs to be a level; playing field and I dotnt like the idea that some clubs pay a luxury tax.. Thats pay to win. Fuck that. Fuck that if it was utd, lfc or City

A level playing field has never existed in English football since the league structure started in 1888. Preston went out and signed some top players of the time on big wages and won the first two titles until a few of the others started to follow suit. Then came the maximum wage and retain and transfer system. The maximum wage wasn't difficult to get around, Chapman's Arsenal did it by their directors creating "ghost" jobs in their own companies for their top players. The nearest to a level playing field was probably in the 60s and early 70s - ironically after the maximum wage was abolished - 7 different champions in 7 seasons from 65/66 to 71/72.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Hello Hello
We are the 115!
Hello Hello

 

[Coatigan]

I don’t really want to intrude but the bulk of the charges aren’t using PSR rules they fall elsewhere in the wider PL rule book.

But with the overarching implication of breaching FFP/PSR.

 

[Tomblue]

I think you have to start from the destination.

What do we want football to be?

I could write about ways to make it be competitive and have 3/4/5 way title, European and relegation battles, regularly rotating which teams are at the top and winning beyond “the top 4” but I feel like I’d get 20 comments from people who don’t want that and the whole thing would get derailed like the first post.

If you do want that then you have to narrow the gap between richest and poorest somehow, which means changing the revenue distribution, I’d definitely bring back ticket rev sharing because it would get rid of the arms race to exploit fans (5% ticket increase is less attractive when half is going to the other teams). Then you have to address the CL money problem, you’re always going to get a top 4 when 4th gets £60m extra a year to defend that position against 5th.

The ideas are easy, the difficulty is that you’re trying to bring in a system that benefits the poorer smaller players in the sport and hurts the big players by taking away their advantages.

Your last point just about sums up why any idea you or anyone else comes up with would never be accepted. Can you imagine going to the cartel with this kind of thing 15 - 20 years ago. You would be in a straitjacket.

Its like asking Apple to share profits from IPhone sales to other manufacturers because 'its not fair'.