PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Dan 'Cuntface' Roan reporting about the new proposed regs from outside the Swamp rather than Ashton New Road on the 6 O'Clock News. Only mentioned us after saying the Rags were against it as well as us and Villa. No mention of the charges.
 
Atypical said:
GAA and rugby getting bigger and bigger. If some journalists in Ireland could see the wood for the trees they’d be thanking City for slowing down the ferries and planes to England and getting more bums on seats for LOI.
its all clickbait though Johnny Ward on OTB spent most of Saturday crying about City.
Click to expand...
GAA and rugby getting bigger and bigger??? GAA is as big as it will ever get and has its crowd that are mostly best avoided while rugby is still a minority sport dispite the way over the top media coverage it gets, last rugby world cup was on you would hardly notice at all.
 
domalino said:
This isn’t that complicated. There’s 2 parts.

1) Each club can spend 85% of revenue. This is agreed on and happening.

2) No club can spend more than 6x revenue of 20th team. Things agreed on principle but details tbc and voted on again.

Nowhere are Luton going to be allowed to spend £560m a year on wages and transfers, that would break PSR, wouldn’t it?

The only thing this does is make sure that the gap between top and bottom doesn’t grow too big by incentivising the top clubs to keep growing the revenues of the league as a whole.
Click to expand...
Then how much we could spend this summer. theoretically speaking if Sheffield has earned 100m and we have earned 712mil, then we could spend roughly 606mil on transfers, wages, agent fees, but they can’t exceed that of Sheffield’s 100x5 mil for the season if our expenditure for transfers, wages and agent fees is 500 then we can’t really buy anyone this summer window
 
Skrastins said:
Then how much we could spend this summer. theoretically speaking if Sheffield has earned 100m and we have earned 712mil, then we could spend roughly 606mil on transfers, wages, agent fees, but they can’t exceed that of Sheffield’s 100x5 mil for the season if our expenditure for transfers, wages and agent fees is 500 then we can’t really buy anyone this summer window
Click to expand...

At 6x revenue of the bottom club we can spend more than we do now.

At 5x it’s about the same.

At 4.5x it’s a bit less.

We don’t know until the final vote is held where it will be, But all the clubs need to do to be able to spend more is adjust how much tv and prize money the bottom teams get. Give them an extra 10m and you can spend 45-60m more.
 
If more competitive league is the aim, It would be much simpler
1) to change the place money to favour lower teams
or 2) to have a subsidy for the lower teams where all clubs paid a percentage of their gross income into a pot
or 3) to share domestic tv revenue, after all there are always two clubs on the pitch.
 
I thought it said the amount the bottom of the league receives from the Premier League and used Sheff utd as the example as they will get 105m for getting relegated and therefore it's x5 that amount!?

Or have I heard that differently?

If that's the case then whoever finishes bottom will get the same amount whoever it is, right?

I'm sure that's how they explained it on sky sports news before!
 
tommy116 said:
GAA and rugby getting bigger and bigger??? GAA is as big as it will ever get and has its crowd that are mostly best avoided while rugby is still a minority sport dispite the way over the top media coverage it gets, last rugby world cup was on you would hardly notice at all.
Click to expand...
Have to disagree.
 
Skrastins said:
Then how much we could spend this summer. theoretically speaking if Sheffield has earned 100m and we have earned 712mil, then we could spend roughly 606mil on transfers, wages, agent fees, but they can’t exceed that of Sheffield’s 100x5 mil for the season if our expenditure for transfers, wages and agent fees is 500 then we can’t really buy anyone this summer window
Click to expand...
but they looking at 6x not 5 so not much diff to wot we are allowed to spend at mo. wot it will do is slow us down if our growth continues financially or we make sure the lowest team grows too. Its stopping the gap get bigger. Rightly or wrongly ??? to me it shud be up to the other clubs to grow financially. why restrict well run clubs like ours.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Are you in a court of law when you buy a house? Or a second hand car? Or when you sign an employment contract?

Ultimately, this is a contractual dispute that is governed by its terms and is subject to English and Welsh law. And is enforced in relation to both.

This is still a legal case, as much as a claim for unfair dismissal heard by an employment tribunal, rather than a court.
Click to expand...
Mate, everything we do is governed by the law. Going to the corner shop & purchasing something is essentially a contract, which is governed by consumer law. I wouldn't say I've been involved in a legal scenario because I emerged from my corner shop with a can of baked beans & a loaf of bread...

There's a very important distinction here. I honestly believe that if this were a serious legal matter, we'd be in a court of law whether criminal or civil. No matter how it's dressed up, we're essentially up before the Wheel Tappers & Shunters Social Club Committee, with their silly onerous rules designed to kneecap us.

Too many of our fans have had the crap frightened out of them, leading to the belief an international arrest warrant will be issued for HRH, & Pep, Txiki, Soriano & Khaldoon will be spending a few days in CDC, whilst the turnstiles at the Etihad will be padlocked.

They won't.

It's time we called these breaches out for what they are. It's the Red Top Mafia & Spuds attempt at stopping City by any means necessary. They've failed on the pitch, so are now trying it from the boardroom... Again.

It's not a legal case in the sense of what most people recognise.
 
burning blue soul said:
From what is now being proposed to limit our spending, it is yet another indicator that the charges levied against us have gone to rat shit for the PL.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly.

All these financial rules and proposals are all dressed up to stop us.

If it was just United, Arsenal and Liverpool going toe to toe for the league every year these rules wouldn't even exist.

If the PL were confident that we are guilty and are going to get relegated they wouldn't need to Introduce these pie in the sky proposals!!!
 
So, if I understand things correctly all 20 teams in the Premier League will be allowed to spend the same amount of money. The figure being touted is £500m. In 2023 only three Premier league Clubs had revenue higher than £500m so any of the other 17 Clubs which wishes to spend the cap amount will have to borrow money. Within a few short years we could easily see half the teams in the league insolvent and out of business.

Meanwhile those Clubs with the high revenues will be forced to cut spending and will very quickly find themselves falling behind the big European Clubs.

Are the people running the Premier League so blind they cant see this.

Btw how did Newcastle vote ?
 
Last edited:
domalino said:
This isn’t that complicated. There’s 2 parts.

1) Each club can spend 85% of revenue. This is agreed on and happening.

2) No club can spend more than 6x revenue of 20th team. Things agreed on principle but details tbc and voted on again.

Nowhere are Luton going to be allowed to spend £560m a year on wages and transfers, that would break PSR, wouldn’t it?

The only thing this does is make sure that the gap between top and bottom doesn’t grow too big by incentivising the top clubs to keep growing the revenues of the league as a whole.
Click to expand...
My whole point is based on these crucial missing details highlighted, which could end up with City's situation not being so bad, or our situation being made a shit load worse.

Everything else is mere speculation. I get all the rest, it's the detail myself & everyone else is interested in.
 
Dribble said:
It's not a legal case in the sense of what most people recognise.
Click to expand...
Possibly not, but it’s a dispute that arises out of a legal agreement that is subject to and will be enforced via English and Welsh law and it is therefore undeniably a legal case.

If you’d said that isn’t what most people would recognise as a legal case then you might very well be correct.
 
domalino said:
This isn’t that complicated. There’s 2 parts.

1) Each club can spend 85% of revenue. This is agreed on and happening.

2) No club can spend more than 6x revenue of 20th team. Things agreed on principle but details tbc and voted on again.

Nowhere are Luton going to be allowed to spend £560m a year on wages and transfers, that would break PSR, wouldn’t it?

The only thing this does is make sure that the gap between top and bottom doesn’t grow too big by incentivising the top clubs to keep growing the revenues of the league as a whole.
Click to expand...
Not quite as they’re proposing a 2 tier system. Qualify for European competition and you mirror UEFA rules at 70% of revenue. Not qualifying for Europe, 85% of revenue is the proposal. Currently would make no real difference to City domestically, but will potentially hamper Villa and the Bar-codes.
Where it will make a difference is in Europe. If City and Madrid both earned £900M, under these proposals, Madrid could spend £630M in a season and City, if the ‘anchor point’ is set at 4.5 for example, could only spend £450. This is why the multiple of that anchor point becomes vital. A multiple of 6 not much difference, 4.5 pretty significant.
 
projectriver said:
Legal cases are also dealt with in arbitration, quasi courts or other tribunals.
Click to expand...
No doubt. But I'll start crapping myself when City are faced with attending the Old Bailey, which I'm pretty sure we'd prefer.

If this was the case, I doubt this whole ridiculous Speckled Jim charade wouldn't have got past the CPS. This whole farce is a witchunt, & is a complete waste of time & money, purely in the pursuit of stopping City off the pitch because the Red Top Mafia & Spuds have failed to stop us on it.

That's the long & short of it, & we need to stop dressing it up to being something it clearly isn't.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Possibly not, but it’s a dispute that arises out of a legal agreement that is subject to and will be enforced via English and Welsh law and it is therefore undeniably a legal case.

If you’d said that isn’t what most people would recognise as a legal case then you might very well be correct.
Click to expand...
I'm not getting into splitting hairs. City fans have been through enough, myself included.

Once I took a step back & took a global overview of these breaches, the thing that screams out is no mention of fraud, when that's essentially what we're being accused of.

Given the choice of going through what we are, & the PL having the balls to use the term fraud, I think City would prefer them to use the term & to settle it for once & for all in court of law.

We've done fuck all wrong in UK Law. They may have a claim of breach of contract, but if this is the case, why not make a claim against us in the Civil courts & see how that pans out?

Nah man, they'd get laughed the fuck out of court. The only way this has been hyped up to the levels it has is because the PL control the process & the narrative, hence why they're desperate to avoid the introduction of IREF.

Some serious dots need connecting here, & we need to stop unduly trying to scare the crap out of our fans who just want to enjoy the most success ladened period in City's history.

All this "legal case" bollocks isn't helping.
 
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