PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

We knew the government would be wanted to be kept informed in some way, only an idiot would believe otherwise, especially considering what’s possibly at stake for the uk economy.
The cynic in me suspects this old news is getting recycled now so there’s the perfect narrative for when we’re cleared.
‘The government got City off’
For the record I don’t care how we’re cleared just as long as we are.
 
I'm Blue said:
We knew the government would be wanted to be kept informed in some way, only an idiot would believe otherwise, especially considering what’s possibly at stake for the uk economy.
The cynic in me suspects this old news is getting recycled now so there’s the perfect narrative for when we’re cleared.
‘The government got City off’
For the record I don’t care how we’re cleared just as long as we are.
Click to expand...

Not sure that any of us should be either.

The stupid and jealous fuckers and shills will still maintain that we have cheated.
 
Colin Bells Boots said:
Not sure that any of us should be either.

The stupid and jealous fuckers and shills will still maintain that we have cheated.
Click to expand...
Yep we’ll be ‘cheats’ regardless, just like the spin they’ve put on the CAS judgement.
If the PL came out tomorrow and said we made all the charges up and we had zero evidence and only charged City because of the cartel, they’d say we’ve paid them off lol
 
I'm Blue said:
Yep we’ll be ‘cheats’ regardless, just like the spin they’ve put on the CAS judgement.
If the PL came out tomorrow and said we made all the charges up and we had zero evidence and only charged City because of the cartel, they’d say we’ve paid them off lol
Click to expand...

and that's why we should just enjoy it and revel in the fact that the cunts are really hurting and more desperate.

not a fuck given !
 
Dribble said:
Building the narrative that we're guilty, but were let off due to government pressure...
Click to expand...
That has to be the only answer. Sheikh Mansour and Khaldoon will know exactly how the hearing is playing out and is probably an open secret amongst top level government officials. Can’t understand why they would need to ask unless Ziegler has been paid to imply that narrative. Positive for us if that is the case though.
 
Dribble said:
It's this simple... Any debt where the repayment is over ⅓ of a clubs annual turnover CAN'T be levied against clubs, & MUST be levied PERSONALLY against the club's ownership.

The thought of bailiffs taking off the door to an owner's mansion, will certainly protect clubs by ending profligate spending, & reckless risk taking, without stunting responsible owner investment.

When the smog clears, I honestly believe this is the logical place where football governance will end up, whether the cartel clubs like it or not.
Click to expand...
The problem is that clubs need to invest heavily in infrastructure. Spurs' stadium, the Emirates, any new ground and stand are good examples because no governing body should want to prevent such investment. I do think, on the other hand, that it would be difficult to frame regulations which made some debt permissible but prohibited other forms. And as the PL have found out, the wording of regulations can be vital. There is also the question of debt as a percentage of turnover is consistent with competition law: United's owners would not be liable long after Leicester's had lost their doors!
 
halfcenturyup said:
I don't have a problem with the PL CEO saying it is good for the PL to have those three clubs competing up at the top. It makes business sense. But that doesn't mean they should be putting regulations in place to ensure it happens, and that it continues.

Of course the PL has to make its own rules, the IR isn't going to get involved in proposing and passing rules. But they should be able to interrogate the CEO in public on decision-making. That should be enough to keep the CEO straight.

As for the "tyranny of the majority", I am hoping beyond hope that there will be a block of seven votes to counter it. The PL wants new PSR/APT rules? They better make sure they are fair, appropriate and in the interest of the game as a whole.

If Carlsberg did corporate governance :)
Click to expand...
The point I'm making is that the involvement of the IR is not going to make regulation easier but it will add another regulator, and one with the power to veto PL regulations. As for your point about the "tyranny of the majority" and the block of seven votes to counter the cartel doesn't make regulation any easier. In fact it makes stalemate more probable because we have two hostile groups with very different ideas on the best interests of the game and the PL, neither of which is capable of a two thirds majority. I do think the PL has brought this on itself and its clubs because "putting regulations in place to ensure" that the interests of a small number of clubs were synonymous with the interests of all was exactly what happened. Arsenal began the campaign against owner investment, it was taken up by German clubs and Italian when Abramovitch appeared and even he supported the idea when Sheikh Mansour bought City. The result was FFP in Europe and quickly in England. The PL is in a real mess and we may soon export it to Europe.
 
spinney said:
The PL / FA come under UEFA jurisdiction some must comply with their competition rules

Otherwise masters and his gang could end up in court ....... oops !
Click to expand...
What is interesting is that PL rules try to prevent any appeal to the courts but UEFA permits appeal to CAS. City have appealed to CAS and CAS found in our favour, but it found that City had not breached rules put in place by UEFA. CAS was never asked if the rules were enforceable or not. When the FFP rules were introduced there was much debate in Europe, especially in universities with strong traditions of study of sports law, especially with an interest in aspects of competition law. The consensus was that FFP was extremely vulnerable to legal challenge on the grounds that aspects of it were anti-competitive. There may well be clubs, not just in England and not just individually, who may wish to test out parts of the regulations.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
The problem is that clubs need to invest heavily in infrastructure. Spurs' stadium, the Emirates, any new ground and stand are good examples because no governing body should want to prevent such investment. I do think, on the other hand, that it would be difficult to frame regulations which made some debt permissible but prohibited other forms. And as the PL have found out, the wording of regulations can be vital. There is also the question of debt as a percentage of turnover is consistent with competition law: United's owners would not be liable long after Leicester's had lost their doors!
Click to expand...
Loans for Infrastructure are no different to a mortgage imo. You get one based on income & credit worthiness, adjustable by deposit size.

Imagine Ipswich Town applying for a £1.5bn commercial loan to build a 150000 capacity Super stadium, with a retractable roof & rotating pitch. Any sane lender would tell them to go fuck themselves!

HOWEVER, if their owner rocked up with £1.4bn of his own money & gave a personal guarantee by way of a charge against his personal assets of £50m & borrowed the £50m balance on a 25 year deal against the club, most lenders would probably snatch the owner's hand off.

If the owner went belly up, Ipswich Town would only be liable for £50m over 25 years to build this preposterous white elephant, which is easily achievable if they remain in the English Football League & the Premier League.

This way, clubs can dream as big as they like without putting their existences in peril. BUT the total annual servicable debt repayments levied against any club can never exceed ⅓ of their annual turnover. I can see no issues with a football governance proposal along these lines.
 
Last edited:
pirate said:
just think about that for a minute
who receives the VAT?
Who pays for the supplies to the LA schools?
the answer to both is the government, charging vat to LA school supplies just adds admin fees with no benefit to
Click to expand...
From Dailey Mail Comments Section.
6 hours ago
In Australia, private schools receive exactly the same government funding as a state school, on the basis that the parents have already paid tax, so the school should receive that money irrespective of its funding model. The private school then decides what top up fees to charge the parents. In some cases this is very little, generally to cover extracurricular activities and sports. Which means that decent private schools are in the reach of far more people, making the average private school much less elitist. It's a pity that Labour didn't do this because it would have removed significant pressure from the state system, improved choice and ensured opportunities for children from less affluent families. But of course this isn't about opportunity and positive outcomes. This is about leftist ideology and class war. And it's so obviously wrong and doomed to implode.Can someone tell me what inheritance tax is we don’t know what that is in Australia.
 
Roy paul brother said:
From Dailey Mail Comments Section.
6 hours ago
In Australia, private schools receive exactly the same government funding as a state school, on the basis that the parents have already paid tax, so the school should receive that money irrespective of its funding model. The private school then decides what top up fees to charge the parents. In some cases this is very little, generally to cover extracurricular activities and sports. Which means that decent private schools are in the reach of far more people, making the average private school much less elitist. It's a pity that Labour didn't do this because it would have removed significant pressure from the state system, improved choice and ensured opportunities for children from less affluent families. But of course this isn't about opportunity and positive outcomes. This is about leftist ideology and class war. And it's so obviously wrong and doomed to implode.Can someone tell me what inheritance tax is we don’t know what that is in Australia.
Click to expand...
the net cost of that would be 500,000,000, with no gain for the current state school pupils
 
Roy paul brother said:
From Dailey Mail Comments Section.
6 hours ago
In Australia, private schools receive exactly the same government funding as a state school, on the basis that the parents have already paid tax, so the school should receive that money irrespective of its funding model. The private school then decides what top up fees to charge the parents. In some cases this is very little, generally to cover extracurricular activities and sports. Which means that decent private schools are in the reach of far more people, making the average private school much less elitist. It's a pity that Labour didn't do this because it would have removed significant pressure from the state system, improved choice and ensured opportunities for children from less affluent families. But of course this isn't about opportunity and positive outcomes. This is about leftist ideology and class war. And it's so obviously wrong and doomed to implode.Can someone tell me what inheritance tax is we don’t know what that is in Australia.
Click to expand...
The crux of the matter hinges on this...
Which type of school did the person who called it the Dailey Mail go to? I vote for the other type of school
 
pirate said:
just think about that for a minute
who receives the VAT?
Who pays for the supplies to the LA schools?
the answer to both is the government, charging vat to LA school supplies just adds admin fees with no benefit to anyone
Click to expand...
I think you’ve read it wrong, private schools are to be charged VAT.
Pirate schools are still exempt!

;-)
 
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