PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
The PL will now be treading very carefully now they have been shown up for an organisation that operates outside English law and acts in bad faith towards its stake holders on behalf of other clubs. I wonder if it’s led them to back off in pathetically trying to hang charges on the club. They have opened up a can of worms that is now going to become every expensive and is difficult for them.
Click to expand...
It's not the slightest bit expensive for the PL. Their huge legal costs merely come out of the reserve that is distributed to clubs at certain points. All the costs are directly paid for by all PL clubs as they will receive lower reserve payments.
 
WRicko said:
How is us going into administration going to affect hedge fund run clubs ? And how would it affect them more than anyone other type of club
Click to expand...


All the clubs would be left with their own legal costs, it would affect their return. A lot of the US clubs are owned by hedge funds.

It wouldn’t affect them any more but I just thought I’d pick them….
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
It's not the slightest bit expensive for the PL. Their huge legal costs merely come out of the reserve that is distributed to clubs at certain points. All the costs are directly paid for by all PL clubs as they will receive lower reserve payments.
Click to expand...
Do you think those clubs are going to be happy having their payments drastically reduced?
 
nmc said:
I seem to recall the league allowed United to sign Tevez and Liverpool Mascherano - both on third party ownership deals before pulling the shutters down and outlawing the practice. Another case of the Red cartel setting the rules to suit themselves.
Click to expand...

The Rags signed Tevez on loan after West Ham let him go so it was never an issue. Plenty of reasons to despise them, but this isn't the one.
 
nmc said:
I seem to recall the league allowed United to sign Tevez and Liverpool Mascherano - both on third party ownership deals before pulling the shutters down and outlawing the practice. Another case of the Red cartel setting the rules to suit themselves.
Click to expand...

No 3rd party ownership was already outlawed & West Ham had to let them leave, so they went to Rags & Dippers on a 3rd party ownership contract.

We did not sign Tevez from the Rags or West Ham we bought out his contract.

The Rags were given permission by the premier league to secure a 2 year loan from MSI & confirmed by David Gill.

“Ultimately the people who controlled him, because he wasn’t owned by a club, it was the people we did the deal with to get him in for two years, they basically got a lot more money by taking him to City, it became a financial thing for them.”
 
cheekybids said:
No 3rd party ownership was already outlawed & West Ham had to let them leave, so they went to Rags & Dippers on a 3rd party ownership contract.

We did not sign Tevez from the Rags or West Ham we bought out his contract.

The Rags were given permission by the premier league to secure a 2 year loan from MSI & confirmed by David Gill.

“Ultimately the people who controlled him, because he wasn’t owned by a club, it was the people we did the deal with to get him in for two years, they basically got a lot more money by taking him to City, it became a financial thing for them.”
Click to expand...

What a footballer he was, wish we could clone a 25-year old Tevez!
 
jaiguruKun said:
From the people who owned him!
Click to expand...

That’s the point. 3rd party ownership is outlawed so you couldn’t have a player who was owned by a business & not a football club. No idea why but that’s the rules…….. that most clubs have to abide by.
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
It's not the slightest bit expensive for the PL. Their huge legal costs merely come out of the reserve that is distributed to clubs at certain points. All the costs are directly paid for by all PL clubs as they will receive lower reserve payments.
Click to expand...
Not just PL clubs, all clubs, everyone will get a reduced payout, as the cartel would spread their loses.
 
cheekybids said:
That’s the point. 3rd party ownership is outlawed so you couldn’t have a player who was owned by a business & not a football club. No idea why but that’s the rules…….. that most clubs have to abide by.
Click to expand...

The issue with the West Ham deal for Tevez was they only bought part of the player, the rest was owned by his agents - this arrangement did not comply with PL rules. The Rags effectively borrowed him for two years and owned him outright on loan for that limited period which was OK. When that arrangement came to an end, he was owned by Kia whatsiname's company again and we bought him outright from that same company.
 
jaiguruKun said:
The issue with the West Ham deal for Tevez was they only bought part of the player, the rest was owned by his agents - this arrangement did not comply with PL rules. The Rags effectively borrowed him for two years and owned him outright on loan for that limited period which was OK. When that arrangement came to an end, he was owned by Kia whatsiname's company again and we bought him outright from that same company.
Click to expand...

It can be dressed up any way it wants but in essence it was the same. Kia owned the rights to Tevez in both instances & whatever West Ham did they were told Tevez wasn’t there’s & the Rags paid his owners (Kia) £10m.

Its put to bed now but you think of the song & dance made of Mancini & you think of all the other stuff it’s a joke.
 
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