PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

terraloon said:
I did point out around 6 months ago that a financial sanctions agreement was a possibility particularly as it would have been almost impossible for the PL to properly investigate without access to RA and his records.
I was told it wasn’t anything other that wishful thinking. Yes it was but that the fact that there was a vast sum being held back from the original proceeds of sale sort of suggested to me that some sort of discussion almost certainly took place following DD about likely approach.
Click to expand...
They should be relegated etc.

Paying off books to a great extent then we are accused of everything over a longer period I believe.

Selling stuff to themselves at clearly inflated prices not any different to our alleged sponsorship issues.

Non cooperation they cooperated but only under new owners and clearly haven’t been able to provide full details

O and now they are selling players at inflated prices and buying at inflated prices with other struggling clubs to get round current rules.

That has the same affect as inflated sponsorship allegations
 
If this is correct about Chelsea then fair play them,but it just brings into more focus that the premier league is not fit for purpose,time to clear them out and restart/rename the league,with ALL clubs voting in members/chairpersons to the hierarchy ..
 
waspish said:
Selling stuff back to yourself is fine because there is no rule saying so! But they should have been fair market valued! Because what if someone from Manchester sold a similar hotel but the price is half what Chelsea getting for there's?

On the admittance of the previous owners paying players of the books to join them, the likes of Hazard who we were after and thought we had him until the brown envelope changed his mind! because it wasn't these owners there is apparently a law a rule maybe that will get them off with a slap hand!!
Click to expand...
You're missing a very relevant point, it's supposed to be about "sustainability" selling off assets in a one off transaction is not sustainable as the Chavs won't be able to do the same thing in the future.

They have virtually asset stripped the club to pass the rules, they have no more loop holes to fall back on, there is no sustainability to their business plan, therefore they should have deemed to have failed.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
Whatever is going on with Chelsea, please don’t make the same paradoxical mistake, that fans of other clubs make all the time, and start suggesting that a football authority, be it the PL, the FA, UEFA or FIFA are in any way, ever competent or even credible…..
Click to expand...
Perhaps the PL are throwing away their financial rulebook with a realization that trying to legally justify red ok but others not will be simply adding fuel to Lord P.?
Maybe a wipe the slate clean Judgement for all is in progress pending a realistic legal financial rule book appears?
 
hammocity said:
You're missing a very relevant point, it's supposed to be about "sustainability" selling off assets in a one off transaction is not sustainable as the Chavs won't be able to do the same thing in the future.

They have virtually asset stripped the club to pass the rules, they have no more loop holes to fall back on, there is no sustainability to their business plan, therefore they should have deemed to have failed.
Click to expand...
No more levers? Sounds familiar.
 
United's 3 year financials
23/24 -£115
22/23 -£29
21/22 -£113

loss of £257m over 3 years they're supposedly only allowed to lose £105m. They got £70m from mitigation for covid so let's the they have that again for the 21/22 season that leaves them with £82m to find mitigation for to get to the £105m pass number. What on earth have they claimed £82m for? surely the paint job in the tunnel wasn't that pricey?
Even if they do a Liverpool and claim £50m for the new stadium build they are still well short.

I just can't see how they've passed
 
BerkshireBlue said:
United's 3 year financials
23/24 -£115
22/23 -£29
21/22 -£113

loss of £257m over 3 years they're supposedly only allowed to lose £105m. They got £70m from mitigation for covid so let's the they have that again for the 21/22 season that leaves them with £82m to find mitigation for to get to the £105m pass number. What on earth have they claimed £82m for? surely the paint job in the tunnel wasn't that pricey?
Even if they do a Liverpool and claim £50m for the new stadium build they are still well short.

I just can't see how they've passed
Click to expand...
They play in Red.
They have American owners.
They have to be protected.

All fuel to the fire for City if you want my opinion.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
United's 3 year financials
23/24 -£115
22/23 -£29
21/22 -£113

loss of £257m over 3 years they're supposedly only allowed to lose £105m. They got £70m from mitigation for covid so let's the they have that again for the 21/22 season that leaves them with £82m to find mitigation for to get to the £105m pass number. What on earth have they claimed £82m for? surely the paint job in the tunnel wasn't that pricey?
Even if they do a Liverpool and claim £50m for the new stadium build they are still well short.

I just can't see how they've passed
Click to expand...

It stinks, are the press/media calling it out ?
 
give it to gordon said:
Is it ??

I can't see this being brought in to our case against the charges.
Click to expand...
Our case is done-Just awaiting decision but any appeals etc all this is clear evidence of clubs being treated differently mate. PSR rules nothing to do with our case but neither are lots of things in the "What about Citehhh" Witch hunt.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
United's 3 year financials
23/24 -£115
22/23 -£29
21/22 -£113

loss of £257m over 3 years they're supposedly only allowed to lose £105m. They got £70m from mitigation for covid so let's the they have that again for the 21/22 season that leaves them with £82m to find mitigation for to get to the £105m pass number. What on earth have they claimed £82m for? surely the paint job in the tunnel wasn't that pricey?
Even if they do a Liverpool and claim £50m for the new stadium build they are still well short.

I just can't see how they've passed
Click to expand...
£40m mitigation for COVID and £30-£35m for share dealing costs to cover Scruffy Jim's minority share acquisition, it's a disgrace and in plain sight, the largest other Covid allowance for all other clubs was £1m.

If we get punished there will be such a shit storm of further litigation heading towards Masters and his cohorts.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
United's 3 year financials
23/24 -£115
22/23 -£29
21/22 -£113

loss of £257m over 3 years they're supposedly only allowed to lose £105m. They got £70m from mitigation for covid so let's the they have that again for the 21/22 season that leaves them with £82m to find mitigation for to get to the £105m pass number. What on earth have they claimed £82m for? surely the paint job in the tunnel wasn't that pricey?
Even if they do a Liverpool and claim £50m for the new stadium build they are still well short.

I just can't see how they've passed
Click to expand...
And the $35m allowance for the sale of shares. How does that work? If I buy shares in a company, the company itself does not cover the costs.

And how did it cost $35m anyway. What did he pay, around $1bn? That's 3.5%, even Hargreaves Lansdown doesn't charge that much! Let me guess, it just happens to be the amount they needed to find to break even for PSR that year.

Twats!
 
BerkshireBlue said:
United's 3 year financials
23/24 -£115
22/23 -£29
21/22 -£113

loss of £257m over 3 years they're supposedly only allowed to lose £105m. They got £70m from mitigation for covid so let's the they have that again for the 21/22 season that leaves them with £82m to find mitigation for to get to the £105m pass number. What on earth have they claimed £82m for? surely the paint job in the tunnel wasn't that pricey?
Even if they do a Liverpool and claim £50m for the new stadium build they are still well short.

I just can't see how they've passed
Click to expand...
We all know the fucking answer, its sprinkled all over the top of our charges with a big fat masters cherry on the top.
 
hammocity said:
£40m mitigation for COVID and £30-£35m for share dealing costs to cover Scruffy Jim's minority share acquisition, it's a disgrace and in plain sight, the largest other Covid allowance for all other clubs was £1m.

If we get punished there will be such a shit storm of further litigation heading towards Masters and his cohorts.
Click to expand...
According to the figures, United’s combined three-year loss for the assessment period came in at £313m, well above the £105m threshold. However, when taking into account allowable deductions, which include £35m of share sale costs, the total comes to £170m, resulting in a net PSR position of minus £103m. That puts United £2m under the PSR breach threshold for the period, and speaks to the confidence that the club had in stating that they would be compliant with the regulations. It seems unlikely that they will be hit with a breach, even if the margin is tight.
Click to expand...

I haven't got enough fingers to count with to come up with that fuckwittery, mind you I expect the MUEN will fight their corner whatever the weather.
 
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