PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

blue b4 the moon said:
Best bet would be to pull my ears off!!!

Can't even get in the bed in the spare room as we're having a new kitchen fitted next week and everything from in the cupboards are all over the bed in there.

I'll give her 10 mins then get up if she isn't quiet and gets some grub.
Click to expand...
Couldn't you put a pillow over her head, that might wake her up if not you killed two birds with 1 stone
 
KS55 said:
It all so unnecessary. What is the point of regulating income when the spend on the team is regulated? If there were a backstop £s limit to team spend as well as a proportion of income, all this nonsense could just disappear.
Click to expand...
Something like this?

Under UEFA's new Financial Sustainability regulations, this squad cost ratio will be capped at 70% of club revenues from the 2025/26 season onwards, a reduction from 90% in 2023/24 and 80% in 2024/25. The PL is adopting a similar system, with plans to phase in squad control costs to replace the current Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) with a 85% limit on squad costs by the 2026/27 season.
 
Gordyola said:
Something like this?

Under UEFA's new Financial Sustainability regulations, this squad cost ratio will be capped at 70% of club revenues from the 2025/26 season onwards, a reduction from 90% in 2023/24 and 80% in 2024/25. The PL is adopting a similar system, with plans to phase in squad control costs to replace the current Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) with a 85% limit on squad costs by the 2026/27 season.
Click to expand...
Plus anchoring to lowest income team
Just why did liverpool spend like crazy
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It must be genius level sarcasm because I’m fucked if I can spot it. And even if it is it doesn’t detract from the point that in the absence of any evidence that City have deployed those tactics, reference to them in that article is both gratuitous and malicious.

As @bobbyowenquiff pointed out, as respondents to this action the club had no choice but to defend their position and deal with the allegations. His talk of city ‘countering’ the PL ‘so aggressively’ conspicuously (and consciously no doubt) fails to acknowledge this. The club is fucking defending itself. Any well-resourced commercial organisation facing an existential threat is going to deploy all the resources it can to resist such an attack. This is undeniable.

The number of charges is not something of the club’s choosing either, and such a charge sheet necessarily and logically requires longer to address than otherwise. Again this is undeniable.

Perhaps the most telling reveal of his intellectual dishonesty, however, is where on the one hand he lauds City’s ‘world class squad of legal experts’ in whose ‘brilliance’ he revels in respect of the 115, and yet on the other he questions the purpose of the same lawyer’s strategic approach to the APT settlement. Imperious in one dispute, and simultaneously clueless in the other. Fitting his interpretation around the conclusion he wants to arrive at, as people advancing a dishonest argument are prone to do.

And nowhere in there does he in any substantive way criticise the PL or suggest that there is even a possibility that these proceedings could have been flawed from the outset, rather than being rendered so by City’s ‘world class squad of legal experts’.

As the last few paragraphs descended into pseudo-gibberish I expect he was feeling little but frustration and overwhelming disappointment that his previous strident predictions of doom for the club were wholly misconceived and rather than acknowledge that, instead he went on an incoherent rant about the inequity of the overarching power of billionaires in a league that is replete with them.

The bloke‘s a **** and nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is.
Click to expand...

Excellent summation (as ever), Mr GDM.
 
Gordyola said:
Something like this?

Under UEFA's new Financial Sustainability regulations, this squad cost ratio will be capped at 70% of club revenues from the 2025/26 season onwards, a reduction from 90% in 2023/24 and 80% in 2024/25. The PL is adopting a similar system, with plans to phase in squad control costs to replace the current Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) with a 85% limit on squad costs by the 2026/27 season.
Click to expand...
Not enough. There has to be an absolute £ limit to ensure competition. Then you can stop bothering about the amount of income or where it comes from.
 
KS55 said:
Not enough. There has to be an absolute £ limit to ensure competition. Then you can stop bothering about the amount of income or where it comes from.
Click to expand...

Or too much. Just let clubs do want they want and let competition happen naturally.

There are loads of good players out there, even if the top clubs spent loads on the players they wanted, there would still be plenty of other good players to pick from.
 
KS55 said:
Not enough. There has to be an absolute £ limit to ensure competition. Then you can stop bothering about the amount of income or where it comes from.
Click to expand...
Would only work if it was across the whole of football and there would have to be adjustment for currency and local variations
 
Gordyola said:
Something like this?

Under UEFA's new Financial Sustainability regulations, this squad cost ratio will be capped at 70% of club revenues from the 2025/26 season onwards, a reduction from 90% in 2023/24 and 80% in 2024/25. The PL is adopting a similar system, with plans to phase in squad control costs to replace the current Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) with a 85% limit on squad costs by the 2026/27 season.
Click to expand...
85% is generous
 
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