PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

chaddblue said:
Liverpool and Arsenal spend unprecedented mountains of money in the summer transfer window.... and is if by magic, PSR disappears in a puff of smoke
Click to expand...
Tbf under the current rules both are comfortably within the rules.

We have spent similar amounts (net) over last 12 months or so and we are also well within the rules.
 
slbsn said:
Imagine bothering with that post! Gratuitous
Click to expand...

The thing is, a lot of the time it isn't a gratuitous affection. Context matters. A throw-away comment on a general, but missed the point.
 
Centurions said:
Surely they'll still have to comply with PSR up until it's replaced (the last 2 seasons plus this 1?), although I can't see how they manage the transition. Can they just pretend PSR didn't exist and start from scratch?

They're also talking about this "top to bottom anchoring (TBA)" which "caps the amount any club can spend as a multiple of the income earned by the league's bottom side", so £140mill (2023-24 season) x 3 say, gives us £420mill max to spend on transfers, wages & agent fees which would hamper the top 6 clubs but of course the rest (including Newcastle) couldn't afford that anyway if the 85% applies too. The relegated clubs in 2023-24 would have had just a £120mill spend limit.

I can't see how any of this helps to "level out the playing field", I think football is fucked no matter how you look at it.
Click to expand...
I reckon they’ll say we are starting from scratch, whatever has happened just leave it and have a reset, they’ve been told this behind closed doors. Everyone starts from zero.
 
Centurions said:
Surely they'll still have to comply with PSR up until it's replaced (the last 2 seasons plus this 1?), although I can't see how they manage the transition. Can they just pretend PSR didn't exist and start from scratch?

They're also talking about this "top to bottom anchoring (TBA)" which "caps the amount any club can spend as a multiple of the income earned by the league's bottom side", so £140mill (2023-24 season) x 3 say, gives us £420mill max to spend on transfers, wages & agent fees which would hamper the top 6 clubs but of course the rest (including Newcastle) couldn't afford that anyway if the 85% applies too. The relegated clubs in 2023-24 would have had just a £120mill spend limit.

I can't see how any of this helps to "level out the playing field", I think football is fucked no matter how you look at it.
Click to expand...
I've said it before but the Premier League isn't thinking about itself. It should be aiming to snap up all of the best talent in the world. Instead it's trying to hinder clubs for no apparent reason (well there is a sinister reason but we'll ignore that).
 
Marvin. said:
Why do people persist in writing 'Personally, I...'? It's a gratuitous affectation. If you have something to say, be precise, and 'I' is sufficient here.
Click to expand...
It’s being polite in my, personal, opinion!

Social Media is just a conversation and it’s the same as saying “you might not agree” or “in my humble opinion” or “are you talking out of your arse”.

Okay maybe not the last one.
 
slbsn said:
I am not surprised by NvW's post. It is broadly consistent with what I have heard. Neither party had the result as of recently and both were confident of prevailing.
Click to expand...
Still a mystery to me as to why the PL would want to prevail. They suspected one of their members was not abiding by the rules and started an investigation. They then farmed it out to an independent panel to make a judgement.
I would have thought that the panel coming back with a decision there was no wrong doing on City's part, would be a much more satisfactory conclusion for the PL.
 
Citizen of Legoland said:
It’s being polite in my, personal, opinion!

Social Media is just a conversation and it’s the same as saying “you might not agree” or “in my humble opinion” or “are you talking out of your arse”.

Okay maybe not the last one.
Click to expand...

Could you please remember to strip all personal meanings from your posts in future.
 
Gingers Dad said:
Still a mystery to me as to why the PL would want to prevail. They suspected one of their members was not abiding by the rules and started an investigation. They then farmed it out to an independent panel to make a judgement.
I would have thought that the panel coming back with a decision there was no wrong doing on City's part, would be a much more satisfactory conclusion for the PL.
Click to expand...

That's if the PL were a truly neutral organisation rather than being a collection of our rivals who want us to fail.
 
Gingers Dad said:
Still a mystery to me as to why the PL would want to prevail. They suspected one of their members was not abiding by the rules and started an investigation. They then farmed it out to an independent panel to make a judgement.
I would have thought that the panel coming back with a decision there was no wrong doing on City's part, would be a much more satisfactory conclusion for the PL.
Click to expand...
True but now personal reputations are at stake.
 
Gingers Dad said:
Still a mystery to me as to why the PL would want to prevail. They suspected one of their members was not abiding by the rules and started an investigation. They then farmed it out to an independent panel to make a judgement.
I would have thought that the panel coming back with a decision there was no wrong doing on City's part, would be a much more satisfactory conclusion for the PL.
Click to expand...

You’re absolutely right - in theory.

But the PL have clearly taken a partisan approach to this case from the start, abandoning any opportunity for neutrality to stridently side with the protectionist US-owned lobby within the Clubs it represents.

The PL has clearly taken a strategic decision that this is the bloc which will shape the future direction of the League, and their interests are best served by supporting their agenda.

No doubt aided by the circumstances of Masters’ recruitment, and the raft of rejections the League received from far better qualified candidates once the reality of the role was made clear to them.

Masters is the US lobby’s man, and is doing their bidding.

Our case, and the PL’s attitude towards it, has to be viewed in this context.
 
slbsn said:
I am not surprised by NvW's post. It is broadly consistent with what I have heard. Neither party had the result as of recently and both were confident of prevailing.
Click to expand...
If there was any substance to support the Premier League's confidence then surely the club would not have allowed it get this far.
 
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