PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

There're not and also they can be funded by any means necessary so it can come straight from Mansour without any of it going on the books. The media are idiots
Didn’t CFG pay for our last case? Our lawyers were billed in the court documents as “For CFG………” iirc.
 
Are you sure?

They do get included in the books, as we saw post cas. Whether they are part of the assessment though I don't really know.
Everything has to go through the books as with any business, what I was talking about is, my understanding is that legal bills external to on the field matters such as players contracts, are not a part of the FFP equation, much the same as infrastructure building related legal costs aren't. I may be wrong, happy to be corrected
 
Everything has to go through the books as with any business, what I was talking about is, my understanding is that legal bills external to on the field matters such as players contracts, are not a part of the FFP equation, much the same as infrastructure building related legal costs aren't. I may be wrong, happy to be corrected
The idea that we could fail P & S regs as a result a few million quids worth of legal bills shows once again how deluded Simon Jordan is.

We've won every single major honour in the last year apart from the Carabao Cup FFS.
 
That's true but American owners would prefer a draft system like in the NHL, NFL, NBA it spreads the talent around the franchises, makes it more "Equal" sporting wise its what they understand .and can manipulate.

More than anything they want to get rid relegation system altogether so there will be no need to invest for the club and just happily get their money from it each season.
 

Is £105m high enough?

Extract from The Athletic 17th January 2024.

Kieran Maguire, a football finance expert and host of The Price of Football podcast, suggests there is an argument for the £105million to be increased in line with football inflation.

“The inflation issue for PSR is that there’s a case for saying that the original allowable loss of £105m should take into account changing circumstances concerning clubs’ buying power and acceptable losses,” Maguire told The Athletic.

Since the three-year figure was set in 2013, football-related prices have gone up, whether that is player wages or transfer fees.

“Inflation eats away at buying power and in taxation, this is addressed by increasing the personal allowance (the amount you can earn before you start paying tax),” Maguire adds. “Failure to do this creates ‘fiscal drag’ where more and more people are captured by tax and higher tax rates.

“I applied the same principle to Premier League PSR and took the 2013 wages and compared them to 2022 (and a few clubs for 2023). If £105m was deemed fair in 2013, then adjusted for current wages, £218m would be ‘fair’ now.”

If the allowable losses had risen in line with football inflation to £218m, then Everton, Nottingham Forest, Leicester (maybe Chelsea) would have been well within the limit and Newcastle would have been able to spend more freely.

The main reason for the current mess appears to be the PL failure to include an allowance for inflation in their 3 year threshold calculations.
 
someone said about gaining a sporting advantage by spending money.isnt that the whole point of investing in your squad.if they want everyone equal set a salary cap the same for everyone
Yes it is and for a century investment and efficient management have been seen as the only path to progress in every sphere of activity. In the UK investment levels have lagged behind those in other European, North American and, increasingly, Asian countries and the effects are showing. In football, though, the PL has chosen to pursue a policy of levelling down so that investment eludes those clubs which most need it.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.