PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Joe Donachie]

If you want to sound less silly you need to stop using an exclaimation mark after every single sentence.

Although the above post amused me because the only sentence you didn't use one (the last one) was the only one that actually merited one.

Oh no your one of them Cheshire flat caps in the Colin bell stand.

 

[bluenova]

The idea plainly isn’t for clubs not to make losses, or losses wouldn’t be manifestly allowable.

But the idea isn't to encourage losses - it's to accept that they may occur, but to try and minimise them.

It makes sense for it to be higher when the rules are introduced, as clubs will have contracts with players, outstanding transfer fees etc.

Increasing the amounts involved would suggest that losses are fine.

To put the £213m that Kieran Maguire mentions in context; while it's not enough to help any club compete with the top Premier League clubs, it's still a significant amount to lose. There are only twenty football clubs in the World with yearly revenues higher than that figure.

 

[dadnlad]

I hope they are using legal aid and not employing expensive lawyers.

hi simon

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

But the idea isn't to encourage losses - it's to accept that they may occur, but to try and minimise them.

It makes sense for it to be higher when the rules are introduced, as clubs will have contracts with players, outstanding transfer fees etc.

Increasing the amounts involved would suggest that losses are fine.

To put the £213m that Kieran Maguire mentions in context; while it's not enough to help any club compete with the top Premier League clubs, it's still a significant amount to lose. There are only twenty football clubs in the World with yearly revenues higher than that figure.

Good points there.

I actually don't give a rats arse about clubs that are falling foul of PSR as they couldn't care less about our club. We don't have a PSR problem unless the actual charges we are facing are proven - namely that our owner injected large sums into the club via fraudulent means. I doubt that but if it were the case then we would have a much bigger problem than a few points deducted.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

But the idea isn't to encourage losses - it's to accept that they may occur, but to try and minimise them.

It makes sense for it to be higher when the rules are introduced, as clubs will have contracts with players, outstanding transfer fees etc.

Increasing the amounts involved would suggest that losses are fine.

To put the £213m that Kieran Maguire mentions in context; while it's not enough to help any club compete with the top Premier League clubs, it's still a significant amount to lose. There are only twenty football clubs in the World with yearly revenues higher than that figure.

I never said the idea was to encourage losses, that would (somehow) be even more absurd than the current rules.

I was merely responding to what you said (whilst citing logic) namely that the idea of the rules is for clubs not to make losses, when the rules expressly allow losses. If the idea was for clubs not to make losses, then that it surely (and logically) what the rules would provide for.

The idea is plainly to limit losses, and that limited losses are actually ‘fine’ in certain circumstances - and on that basis it is logical and warranted to increase those allowable losses to reflect inflationary changes in wages and transfer fees etc... especially given the period involved, namely 11 years.

 

[bluenova]

I never said the idea was to encourage losses, that would (somehow) be even more absurd than the current rules.

I was merely responding to what you said (whilst citing logic) namely that the idea of the rules is for clubs not to make losses, when the rules expressly allow losses. If the idea was for clubs not to make losses, then that it surely (and logically) what the rules would provide for.

The idea is plainly to limit losses, and that limited losses are actually ‘fine’ in certain circumstances - and on that basis it is logical and warranted to increase those allowable losses to reflect inflationary changes in wages and transfer fees etc... especially given the period involved, namely 11 years.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just suggesting that there's a logical argument for the amounts involved not to increase with inflation.

I think we both agree that the PL doesn't want to encourage losses, even if it tolerates some. I also agree that you can make a case for increasing the allowable losses with inflation.

I'm simply saying that there is also a logical argument for the original figure being high (to give clubs time to comply), while gradually being eroded. At some point the £105m may become problematically small, but given that the only clubs to fall foul of it, are the obvious basket cases of Everton and Forest, and repeat offenders Leicester, I'm not convinced it's too low*.

*while accepting it is too low if you want clubs to compete with the top 6.

 

[ShaunMCFC]

“1, 2, 1, 1, 5 we’re Man City and we’re on the bribe”

 

[give it to gordon]

football is a mess and the greed of the 3 red tops +1 look set on destroy our game.

These clubs that are being charged arent in a financial mess. It is ridiculous that you can huge debt fail the UEFA ffp but still pass the pl ffp

How can football allow rags to be nearly a billion in debt, a stadium that is falling down, roof leaks like a sieve, cant even put a big screen in the swamp, rags want the tax payers to pay for a new stadium. All this is ok under ffp it's a fucking joke.

Why other clubs are now waking up to it is beyond me, it was obvious want was the plan was. But still these clubs bang on 'what about City'. Bloody hell we arent the bad guys it's the 3 red tops +1 who are the bad guys.

 

[deano ou812]

I'm beginning to wonder if this shit show is now being done internationally.
Masters and the rest of his shit cunts have backed themselves into a corner with seemingly no way out.
That is unless the independent regulator takes it out of their hands and then the PL can say "well we tried but it was taken out of our hands"
Saving face in the process.
As it stands it doesn't look like they could run a bath.
The whole thing is a mess and they are destroying the PL from within.

Maybe that’s their intention destroy it and a new format/league pops up ..

 

[KS55]

But the idea isn't to encourage losses - it's to accept that they may occur, but to try and minimise them.

It makes sense for it to be higher when the rules are introduced, as clubs will have contracts with players, outstanding transfer fees etc.

Increasing the amounts involved would suggest that losses are fine.

To put the £213m that Kieran Maguire mentions in context; while it's not enough to help any club compete with the top Premier League clubs, it's still a significant amount to lose. There are only twenty football clubs in the World with yearly revenues higher than that figure.

It’s £71 per season. A tiny amount. The cost of a decent midfielder.