PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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

I fully expect that will shortly be proscribed by statute.

No way is the UK government going to allow pretty much the only decent export we have left to be asset stripped and/or broken up.

 

[bluenova]

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

To be fair, that is a tiny amount :)

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Known losses or unknown losses?

 

[KS55]

To be fair, that is a tiny amount :)

Oops!

 

[Lord Blue]

Personally i don't think they should be deducting points for first offences. or laying fines.
i think transfer bans are one early punishment (can sell but can't spend).
squad size reductions another.

 

[Heath Park]

No idea how Stephan kept calm with Jordan interrupting all the time with smart arsed nonsense, all the time with Jim White grinning gormlessly.

 

[bluenova]

Oops!

I know what you mean though - It's a tiny amount if you want to compete, but if your aim is to keep losses at a reasonable level, a third of your revenue a year seems a little risky.

 

[I'm Blue]

No idea how Stephan kept calm with Jordan interrupting all the time with smart arsed nonsense, all the time with Jim White grinning gormlessly.

I’m surprised Jim whites voice isn’t muffled considering how far his head is up Jordan’s arse.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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.

But it's not logical. If a club declares a loss of £125m in year t-2, breaks even in t-1, and then reports a £15m profit in t-0, they'll in theory fail PSR as their aggregate losses are £110m. If those figures were reversed, so they report a £10m profit in t-2, break even in t-1, then report a £125m loss in t-0, they're clearly in a worse situation than in the first scenario, despite reporting exactly the same aggregate losses. What happened 3 years ago has little or no bearing on the current situation or future prospects.

As an example, as at May 2008, our aggregate losses over 2006-2008 were £25m. We'd have easily passed PSR. Yet on July 1st 2008 we couldn't pay the £15m due for the previous summer's transfers, and were days away from going into administration.

There is simply no way you could describe a system of financial regulation that supposedly encourages sustainability, but would allow that to happen, as 'logical'.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

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

Oh fucking hell it’s you. Welcome back mate. There won’t be many left from those days :-)