Forest docked 4 points

blueste41 said:
And other nonsense rubbish. Thankfully Kmlex "Karen on FB said" isn't admissible evidence!

View attachment 110800
Click to expand...
Says there is “information on the internet” that proves City is guilty of all charges…

Then references nonexistent court cases that City “keep losing”.

I am sure the moderators deemed their assertion to “follow house rules”.
 
Their argument is so weird. I understand entirely the desire to maximum profit from sale but they had all thd information at hand they knew they would fail PSR as it stood and knew the deadline, they actively chose to ignore the deadline for more money, they surely can't expect that to be an acceptable valid excuse.

Watching other clubs failures with PSR I'm finding to be very enjoyable because you can guarantee we get mentioned more than the breaching club itself and you can witness just how many people are too thick to understand the vastly differing situations and just how many will willingly make themselves look mentally challenged with stupid comments. It never fails to astound me how thick the vocal internet population really is.
 
Last edited:
paulchapo said:
Stan the man has spoken.

Click to expand...

The way people have the ability to make facts up and spout them as if they are known facts is incredulous.
1. The notion that just 2 clubs account for 65% of the revenue of 20 clubs is laughable.
2. The notion that those 2 are United and Liverpool even more so given that City have had the most televised games in recent seasons.
3. It's not all shared equally only 50% is, 25% is based on premier league finishing position and 25% based on "appearances"

united bottom.jpg
 
domalino said:
Yeah that would be great, and no club in the world would ever be able to build or expand a stadium again!!!

Like I said...someone with a mortgage is not less secure than a renter just because they have more debt.

And again, like I already said, debt is punished by FFP. The £900m United have paid to service their debt was counted as losses for FFP just as much as spending £900m on players would have.

Debt is a monumental red herring in the FFP conversation, it's never mattered except to City fans who see United having debt and think they're not getting punished enough.
Click to expand...

hmm...not sure I entirely agree with this reasoning. It almost sounds like something out of the 2008 Lehman Brothers playbook.

As FFP was 'apparently designed' to keep clubs sustainable surely increasing/continuing the amount of debt a club accumulates yr to yr is rather risky & not prudent business practice. Say for example, the banks decide to call it in as many clubs decide to go down this route basically surviving on then debt where it becomes insurmountable. Then as you state you would sell your remaining assets but essentially FFP has failed the club in its original goal in keeping it sustainable & most likely falling into administration. In my opinion there should be more restrictive measures on clubs accumulating debt on a continual basis such as signing bans (not transfer bans) until a certain debt threshold has been reached which ultimately is for the benefit of the long term sustainability of the club. Currently it seems some clubs arn't taking the debt levels seriously or simply content with the risk of FFP losses as they can still operate & 'play' within their operating environment similar to the go-hung traders of 2008 'playing' with leveraged debt.
 
paulchapo said:
When all these rules were put in place the owners of the cannon fodder in the league knew the score. They bent over and voted for them because they were happy to reap the benefits and put in as little money as possible. They condemned their clubs to mediocrity while pretending they were trying to compete. It's too late to cry it's unfair now. It always was unfair, that was the point. Don't like it? Get enough clubs onboard and fucking change it or shut the fuck up and keep getting shafted.
Click to expand...
Well said that man.
Absolutely brilliant post.
To all those clubs outside the Cartel Clubs - " You reap what you sow" !!!
 
blueste41 said:
The way people have the ability to make facts up and spout them as if they are known facts is incredulous.
1. The notion that just 2 clubs account for 65% of the revenue of 20 clubs is laughable.
2. The notion that those 2 are United and Liverpool even more so given that City have had the most televised games in recent seasons.
3. It's not all shared equally only 50% is, 25% is based on premier league finishing position and 25% based on "appearances"

View attachment 110815
Click to expand...
We provide the largest TV numbers stateside
 
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
✖
  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.