PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

MillionMilesAway said:
From a FFP perspective, because it was counted in the accounts as it was loaned. Loan 100M? Put 100M on the accounts as owner investment. If Abramovich wanted to run a company with a loan out of 1.5B, that's up to him.

The writing it off makes no difference to FFP.
Click to expand...
And this is why I am baffled, why would we need to supposedly inflate sponsorship when we could have just asked the owner for a loan of £100 million.
 
Fuzzy80 said:
I’m sure others will have different views, but Paddy Power take the absolute piss out of everyone and are normally pretty funny with it.

Out of all the media, at least they are consistent
Click to expand...
Yeah I have no problem with paddy Power doing something.
If the rags or Liverpool were in the same situation they would do it to them too.
 
abu13 said:
And this is why I am baffled, why would we need to supposedly inflate sponsorship when we could have just asked the owner for a loan of £100 million.
Click to expand...
Or even better. Why did we not just flood the club with debt. It is acceptable after all.

Oh no we would rather create a nationwide scandal and deceive the accounts. The accusations get sillier and sillier under any sort of scrutiny.
 
giphy.gif
 
Bazzmand Show said:
Ultimatley this is what FFP aims to do, block over investment from an owner - none of us agree with it and its a load of shit.

However if the club is proven to have breached the FFP laws which we signed up to, theres not a lot we can do.
Click to expand...
"Breeched" or worked tirelessly with progressive and creative ways to generate revenues? I firmly believe the cartel clubs thought they had it on lockdown and we proved that to not be the case. If what City did was a breech then why the need to change and implement new rules upon Newcastle being bought? Because City proved their restrictions weren't great enough for the cartel's needs thus the need to implement further restrictions. So we basically "breeched" rules that did not actually exist otherwise why exactly were "new" rules needed to ensure Newcastle could not do the same thing. Any of these negative legal experts on here care to explain that?
 
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.