PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

wolviedinho said:
Football dinosaurs like Sterling can’t and won’t accept like many in the wider football community, a successful Man City. It doesn’t matter how well we are run. They just will not see reason. It’s like covid deniers or brexiters. All he knows is a time when Liverpool, United and Arsenal were successful.

It’s a nostalgic career bias stand point. All his red mates feel the same. Bunch of cheats they can’t be as good as us.

Total Denial.
Click to expand...
The twats a Hartepool fan, says it all.

Met his son in a pub in Manc after the Brighton game this season and he said that when his dad walked through Darlington on his charity walk he needed protection.Told him that was utter bollox.
Apart from that he seemed a good lad.
 
M18CTID said:
Why would anyone be so stupid to think that the Premier League would issue a statement like that before the hearing had taken place?
Click to expand...

Probably because that was the deliberate implication given by a previously trusted source?

We can't all be as worldly wise as you apparently are on legal and accounting matters.

I don't blame anyone for making that assumption and I certainly wouldn't call them stupid.
 
The Daily Mail Nazi-supporting paper had the clearest breakdown online of the infamous 115 yesterday. As City approach Real tonight, Chelsea at the weekend and crucial league games, expect more breaking news segments across all the detritus newspapers and their social media sheep.
 
acton28.blog said:
The Daily Mail Nazi-supporting paper had the clearest breakdown online of the infamous 115 yesterday. As City approach Real tonight, Chelsea at the weekend and crucial league games, expect more breaking news segments across all the detritus newspapers and their social media sheep.
Click to expand...

I’ve noticed the article seems to sit on their main news page and has done for the last few days since City went top of the league. Go into their sports pages and there is not one article about City playing Madrid tonight. There is one about Jude Bellingham though.
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
I’ve noticed the article seems to sit on their main news page and has done for the last few days since City went top of the league. Go into their sports pages and there is not one article about City playing Madrid tonight. There is one about Jude Bellingham though.
Click to expand...
Ooh the JB hand shuffling is doing my noggin in. They love him, don't they?! Beeb also comparing JB to Foden. Hopefully one of our own will stand out tonight and the paper websites can go back to their 115 agenda. Surprised they don't have advertising banners for Ar$3nal and LiVARpool.
 
Mr Fraser said:
My interpretation is chelsea appear to have complied with guidelines. Guidelines not fit for purpose. Not sure what that purpose is tho
Click to expand...
I have said on a few occasions that targets drive behaviour and the reality is people like Bohley will be 100% aware of what the rules will say and he will almost certainly have had very clever people looking at the rules as written and see where there are “ holes”
I was hearing the word yesterday talking about the spirt of PSR that made me smile because as we witnessed when the EPL and EFL tried to pursue Leicester without any real complex legal arguments being applied a coach and horses was driven through the leagues ( plural) approach . There is no spirit in all this clubs will simply look after their own interests.
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
I’ve noticed the article seems to sit on their main news page and has done for the last few days since City went top of the league. Go into their sports pages and there is not one article about City playing Madrid tonight. There is one about Jude Bellingham though.
Click to expand...
And how snubbing City was the obviously correct decision.
 
waspish said:
Listing to talksprt apparently in the rules once you sell a property like Chelsea's did the premier had on it within 10 days of the sale! Seeing as it hasn't means they know it's dodgy when they did it 6 months ago
Click to expand...
It’s far from as simple as that

The sale took place circa 10 months ago the league will have had all sorts of submissions made one of which will have been the supply of future financial information in that information details of how any gap showing up under T or T+1 in PSR submissions would have been detailed. Had the PL not been happy with Chelsea’s submissions then they would have applied other requirements just as they did with Everton.

Stephan in the TS segment was understandably making a significant of assumptions but without inside knowledge most of those assumptions are simply guesswork
 
terraloon said:
It’s far from as simple as that

The sale took place circa 10 months ago the league will have had all sorts of submissions made one of which will have been the supply of future financial information in that information details of how any gap showing up under T or T+1 in PSR submissions would have been detailed. Had the PL not been happy with Chelsea’s submissions then they would have applied other requirements just as they did with Everton.

Stephan in the TS segment was understandably making a significant of assumptions but without inside knowledge most of those assumptions are simply guesswork
Click to expand...

Strange isn't it? How all these things are so secretive?

The PL should publish every clubs PSR calculation when they are accepted/challenged so everybody knows where everybody is. What are the reasons for secrecy on the PSR numbers?
 
halfcenturyup said:
Strange isn't it? How all these things are so secretive?

The PL should publish every clubs PSR calculation when they are accepted/challenged so everybody knows where everybody is. What are the reasons for secrecy on the PSR numbers?
Click to expand...

Transparency would expose the varying and inconsistent application of the rules. United being given a covid exception for 2022 that no one else received for example.
 
terraloon said:
It’s far from as simple as that

The sale took place circa 10 months ago the league will have had all sorts of submissions made one of which will have been the supply of future financial information in that information details of how any gap showing up under T or T+1 in PSR submissions would have been detailed. Had the PL not been happy with Chelsea’s submissions then they would have applied other requirements just as they did with Everton.

Stephan in the TS segment was understandably making a significant of assumptions but without inside knowledge most of those assumptions are simply guesswork
Click to expand...

Chelsea would have had their legal team look over this transaction and how it would have met the PSR rules. I say kudos for them for finding a loop hole, every club is at it and City have had a good go at it in the past. FFP was brought in to stop clubs going bust, this will not happen to Chelsea with a billionaire owner. It’s daft that clubs are resorting to shenanigans to get round rules that are only resulting with clubs spending less which means a lack of trickle down to teams in the lower leagues.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Excellent point :)
Click to expand...
I suppose it's not what you do it's the way that you do it.

The facade of various fairness rules giving apparently fair treatment for all clubs yet applied only when it suits the controlling clubs.

I think City are actually challenging this version of fairness by accepting a Panel composed of only PL chosen members.
 
Revolver said:
Without side tracking the thread the smug, smirking Stelling has gone down in my estimation.

How dare Manchester City stick up for themselves?
Click to expand...
Stelling’s been a bit of a snide **** about City ever since the takeover. I just can’t work out if it’s his own personal opinion or one that he’s parroting on behalf of his paymasters at Sky and Talkshite though.
 
Last edited:
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