PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

domalino said:
Like I said in the post it means some sort of financial control so that sport is more than who spends the most. Every sport has something different, but they all have something for a reason, which is that runaway unrestricted spending is shit for everyone not owned by the top 5 richest people in the sport.
Click to expand...
At the third time of asking, do you actually have "some sort of financial controls" to suggest or not?
 
KS55 said:
Note: some of the charges are specified as “not fulfilling UEFA Rules” and the time periods overlap.
Click to expand...

It's pretty clear most of the allegations are the same as those that were either rejected by CAS in 2020 for the years that weren't time limited, or were found by CAS in 2020 to be time limited (which makes sense as the two investigations are based on the same "evidence"), or were investigated and settled with UEFA in 2014 and not raised again in 2020.

The only thing that is new is Mancini and that is the least serious and most spurious of the allegations in my book.

So while it may be true to say the allegations aren't exactly the same as UEFA's 2020 charges / 2014 allegations, they have all, with the exception of Mancini, been defended previously either in 2014 or 2020.
 
Got to say myself with regards to spending and richer clubs, there needs to be a level; playing field and I dotnt like the idea that some clubs pay a luxury tax.. Thats pay to win. Fuck that. Fuck that if it was utd, lfc or City
 
Kazzydeyna said:
if the wider world of business had adopted the financial controls that some, ahem, City fan(s), are so in favour of, and arguing so vigorously in favour of, in this of all places, Marks and Spencer would still be a market stall in the East End. As would Tesco. As would J Sainsbury and we would all be buying our groceries on a daily basis from the local shopkeeper.
We wouldn't have fridges to store them in as the fridge manufacturers would have found it impossible to invest in their businesses and develop the technology and would have been legislated out of existence. We wouldnt have cars for the same reasons - the blacksmiths would have legislated the car makers out of existence.
We wouldnt have fitted kitchens, fitted bathrooms, 4k TV's, or very much of anything at all.
29 of the last 30 titles would have been won by the old money redshirts, infact probably 30 of 30 as Leicester would have been kept in the championship for 'cheating FFP'.
It is backward thinking, adopted by backward people.

An remember when reading this thread Blues:

If it looks like a rag twat, writes like a rag twat, and argues like a rag twat, it almost certainly isnt a City fan.
Click to expand...
Bravo... Nail on the head!
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
Got to say myself with regards to spending and richer clubs, there needs to be a level; playing field and I dotnt like the idea that some clubs pay a luxury tax.. Thats pay to win. Fuck that. Fuck that if it was utd, lfc or City
Click to expand...

It's a tricky problem to solve.

Fwiw, I favour no cost control in the PL as long as there is FFP at UEFA level (so that the top 7/8 must comply), but then a proactive monitoring of losses (you expect to make losses next year, put the equity in now) together with some proactive controls of debt/cash generation ratios, and on "community" assets.

Enough of these ineffective and dangerous retrospective rules.
 
Last edited:
Bluewonder said:
So, what would you propose?
Click to expand...

I think you have to start from the destination.

What do we want football to be?

I could write about ways to make it be competitive and have 3/4/5 way title, European and relegation battles, regularly rotating which teams are at the top and winning beyond “the top 4” but I feel like I’d get 20 comments from people who don’t want that and the whole thing would get derailed like the first post.

If you do want that then you have to narrow the gap between richest and poorest somehow, which means changing the revenue distribution, I’d definitely bring back ticket rev sharing because it would get rid of the arms race to exploit fans (5% ticket increase is less attractive when half is going to the other teams). Then you have to address the CL money problem, you’re always going to get a top 4 when 4th gets £60m extra a year to defend that position against 5th.

The ideas are easy, the difficulty is that you’re trying to bring in a system that benefits the poorer smaller players in the sport and hurts the big players by taking away their advantages.
 
terraloon said:
I don’t really want to intrude but the bulk of the charges aren’t using PSR rules they fall elsewhere in the wider PL rule book.
Click to expand...
Agreed, which are governed by FFP/PSR.

Also they're not charges, they're allegations of rule breaches.

Cutting to the chase, they're essentially accusing City of industrial scale fraud. The question is, why've they never used the term, & as per the CAS ruling, where's their evidence?
 
terraloon said:
I don’t really want to intrude but the bulk of the charges aren’t using PSR rules they fall elsewhere in the wider PL rule book.
Click to expand...

But they have been instigated purely with the desired outcome (for the PL) of the club failing FFP.

They want to restate the accounts for Etihad's and possibly Etisalat's "disguised equity funding", the fair value of those and other AD sponsorships, Mancini's salary, the Fordham expenses, the sales of IP and the rest so that the club fails FFP.

I thought that was pretty clear.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
Got to say myself with regards to spending and richer clubs, there needs to be a level; playing field and I dotnt like the idea that some clubs pay a luxury tax.. Thats pay to win. Fuck that. Fuck that if it was utd, lfc or City
Click to expand...
A level playing field has never existed in English football since the league structure started in 1888. Preston went out and signed some top players of the time on big wages and won the first two titles until a few of the others started to follow suit. Then came the maximum wage and retain and transfer system. The maximum wage wasn't difficult to get around, Chapman's Arsenal did it by their directors creating "ghost" jobs in their own companies for their top players. The nearest to a level playing field was probably in the 60s and early 70s - ironically after the maximum wage was abolished - 7 different champions in 7 seasons from 65/66 to 71/72.
 
domalino said:
I think you have to start from the destination.

What do we want football to be?

I could write about ways to make it be competitive and have 3/4/5 way title, European and relegation battles, regularly rotating which teams are at the top and winning beyond “the top 4” but I feel like I’d get 20 comments from people who don’t want that and the whole thing would get derailed like the first post.

If you do want that then you have to narrow the gap between richest and poorest somehow, which means changing the revenue distribution, I’d definitely bring back ticket rev sharing because it would get rid of the arms race to exploit fans (5% ticket increase is less attractive when half is going to the other teams). Then you have to address the CL money problem, you’re always going to get a top 4 when 4th gets £60m extra a year to defend that position against 5th.

The ideas are easy, the difficulty is that you’re trying to bring in a system that benefits the poorer smaller players in the sport and hurts the big players by taking away their advantages.
Click to expand...
Your last point just about sums up why any idea you or anyone else comes up with would never be accepted. Can you imagine going to the cartel with this kind of thing 15 - 20 years ago. You would be in a straitjacket.

Its like asking Apple to share profits from IPhone sales to other manufacturers because 'its not fair'.
 
calum down said:
kim gordon disagrees with this post

giphy.gif

tumblr_o2v1pn9cFm1tr11rio1_500.gif

giphy.gif

giphy.gif
Click to expand...

MillisleBlue said:
We're all a few decades older now but any excuse to post this:

View attachment 114637
Click to expand...
I’m just Wilde about Kim
 
cheekybids said:
Don’t be a dick. The charges are all based on allegations that came from the Der Spiegel leaks. So no they haven’t faced 115 charges from the premier league but all charges have come from the same source of information & our execs have stated we have irrefutable evidence & I have no reason to doubt considering our execs seem calm as fuck & the results of CAS showed just how amateur & prejudiced the UEFA case was.

As I also said if the premier league was confident with their evidence they wouldn’t have loaded 115 charges. They’d go big on 1 or 2 years on the most likeable conviction & get it over & done with.
Click to expand...
Good luck with that first sentence. I’m sure he’s related to my extremely argumentative ex-wife…. ;0)
 
Was reading some of the CASS verdict this morning provided by one of the posters. Obviously some of the text is boring and repetitive, but one of the things I took away from it was the many references / mention of FFP and the importance of it to football (and the EU 'guidance' issues on the challenge to it) and how important it was that City did not minimalise it's importance by their actions (non cooperation).

Trouble is, if it was so perfect then - why does it need changing now?
 
This is potentially a stupid question and I apologise if so. Some of the charges that have been thrown our way is that we failed UEFAs ffp (I think). Now this got me wondering if that is a charge for us shouldn’t UTD also be charged with failing UEFA FFP?

I don’t think I have seen this answered anywhere but apologise if it has.
 
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