PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Spanishbob]

It’s a desperate move by the Premier league to try and nail City for accounts 14 years ago. This is when Financial Fair Play was not being used in the Premier League and many football administrators were interpreting new rule books and guidelines that were coming into play. Yet they will allow the likes of United to take a fine when they probably knew what spending they would be doing would break their balance sheet. Chelsea are also budgeting for what ever sanctions will come their way with their transfer activity as well, they ain’t talking about stripping titles and demotions for any of the two mentioned teams.

The challenges and time scale of what ever verdict is reached as far as City goes, means that their could still be arguments and awaiting of sanctions nearly two decades after the first accounts that the Premier League are saying are wrong were filed. It doesn’t make the Premier League look very competent at enforcing its own rule book.

Stinks to high heaven doesn’t it.

 

[Cumbie Blue]

Have to say this Chelsea spending is concerning overall. Not concerned as such about the legality of the accounting methods (amortisation and all that) or a stronger Chelsea side in the PL this season to challenge as we go for 4 in a row but its a gamble against getting back into the UCL spaces at a time when the PL is more competitive now then it ever has been for a top 4 space. The PL has been here before with clubs spending / borrowing against future success and UCL qualification (Leeds 97-2001) and its not ended well. Surely the PL should be in dialogue with Chelsea about the sustainability of this model now to consider the risk of a similar situation as well as going through accounts of financially profitable / sustainable clubs for the last 15 years?

 

[Bazzmand Show]

People always shift the goal posts with this stuff though and will say "derrrr but go back to 2010".

 

[Newman Noggs]

The PL has been here before with clubs spending / borrowing against future success and UCL qualification (Leeds 97-2001) and its not ended well.

In what sense did that not end well ? The only problem with what Leeds did was that they were unable to invest sufficient to maintain the momentum long enough to fight off the richer clubs.

 

[Grassland Blue]

Have to say this Chelsea spending is concerning overall. Not concerned as such about the legality of the accounting methods (amortisation and all that) or a stronger Chelsea side in the PL this season to challenge as we go for 4 in a row but its a gamble against getting back into the UCL spaces at a time when the PL is more competitive now then it ever has been for a top 4 space. The PL has been here before with clubs spending / borrowing against future success and UCL qualification (Leeds 97-2001) and its not ended well. Surely the PL should be in dialogue with Chelsea about the sustainability of this model now to consider the risk of a similar situation as well as going through accounts of financially profitable / sustainable clubs for the last 15 years?

It's top 5 now.

 

[Rochdale Blue]

Top Marx for Engels

Off you Trotsky.

 

[Gazza]

In what sense did that not end well ? The only problem with what Leeds did was that they were unable to invest sufficient to maintain the momentum long enough to fight off the richer clubs.

Do you mean apart from having to have a fire sale of players, getting relegated, going into administration, having points deducted and getting relegated again?

 

[Gazza]

Off you Trotsky.

Don't get bolshie.

 

[Centurions]

Do you mean apart from having to have a fire sale of players, getting relegated, going into administration, having points deducted and getting relegated again?

Thinking about it, perhaps that was NN's point?

 

[jockblue]

In what sense did that not end well ? The only problem with what Leeds did was that they were unable to invest sufficient to maintain the momentum long enough to fight off the richer clubs.

Yes, poor old Leeds didn't back up massive spending to try and break into the sport's elite by having a billionaire owner able to handle the loss if, by any chance, it didn't work.

As we know, our owner could easily have afforded to take the hit if we hadn't broken through into the football elite. Remains to see how Chelsea's owners would deal with it if they don't break back into the CL elite, or, heaven forbid, UEFA or the PL stop them from doing it via pesky "ladder-up" rules they've introduced to stop that sort of thing happening. Ironically introduced when Chelsea were one of the elite...