PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Keeper!]

I'm always intrigued when posters say this. What was the alternative when they were imposed upon us by the 13 clubs who voted for it ?

None but they are the rules, and if your not happy with them , you fight to change them.

Correct me if I am wrong but at no time did our owner/execs oppose FFP.

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

I think you'll find we voted against it's imposition in the first instance. How else were we supposed to oppose it?
I'm sure we and others must have lobbied against it as that's the only reason i can think of why Reading abstained from the vote effectively allowing it to be brought in.

We certainly objected to UEFA suggesting we broke FFP and only a brokered deal by Infantino allegedly stopped us legally challenging the very existence of FFP rules in UEFA competition. Hence the then infamous Khaldoon quotes regarding lawyering up for 30 years.

We have literally been forced to accept it's imposition in the formats proposed as we are part of a democratic collective in the PL and want and need to participate in European competition. We have no choice but to accept it. But to suggest we haven't opposed it, is in my opinion, nonsense.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Correct me if I am wrong but at no time did our owner/execs oppose FFP.

We voted against the introduction of the rules in the first place. The truth is that we don't know what has gone on behind closed doors since.

I'd be very interested to know whether it was a one-off vote given that the likes of Wigan and Reading are now nowhere to be seen or whether we have attempted to have the rules removed or appropriately amended since.

Especially so given that there have been other votes designed to scupper our business plan such as the recent motions trying to impose restrictions on inter-group player loans and "related'" party sponsorships which I expect we were lobbying hard over and which were defeated. There was also a vote on restrictions on Newcastle's sponsorship that we abstained from because our legal advice was that it was illegal. The PL passed it nonetheless but subsequently abandoned it, presumably although theyvwon't admit it, on the basis that the legal advice was found to be correct.

I'd put my house on it that whichever way the charges go, FFP will be dead in the water not long after the decision.

We aren't party to what goes on within the PL but I bet the politics rival anything that House of Cards had to offer. I hope, one day, it all comes out.

 

[M18CTID]

We voted against the introduction of the rules in the first place. The truth is that we don't know what has gone on behind closed doors since.

I'd be very interested to know whether it was a one-off vote given that the likes of Wigan and Reading are now nowhere to be seen or whether we have attempted to have the rules removed or appropriately amended since.

Especially so given that there have been other votes designed to scupper our business plan such as the recent motions trying to impose restrictions on inter-group player loans and "related'" party sponsorships which I expect we were lobbying hard over and which were defeated. There was also a vote on restrictions on Newcastle's sponsorship that we abstained from because our legal advice was that it was illegal. The PL passed it nonetheless but subsequently abandoned it, presumably although theyvwon't admit it, on the basis that the legal advice was found to be correct.

I'd put my house on it that whichever way the charges go, FFP will be dead in the water not long after the decision.

We aren't party to what goes on within the PL but I bet the politics rival anything that House of Cards had to offer. I hope, one day, it all comes out.

While we voted against the introduction of PL FFP and, as you rightly state, we’ve objected to certain other ideas that have been voted on, I don’t see why we would have wanted the FFP rules removed in the intervening period. Why? Because it can actually be argued that while we were always going to struggle to meet the break-even requirement during UEFA’s very first monitoring period, since then FFP has helped us as we were already well on our way to becoming a financial behemoth before the drawbridge was pulled up. If anything, if we didn’t have these bullshit charges hanging over us, we should be held up as a FFP success story and a shining example of how owner investment in all the right areas can grow a club so much.

 

[Keeper!]

We voted against the introduction of the rules in the first place. The truth is that we don't know what has gone on behind closed doors since.

I'd be very interested to know whether it was a one-off vote given that the likes of Wigan and Reading are now nowhere to be seen or whether we have attempted to have the rules removed or appropriately amended since.

Especially so given that there have been other votes designed to scupper our business plan such as the recent motions trying to impose restrictions on inter-group player loans and "related'" party sponsorships which I expect we were lobbying hard over and which were defeated. There was also a vote on restrictions on Newcastle's sponsorship that we abstained from because our legal advice was that it was illegal. The PL passed it nonetheless but subsequently abandoned it, presumably although theyvwon't admit it, on the basis that the legal advice was found to be correct.

I'd put my house on it that whichever way the charges go, FFP will be dead in the water not long after the decision.

We aren't party to what goes on within the PL but I bet the politics rival anything that House of Cards had to offer. I hope, one day, it all comes out.

I agree with all of that, our only mistake was not fighting FFP in the courts from day one.

 

[cheekybids]

Just a bit longer than my resume.

I’ve copied & pasted it….. should get me an interview at least ;)

 

[lancs blue]

We aren't party to what goes on within the PL but I bet the politics rival anything that House of Cards had to offer. I hope, one day, it all comes out.

There are a few candidates to be the one thrown off the roof of PL HQ.

 

[cheekybids]

In case anyone missed it, the list of PL champions if City and Chelsea had not broken the cosy cartel, particularly love spuds missing out to Chelsea in 2017.
This is THE MOTIVATION behind the 115, forget all the bollocks about sports-washing and human rights etc...

2023 arse
2022 lpool
2021 manu
2020 lpool
2019 lpool
2018 manu
2017 spurs pmsl
2016 leicester
2015 arse
2014 lpool
2013 manu
2012 manu
2011 manu
2010 manu
2009 manu
2008 manu
2007 manu
2006 manu
2005 arse
2004 arse
2003 manu
2002 arse
2001 manu
2000 manu

Leicester & Spurs wouldn’t have happened. The Rags wouldn’t have imploded, they’d have just carried on sweeping them all up.

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

It's going to be a looooong period of nothingness before there is anything of substance to discuss. The only things of note since the charges were laid are the Everton charge(s) and punishment, which is far removed from our case, and Mike Keegan giving a timeframe on when our case will be heard.

If Keegan is correct then the panel will sit next autumn with a verdict expected by summer 2025. The losing side will definitely appeal and Stefan reckons that will be done and dusted by summer 2026.

Sigh....

 

[eastmanc]

None but they are the rules, and if your not happy with them , you fight to change them.

Correct me if I am wrong but at no time did our owner/execs oppose FFP.

We couldn't oppose them. If they did we wouldn't be allowed to compete in the Premier League.