PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

ChicagoBlue said:
The Athletic has another article explaining the difference between us and the Everton/Forest situations. Too bad the trolls won’t read it or understand the difference!
Click to expand...

Yes, they have had a couple of good articles about this recently. Credit where credit is due.

Even Stone tried his best to explain the differences Everton/ Forest/ City. He did get pretty much all the facts wrong, though.
 
Bluesince1979 said:
Do you not think a huge part of owners like Kenwright voting for FFP was to limit ambition for his own club ? By introducing FFP it meant he didnt have to stick his hands in his own pocket and could turn to the fans and say, “sorry we cant spend because of FFP”.
Id say in a lot of cases it wasnt about doing the best for their clubs , more themselves.

If Kenwright was such a big Evertonian, would he not want a rich sheik to come in and transform his club and its area? He had that chance and greed and narcissism meant he stopped himself doing so.
Click to expand...
You are right mate. In addition, football is about competition, FFP limits the competition by cementing the financial strength of the clubs, therefore it is per definition bad for football. What is bad for football is also bad for Everton. QED, I do not buy that he did what was best for his club.
 
Timescales are very tight for a final outcome. You'd imagine a judgement on both clubs will have to be delivered by early March so that they have sufficient time to prepare an appeal, have it heard and then receive a final judgement by June 1st.


Thankfully the PL are on it and have it all covered....
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It’s no wonder that previous successful candidates turned down their job offers for Masters’ role; although if you step back it’s actually pretty astonishing that people go to the trouble of applying for a job like that, with all the prep involved, all the emotional energy that’s required to be part of that process, with all the opportunities the role could present, and after being offered the role they turn it down like it’s working a few weekend shifts part time at the local.

Presumably they sought assurances that were not forthcoming.
Click to expand...
I am thinking that they were required to 'give assurances' regarding pursuing a certain agenda on behalf of certain clubs and they were too professional to do so
 
Bluesince1979 said:
Do you not think a huge part of owners like Kenwright voting for FFP was to limit ambition for his own club ? By introducing FFP it meant he didnt have to stick his hands in his own pocket and could turn to the fans and say, “sorry we cant spend because of FFP”.
Id say in a lot of cases it wasnt about doing the best for their clubs , more themselves.
Click to expand...
fergie's " there is no value in the market" ( zab/vinny/hart-13.5m) got him a seat upstairs on more money than when he was managing...a beautiful move ( for a socialist) to be honest.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Agree 100 per cent. Perhaps Masters is even more stupid than anyone thought was possible. He and the PL board started off with the intention of trying to avoid an independent regulator but the way they have handled the City allegations, and now Everton and Forest, is the biggest possible advert for independent regulation. English football is a multi billion pund industry and the PL leaders are not qualified for the role they have been given.
Click to expand...

Exactly BOQ.

Charging this many teams also suggests their rules aren’t fit for purpose, as a lot of clubs are struggling to adhere to them.
 
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.