PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[norman]

Good post, but who are the several clubs that went to the wall ? My idea of going to the wall is a business closing down permanently , liquidation , door shut with redundancies, Leeds being the perfect example, yes there financial situation meant relegation down the divisions, but they never went to the wall, its called business, sometimes you fail and suffer the consequences. Its nothing more than a closed shop now, which is a disgrace. Newcastle will never ever live the dream that we have, and its such a shame tbph. Sport IS business whether we like it or not, agreed, there has to be a new system implemented, football is very gradually killing the dreams for the match going fan. One of the CL places, even a fifth place maybe should go to the winner of the FA Cup, that opens the dream for far more clubs than just the top four.

And City to a degree back in the day
spot on

 

[halfcenturyup]

The difference being is back then the Premier League supporting cast could still dream of winning the lottery & joining the scrap for honours at the top table.

Now even the richest club in the world have found their wealth is useless, because the Cartel Clubs have introduced financial rules designed to stop anyone from being able to challenge them.

Newcastle are reportedly being forced to sell SEVEN players, Almiron, Joelinton, Wilson, Botman, Isak, Guimarães & Trippier JUST to avoid the same PSR fate as Everton, let alone to allow them to be able to reinvest in their ageing injury hit squad.

The question is, would you rather the PL as it is now with FFP/PSR, or as it was 20 years ago when ambitious clubs were allowed to dream?

UEFA were rightly concerned about clubs like Leeds, Portsmouth, Fiorentina, Parma, Rangers etc over extending themselves, with over-ambitious owners levying huge debts on their clubs, sending several to the wall as they chased the dream. This is what the original iteration of FFP was supposed to prevent, not minted owners investing their own money to compete with the elite.

I do believe there should be a level of financial controls to prevent clubs from spending themselves into extinction, but not what we have today, where only the clubs at the very top stand to benefit.

Damn. Can't argue with that, either.

 

[hammocity]

Nothing has stopped me wearing my City colours out and about. Nobody has said a word to me, if they do I will happily engage them in a robust conversation about the merits of the allegations against our great club, failing that they will get what I have always found to an effective repost to anti City sentiments right back to my youth, a fist in the face.

I always wear this badge, it’s not offensive as it’s so small but it just feels good to know my loathing of those fuckers is on display.

 

[Manchester33]

The problem is that the money involved is at multi-billionaire/state level. Our owners put in around £1.5b and in addition could influence sponsorship deals from Abu Dhabi to add a significant sum on top of that. But Liverpool, for example, have three times the revenue that had in 2008.

If a team from mid-table, even a big city one with the fans/infrastructure, wanted to compete, then they could need £4b+ invested. That's absolutely crazy - and way above even your suggestions.

Even then, Newcastle could afford whatever they want - but Everton could quite easily bankrupted themselves well before they got anywhere near the lower figures you suggested.

The only way you're going to get competition back in any meaningful way, is to reduce the revenues of the richest clubs. Either football is a sport, or it's a business, but it can't be both.

A sensible form of FFP would be:

1 - Owners can 'invest' money into their club without reprimand.
2 - Clubs who go into debt/loan money have a spend limit/strict transfer limits they must adhere to until debt is repaid in full

That would safeguard our clubs from extinction, which was the guise FFP was brought in to achieve (we all know the real purpose of FFP though).

 

[hammocity]

A sensible form of FFP would be:

1 - Owners can 'invest' money into their club without reprimand.
2 - Clubs who go into debt/loan money have a spend limit/strict transfer limits they must adhere to until debt is repaid in full

That would safeguard our clubs from extinction, which was the guise FFP was brought in to achieve (we all know the real purpose of FFP though).

Far too sensible and divisive for the debt laden red shirts.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Do it the right way v The Cheats,
media week.

And surprise (not) look who our next game is.

 

[Mancity1980]

The lack of information from city and the EPL as well as the curious “we can’t tell you the date yet” makes me think that the footballing authority are trying to sort out a face saving deal and we are playing hard ball. Interesting times ahead blues, it wouldn’t surprise me if there is suddenly an unexpected announcement.

 

[ZanteWeatherman]

Me too, alongside the inevitable non-cooperation fine again.

Tribalism will use it as a stick to poke at us forever anyway.

Everyone seems to be banging on about us not co-operating with the PL enquiries. However, after the CAS bollocks, I suspect we would have. Wtf. Does anyone know, I suspect not.

 

[cheekybids]

The difference being is back then the Premier League supporting cast could still dream of winning the lottery & joining the scrap for honours at the top table.

Now even the richest club in the world have found their wealth is useless, because the Cartel Clubs have introduced financial rules designed to stop anyone from being able to challenge them.

Newcastle are reportedly being forced to sell SEVEN players, Almiron, Joelinton, Wilson, Botman, Isak, Guimarães & Trippier JUST to avoid the same PSR fate as Everton, let alone to allow them to be able to reinvest in their ageing injury hit squad.

The question is, would you rather the PL as it is now with FFP/PSR, or as it was 20 years ago when ambitious clubs were allowed to dream?

UEFA were rightly concerned about clubs like Leeds, Portsmouth, Fiorentina, Parma, Rangers etc over extending themselves, with over-ambitious owners levying huge debts on their clubs, sending several to the wall as they chased the dream. This is what the original iteration of FFP was supposed to prevent, not minted owners investing their own money to compete with the elite.

I do believe there should be a level of financial controls to prevent clubs from spending themselves into extinction, but not what we have today, where only the clubs at the very top stand to benefit.

I’m sorry but I don’t believe they were concerned in the slightest about Leeds or any other clubs.

 

[bluenova]

A sensible form of FFP would be:

1 - Owners can 'invest' money into their club without reprimand.
2 - Clubs who go into debt/loan money have a spend limit/strict transfer limits they must adhere to until debt is repaid in full

That would safeguard our clubs from extinction, which was the guise FFP was brought in to achieve (we all know the real purpose of FFP though).

For years before it was introduced FFP was about debt. Platini called United and Madrid cheats because of it.

And then for some reason (I can'£ imagin£ what it wa£), things changed.

I'm still not convinced we just let a spending race develop. The reality is that the huge gap to the super clubs is new, and it's at a level that is unbreachable for almost all owners. We need to stop using Newcastle as a benchmark for owners with their hands tied - their owners have vastly more disposable cash than anyone else in the World.

If you look at the list of richest people in the UK, there are probably only two that are rich enough to take on a Premier League club successfully. That can't be sustainable.