PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Dribble]

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.

The clubs I mentioned all legally went to the wall. Fortunately new owners were found, the assets bought & new companies under new names were formed, albeit the clubs unofficially continued to be known by their previous names.

Agreed 100% with Newcastle's crazy situation, but it's what they voted for after being convinced by the Cartel Clubs that their best interests were served by hammering City, so we rejoined them in the chasing pack. The reality that they were merely used is now dawning on them.

Agreed with the FA Cup proposal. Perhaps it's a way of introducing a wildcard element, but cam you seriously see the Red Top Mafia & Spuds agreeing to this?

 

[M18CTID]

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.

Just thinking about this and might Newcastle be better off hanging on to all those players and taking the 10 point hit? Selling them all could end up costing them a lot more than 10 points

 

[wolviedinho]

it doesn't feel that difficult.

Independent Panel - "Lack of context justified our investigation but with the benefit of full context, we have come to the conclusion that everything is in order. "

It all depends on the 3 panel members. Which is absurd! Who are these people and how truly independent are they?

Words can be twisted, evidence can be ignored. What you have suggested would mean the league backtracking from fraud to blaming city for not disclosing information. It would be a great result for the club.

We just don’t know what games are being played here. The whole case is shrouded in mystery.

 

[bluenova]

Jesus, they’re now discussing this meeting that all the clubs have had with the sports minister… Even Jordan is saying they need to find out if other clubs have had the same meeting.. It’s so desperate.

So, they managed to read the article about City having a meeting, but completely missed the one that said lots of other clubs had meetings with the minister too?

How convenient.

 

[Dribble]

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

UEFA's concern about debt started in 2002, but they got nowhere over the next 7 years because the European elite clubs weren't arsed.

It was only when HRH bought City, that the focus of this process was switched from football debt, to stymying investment.

Like the fools they are, UEFA went along with it because they had the sword of Damocles suspended over their necks, in the guise of the ESL threat.

That's the unfortunate reality of the FFP/PSR we have today.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

The idea that football is EITHER a sport OR a business but cannot be both is clearly erroneous: it is, and always has been both. The days of amateurism can be seen as no more than a mechanism for ensuring that there were no player costs to consider but growing interest in the game helped make amateurism unsustainable. Now football faces competition from other sports which are just as professional and don't take the same view of player remuneration as the football authorities. They too must live in a free market economy just as football and they too have to accept the need for investment in infrastructure and the need to reach out to a global audience. The difference is that the football authorities, UEFA and the PL, have actually ceased to be governing bodies and have become rivals to many football clubs for sponsorship and have come to fear a break away by those clubs which were a force in the 1990s when the European Cup became a real money spinner. Administration has more about maintaining the position and financial primacy of these clubs than the overall health of the game. Rules have been put in place so that the crippling debt of certain clubs is not a problem but the spending of other wealthier clubs is.

We are now in a position where Everton are deducted ten points because theke the rules on spending. They must obey the rules ... because they are the rules! Do they make sense? No ... but Everton will go into debt ... not as much as Manchester United or Liverpool or Spurs or .... and they have a rich owner who can pay any fine ! Newcastle can't spend too much either on the weird grounds that it might endanger thy broeir sustainability. Their owners are worth hundreds of billions but their overspending would put them at far greater risk than the (more than a) billion pound debt of Manchester United puts that club. And United's owners are relative paupers. It isn't financial fair play, it has nothing to do with profit and sustainability, it is cheating, it is unlawful and it is the result of caving into the bullying of a cartel of clubs.

What it all illustrates is the need for truly independent regulation which respects the demands of the law and rejects the demands of a self interested cartel and a "governing body" which lacks the skills, independence and impartiality to do the job properly. Why is it that the best run club in football is the only one of "the top six" which wants to see the appointment of an independent regulator? Why is it the PL are at war with a growing number of clubs, not on the rules of football but on grounds of finance? And now FIFA threatens to cut England off from world football if such a regulator is appointed, or at least those FIFA officials who are not (yet) in prison for lining their own pockets do.

 

[Dribble]

pretty much agree. I've long thought that a version of the spending rules should stay (to protect against administration) but maybe you should be allowed owner investment too.

so you're still not allowed excessive losses but your owner (or investors) can "gift" you money.

that way newcastle fans dreams can be realised as their owners could gift them £100m+, and by extension, the fans of every club can dream.

there's still a 25 man squad limit.

there's still the task of keeping more than around 18 players happy over game time.

maybe the penalty for failing the new rules should be more creative. so instead of the usual points/fine it could be transfer bans or inability to vote at premier league meetings. or something else completely like being forced to play in dunce's hats ;)

there should probably be a very clear process and very clear penalties though. if it's relegation then write it down so we all know. don't leave it as a range.

Agreed. The PL should be capacity building their stakeholders, not hammering them like unhinged traffic wardens.

The whole situation is ridiculous, & the PL are acting in the interests of the Red Top Mafia & Spuds to the detriment of the other 16 clubs in the league.

It's time there was a hostile takeover to wrestle control away from the Cartel Clubs.

 

[Dribble]

Just thinking about this and might Newcastle be better off hanging on to all those players and taking the 10 point hit? Selling them all could end up costing them a lot more than 10 points

What a horrible position to be in. Zero debt, yet facing asset stripping yourself to remain in the top league. Welcome to the world of FFP/PSR. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

 

[cheekybids]

Jesus, they’re now discussing this meeting that all the clubs have had with the sports minister… Even Jordan is saying they need to find out if other clubs have had the same meeting.. It’s so desperate.

It’s clear we are innocent & the media are being used to make it seem like the biggest injustice when announced.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

UEFA's concern about debt started in 2002, but they got nowhere over the next 7 years because the European elite clubs weren't arsed.

It was only when HRH bought City, that the focus of this process was switched from football debt, to stymying investment.

Like the fools they are, UEFA went along with it because they had the sword of Damocles suspended over their necks, in the guise of the ESL threat.

That's the unfortunate reality of the FFP/PSR we have today.

I do think that Abramovitch's purchase of Chelsea in 2005 really raised the stakes because the Glazers bought United in the same year, Chelsea soon did inflate the cost of transfers, won back to back PL titles and seemed destined to succeed in Europe too. Sheikh Mansour bought City in 2008 and he seemed to bring wealth to the table that even Abramovitch couldn't compete with. The transfer market seemed to be at the mercy of yet another interloper and, under threat, UEFA abandoned controls on debt to try and reduce player costs by tying spending on players to income from certain acceptable streams. This was the origin of the ludicrous claim that clubs could onl "spend their own money" ie thos revenue streams that certain clubs had come to monopolise in their good years of the 1990s. Financilal fair play.