PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Damanino]

any idea what can be written down as a loss in current PL ffp rules?

just looking at Newcastle lost 70m last season, another 70m the year before and 15m in 20-21. thats about 155m loss and the limit is 105m in 3 years.

 

[Chappie]

Let's rejoin the Super League. No relegation. No UEFA. No EPL. What's not to like.

You would be playing the same wankers who are out to shaft us and they would continue to shaft us.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Let's rejoin the Super League. No relegation. No UEFA. No EPL. What's not to like.

The only problem with that is that every other original ESL club hates us with a passion. They'd stitch us up at the first opportunity as well.

 

[WestGorton]

You would be playing the same wankers who are out to shaft us and they would continue to shaft us.

I know

 

[WestGorton]

The only problem with that is that every other original ESL club hates us with a passion. They'd stitch us up at the first opportunity as well.

I was being ironic

 

[MMA]

You would be playing the same wankers who are out to shaft us and they would continue to shaft us.

Meh..
We'd beat the lot of em with pep.
And then they'd try to kick us out of that aswell.

 

[Dribble]

It's all part of the propaganda campaign, it's kicked off in full swing now running up to the start of the PL proceedings. Expect much much much more of this unfortunately

Which suggests to me there's more to Masters' commons comment than first met the eye...

"There is a date set for that proceeding, unfortunately I can't tell you when that is but it is progressing."

I think the hearing could possible be currently ongoing. It was the Fail who speculated it would commence in Autumn. This was never confirmed by the PL or City.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The FFP rule is that you can only spend what you earn via normal revenue. SM could have lent us billions but we couldn't spend it. The whole premise of the UEFA and PL cases was that he'd given us money disguised as revenue.

But the problem with UEFA's argument (and presumably the PL's) is that they accepted Etihad's sponsorship was broadly fair value. CAS certainly agreed with that.

Part of the PL's case will probably be around not declaring Etihad as a related party. That's not going to wash I suspect and even if it did, the central fact is that the Etihad sponsorship was fair value, whether Etihad is or isn't a related party.

Hence my point that the annual accounts weren't mis-stated. If the Etihad contract was at fair value, properly serviced and paid in full, the accounts are fine. They would be "more" mis-stated by taking a huge part of fair value sponsorship income out and accounting for it as equity. So, if the accounts aren't mis-stated, they have no serious contract breaches with which to charge the club under their own rules, apart from some possible disclosures.

 

[Blue_Lightsaber]

Let's rejoin the Super League. No relegation. No UEFA. No EPL. What's not to like.

You're missing the point. They'll join the Super League and say no Arabs allowed and definitely not City!

 

[nellyonthewing]

Just as an aside I’d love to see the audit trail of where Eufa and EPL share our the millions in fines e.g £10 million from us - Platini’s private jet or ‘legal fees’ !!!!