PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Metalartin said:
If I remember right, UEFA picked one, City picked one, then City suggested the 3rd and UEFA agreed it was a good choice. If they couldn't have agreed themselves, on the 3rd judge, CAS would have stepped in and chosen someone for them. So, Nick needs to think about that properly, before making anything of it.
Click to expand...
Thanks mate. Just to be clear I'm not messaging with Nick himself. Two Liverpool fans. Ha. What am I doing... ;)
 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
Although I like Forest, perhaps they overspent in recent windows. Yet still...

So what? If the owner can afford these expenditures... so what?

FFP regulations currently in place in the P/L were voted upon by club ownership.

What FFP is actually for, is to prevent clubs with new wealthy ownership from preventing ownership to spend enough to challenge club leadership.

Bullshit I say.

Let a club spend what they will so long as it doesn't put the club into irrecoverable debt.

Newcastle have unlimited funds due to their owners.

Perhaps some sort of investment cap needs to be placed on ownership - otherwise Newcastle will simply buy the league.

TL/DL - FFP needs to be abolished. Instead, an investment cap, very high, should be imposed, alongside a rule not to place a club in dire financial straights.
Click to expand...
I agree.

Also, football is supposed to be entertaining and there's nothing entertaining about preventing the expenditure of clubs who can afford to spend money improving their squads.

Look at this transfer window, it's non existant.

Using Forest as an example. They get promoted and go on a spending spree that created a lot of interest from everyone who follows football. It created excitement and possibly even trepidation if you're a Forest fan but either way it's more entertaining than what say Norwich City or Sheffield United generally do once promoted.

I'm not advocating spending money you've not got and if Sheffield United and Norwich want to bank the windfall that getting into the Premier League brings to secure their future, that's fine too but clubs that have the financial backing shouldn't be hamstrung, especially if they can show proof of being able to soak up any loss that the club might make in the short to medium term.

If the PL looks at a clubs spending and is concerned about the long term future of the club due to its spending then of course, they should have some power with regard forcing the slowing down of said spending and that could probably be done via temporary transfer bans or wage caps etc.

But we know that these spending restrictions are absolutely nothing to do with saving clubs from oneself and are more to do with giving the more established clubs a leg up with regard finishing in the more lucrative positions in the league.
 
RACHACE said:
I agree.

Also, football is supposed to be entertaining and there's nothing entertaining about preventing the expenditure of clubs who can afford to spend money improving their squads.

Look at this transfer window, it's non existant.

Using Forest as an example. They get promoted and go on a spending spree that created a lot of interest from everyone who follows football. It created excitement and possibly even trepidation if you're a Forest fan but either way it's more entertaining than what say Norwich City or Sheffield United generally do once promoted.

I'm not advocating spending money you've not got and if Sheffield United and Norwich want to bank the windfall that getting into the Premier League brings to secure their future, that's fine too but clubs that have the financial backing shouldn't be hamstrung, especially if they can show proof of being able to soak up any loss that the club might make in the short to medium term.

If the PL looks at a clubs spending and is concerned about the long term future of the club due to its spending then of course, they should have some power with regard forcing the slowing down of said spending and that could probably be done via temporary transfer bans or wage caps etc.

But we know that these spending restrictions are absolutely nothing to do with saving clubs from oneself and are more to do with giving the more established clubs a leg up with regard finishing in the more lucrative positions in the league.
Click to expand...
No other industry I know of places restrictions on self financed owner spending.

Self made successful builder uses overdraft to buy development land to build out and become more successful employing more labour.

His Federation doesn’t prevent him !!

A revolution is coming,started by CITY & I like it .
 
Keeper! said:
It's a news story at this time and he was asked, he is not going to say we made a huge mistake and were wrong in charging City, is he?

It's what you would expect an executive to say and the same will be said of the PL when we are cleared.
Click to expand...
Easy option would’ve been “ no comment” like any sensible executive would normally respond.
The end of news story .
 
Chi-town blues said:
Easy option would’ve been “ no comment” like any sensible executive would normally respond.
The end of news story .
Click to expand...
No comment is no good for either party, it creates suspicion.

The simple fact remains, UEFA charged us and found us guilty but CAS overturned in our favour , end of story and nothing to be seen from here.

It was a headline and a non story.
 
Last edited:
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.