PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

jrb said:
Probably worse than the Daily United for the amount of pro-United stories it publishes online.

Was the Daily Express reporter at the confidential United meeting?

Daily Express.

Concerns over the French-Moroccan's involvement are eased by the fact he wasn't called as a witness to the Court of Arbitration for Sport hearing that overturned City's two-year Champions League ban in 2020.

Berrada's name didn't feature in the leaked emails published by German magazine Der Spiegel, which led to the UEFA ban, earlier that year.

During an all-staff meeting on Wednesday, interim United chief executive Patrick Stewart tabled questions about Berrada potentially getting caught up in the investigation into City.

Employees were reportedly assured that the Red Devils had conducted the appropriate due diligence on their new CEO. They are confident he will arrive in the summer with no dark clouds hanging over his head.
Click to expand...

Sounds pretty good to me if our head of commercial partnerships leaves the club accused of inflating and misreporting commercial deals with no dark clouds over his head.
 
Bluesince1979 said:
What all these clubs signed up for with FFP is being the whipping boys for the established elite.

Never again will there be a blackburn, chelsea or manchester city fairy tale.

And under these rules there would never have been a liverpool fairy tale (moors family) , a united fairly tale(various sugar daddys), an arsenal fairytale (buying half the huddersfield team and poaching their manager) , an everton fairytale (moores family again) etc etc etc
Click to expand...

This Newcastle will get there we keep hearing reading from the media! It's a pat on the head with them knowing they won't get there..
 
domalino said:
Neither revenue sharing nor a minimum and maximum wage cap would be impacted by the world markets.

Different leagues already share different % of their revenue with the PL’s old 1.4:1 ratio of money being given to #1 and #20 often being cited as a reason for the PL’a growth, and the PL is so rich that no one can compete with its maximum salaries outside 4 clubs (Real, Barca, PSG, Bayern) who all face their own limitations.

I like the MLB/NBA system where there’s a max cap and for every penny you spend over that you pay a tax.

So set it at say £300m wages and/or £100m net transfer spending per year, if we want to have a squad earning £400 and spend £300m in a window, we can, but we have to pay a tax, and that is then distributed to the other teams.


You put all the money spent by all clubs over the maximum into a pot. Set up a scale so the money is distributed primarily to the lower table clubs. For example clubs 17-20 get 9% each, 9-16 get 6% each, 5-8 get 4% each and 1-4 get 1.5% each. Those numbers were off the top of my head I’m not sure they even add up to 100% (doesn’t have to, you could allocate 5-10% of the total to the football league or grass roots). Someone much smarter than me could work out the perfect splits.

You’re still allowed to spend what you want, but you’re not incentivised to spend significantly more than your opponents, because you’re just subsidising them.

And because it sends so much more money to the bottom of the table it allows you to raise the minimum spending, increasing the average quality across the league and narrowing gap from #1-#20. Imagine if Luton, Burnley and Sheffield United had an extra 30m each to spend on players, would they be so far away from the rest?

It also means that owners would be less fearful of super rich new owners coming in. PIF spending £1Bn over the next few years isn’t so scary for American owners when they are paying you for the privilege.
Click to expand...

PSR is working now just look at the January transfer window and we all know why it's starting to work! Fear
 
domalino said:
Neither revenue sharing nor a minimum and maximum wage cap would be impacted by the world markets.

Different leagues already share different % of their revenue with the PL’s old 1.4:1 ratio of money being given to #1 and #20 often being cited as a reason for the PL’a growth, and the PL is so rich that no one can compete with its maximum salaries outside 4 clubs (Real, Barca, PSG, Bayern) who all face their own limitations.

I like the MLB/NBA system where there’s a max cap and for every penny you spend over that you pay a tax.

So set it at say £300m wages and/or £100m net transfer spending per year, if we want to have a squad earning £400 and spend £300m in a window, we can, but we have to pay a tax, and that is then distributed to the other teams.


You put all the money spent by all clubs over the maximum into a pot. Set up a scale so the money is distributed primarily to the lower table clubs. For example clubs 17-20 get 9% each, 9-16 get 6% each, 5-8 get 4% each and 1-4 get 1.5% each. Those numbers were off the top of my head I’m not sure they even add up to 100% (doesn’t have to, you could allocate 5-10% of the total to the football league or grass roots). Someone much smarter than me could work out the perfect splits.

You’re still allowed to spend what you want, but you’re not incentivised to spend significantly more than your opponents, because you’re just subsidising them.

And because it sends so much more money to the bottom of the table it allows you to raise the minimum spending, increasing the average quality across the league and narrowing gap from #1-#20. Imagine if Luton, Burnley and Sheffield United had an extra 30m each to spend on players, would they be so far away from the rest?
Click to expand...
I think one of the problems at present is that the longer a club is in the Premier League, the more they are separating themselves from clubs in the Championship. What that means is that it is increasingly difficult for teams to come up and stay up.

What is needed is for UEFA to have a series of initiatives and incentives, such as a transfer cap, based on some criteria such as age, international appearances, etc.

Beyond that, there could be a wage tier structure, where each club could have X number of players making €150-200K per week, Y number making €100-150K and Z number in the sub €100K range, possibly 3 “protected players” who had either no limit or a high limit. Much as squad make up helps determine who can and cannot move somewhere based on nationality & development, so too could you do this based on wages. It would have the effect of distributing top players across more clubs without instituting a hard salary cap.

There are obviously many ways to skin the cat. My biggest issue is that the players and staff creating the revenues should be the ones who reap a significant portion of those revenues. Indeed, a salaries versus revenues could be one way of doing that, but it would still have more money sloshing through the biggest clubs.

As was stated, smarter people than me will have to figure it out, but there has to be a way. Firstly, though, we have to all know, understand and agree on on what we are trying to achieve, and at what cost!
 
domalino said:
Neither revenue sharing nor a minimum and maximum wage cap would be impacted by the world markets.

Different leagues already share different % of their revenue with the PL’s old 1.4:1 ratio of money being given to #1 and #20 often being cited as a reason for the PL’a growth, and the PL is so rich that no one can compete with its maximum salaries outside 4 clubs (Real, Barca, PSG, Bayern) who all face their own limitations.

I like the MLB/NBA system where there’s a max cap and for every penny you spend over that you pay a tax.

So set it at say £300m wages and/or £100m net transfer spending per year, if we want to have a squad earning £400 and spend £300m in a window, we can, but we have to pay a tax, and that is then distributed to the other teams.


You put all the money spent by all clubs over the maximum into a pot. Set up a scale so the money is distributed primarily to the lower table clubs. For example clubs 17-20 get 9% each, 9-16 get 6% each, 5-8 get 4% each and 1-4 get 1.5% each. Those numbers were off the top of my head I’m not sure they even add up to 100% (doesn’t have to, you could allocate 5-10% of the total to the football league or grass roots). Someone much smarter than me could work out the perfect splits.

You’re still allowed to spend what you want, but you’re not incentivised to spend significantly more than your opponents, because you’re just subsidising them.

And because it sends so much more money to the bottom of the table it allows you to raise the minimum spending, increasing the average quality across the league and narrowing gap from #1-#20. Imagine if Luton, Burnley and Sheffield United had an extra 30m each to spend on players, would they be so far away from the rest?

It also means that owners would be less fearful of super rich new owners coming in. PIF spending £1Bn over the next few years isn’t so scary for American owners when they are paying you for the privilege.
Click to expand...

May have merit, but the one good thing about FFP / PSR is that it is easy to understand. God knows what a pig's breakfast the PL would make out of complicated rules like that with their incompetence and obsession with secrecy.
 
kaz7 said:
Pep must get really pissed off with these questions , ask the club for a comment and stop hounding pep all the fucking time
Click to expand...
It would be nice to see them answer the call and relieve him of that burden, wouldn’t it? It’s not going away, and they should make a definitive statement.

Thereafter, simply omit reporters who don’t stop pestering the manager. Problem solved.
 
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.