PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Dribble said:
As a percentage of their earrings. EG: 60% of £1000 is less than 90% of £750.
Click to expand...
I know that :)

But as I said, our revenues haven't so much higher.

Even last season, where, for the first time we've gone way ahead of Liverpool. Our revenue was €825, and there's was €682 (the season before, it was €731 to €700).

60% if €825 is €495
90% of €672 is €613

And that's the first time we've had such a gap over Liverpool. In previous seasons, the gap would have been even bigger. Do you know where you saw the stats?
 
Ste68 said:
Its a mad world where at the top end of the league you have clubs spending close to £700m and yet have rules to cap investment at clubs spending £250m to £300m to stop them closing the gap and label it fair play. Disagree on the wages issue - I know the wages are mad but market forces will out and as long as you force owners to cover the spending with investment I have no problem with it.

What I do agree with is an overall spend cap which could be set based on total league revenue so the sector itself is protected from spinning out of control and remains competitive even if one clubs revenues outstrip all others. So Maximum spend overall could be say £600m to £650m. Newcastle and the like could up there spend to compete if the owners are willing to invest. Infrastructure investment could be excluded and would adjust the spend cap in some way based on ticket pricing adhering to some basic rules to protect fans from being priced out.

None of this will happen though as greed and self interest will win hands down in every board room.
Click to expand...
For me it's pretty simple. Regardless of anyone's opinion on spending LIMITS, if you are going to implement a system to limit spending to create a somewhat competitive balance, then the limit has to be the same for every club as you say, simple as. Even if City, Chelsea, and Newcastle can afford to drop a billion in a single Summer a cap is set at say 500 or 600 mil for a calendar year for every team. Some clubs will afford this easily, some will be right about on the number and others might not be able to hit the limit but at least they would have a cushion to operate in and get closer to the wealthier clubs and benefit from any INVESTMENT (NOT REVENUE) they can procure. I find it hilarious and so fucking hypocritical that some clubs, and we all know who they are, want to be able to continue spending up to 3 or 4 times more than everyone else AND at the same time they don't want City to be one of those clubs who can. It's a scam of the largest order being perpetrated in plain sight with the aiding and abetting of the UK media...what a fucking joke!!!
 
bluenova said:
I know that :)

But as I said, our revenues haven't so much higher.

Even last season, where, for the first time we've gone way ahead of Liverpool. Our revenue was €825, and there's was €682 (the season before, it was €731 to €700).

60% if €825 is €495
90% of €672 is €613

And that's the first time we've had such a gap over Liverpool. In previous seasons, the gap would have been even bigger. Do you know where you saw the stats?
Click to expand...
The video featuring Txiki & Berrada for ours, & I approximated the 90% & the other figure as an example.

However I did see a stat which showed ManUre, Dippers, ArseAnal & Chavs had wage to revenue ratios of 75% - 90% between them, with only City & Spuds being below UEFA's intended 70% limit.
 
Keeper! said:
The wages are obscene and I 100% agree about agents, they are scum in the majority but in saying that 99% of people involved in football are greedy bastards who would happily sell their grandma for a bag of cash.

The players are not the sport, the fans and clubs are, players come and go, fans stay.
Click to expand...

Good luck supporting a sport with no players…
 
Dribble said:
As a percentage of their earrings. EG: 60% of £1000 is less than 90% of £750.
Click to expand...
Ok. I found this - which they've tagged as for the year 2023 (I assume it's based on the last previous accounts).

So we're 67%, which is near Liverpool - that was the one that really threw me off in your post. This year, we might well have tons more headroom, as our income has gone up massively compared to the others. United's income was up quite a lot too, so it's likely they've come down a bit.

Chelsea- fuck knows. Their revenue is up, and they are supposed to have offloaded a lot of heavy wages, and brought in those new players on low ones, so I guess we'll find out.

Spurs have had had the biggest increase in revenue %wise, and lost Kane, so will likely be even better off.

1706197872177.png
 
Keeper! said:
The wages are obscene and I 100% agree about agents, they are scum in the majority but in saying that 99% of people involved in football are greedy bastards who would happily sell their grandma for a bag of cash.

The players are not the sport, the fans and clubs are, players come and go, fans stay.
Click to expand...
I definitely see your point.

Whenever the PL announce a huge new TV deal, it feel bizarre that it's presented as good news. All the money will go to players, never reductions in tickets etc., and that money will ultimately be paid for by us in TV subscriptions.
 
Uefa chief Aleksander Ceferin sure of Man City’s FFP guilt.

Come on Manchester City this can not be right as the head of Uefa is still calling us guilty after the CAS ruling
Manchester City Grow some balls and take legal action because this should not be happening

This is now getting out of hand with everybody, Manchester City saying nothing or doing nothing just shows weakness


 
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.