PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Rochdale Blue]

This has been an odd week. First theres meant to be a leak about some news on Citys 115
Than the City hating bbc show a nice documentary on Pep. Now klopp is leaving just at a time when he could dominate the pl when City are relegated ;)

Let's hope he doesn't take over at the Dog & Duck, we could be playing them in a few months.

 

[Dribble]

Leeds did indeed have to sell their stadium. I assume that it has now been bought back. Usually football stadia will be protected by planning issues from being demolished for redevelopment so they were able to continue to rent Elland Road.

In Scotland, Clydebank wanted to sell their ground for redevelopment and relocated to Falkirk after buying East Stirlingshire FC. This was ultimately rejected by the football authorities and they were demerged moving back to Kilbowie Park. Many years later the ground was again sold and they remained homeless before becoming Airdrie United.

The mismanagement of Leeds such that failure to qualify once for the Champions League was sufficient to start a chain of events that led to administration (if not liquidation?).

However FFP does not seem appropriate to deal with this sort of situation. It certainly would nothave prevented the Glazers using a leveraged buy-out for United and loading the cost onto the club's debt.

The crazy thing is under the first iteration of FFP, Leeds, Portsmouth, Rangers & Fiorentina would've passed. Go figure! \0/

It was always about stopping City & never about stopping reckless owners willing to gamble their clubs' very existence with a throw of the dice.

 

[meltonblue]

I hate to agree with Daniel Levy, but if you borrow £500m to build a new & bigger stadium on a 25 year mortgage, that will add £20.6m per season to your long-term amortised debt.

When Southampton were relegated, even they received £128m from the PL, & they had additional match-day, sponsorship, TV appearance & any prize money added to that figure.

Southampton's turnover in their last PL season was £151m, so hypothetically taking £20.6m per season out of that with more revenue from the bigger stadium, would be perfectly manageable, as they'd have roughly a £33m amortised annual debt ceiling, with any other debt being levied against the owners personally.

This would leave Southampton £118m to cover wages, operating costs & for transfers. If they need a cash injection to compete in the transfer market, so be it. It would have to come from an owner equity injection.

This should be acceptable to everyone, APART FROM the Cartel Clubs, who fear owners like Sheikh Mansour & PIF who they deem as having limitless state funds, & who wouldn't care about huge annual personal losses.

However, this is a whole other discussion altogether, & leads us back to the creation of FFP/PSR. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

So just to clarify are you saying you wouldn’t limit the 118m in that scenario, you’d allow Southampton to make any loss as long as it’s covered by equity?

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

UEFA crumbling
Klopp and his staff leaving Liverpool


Might just be a coincidence.

his staff leaving to?

 

[Dribble]

So just to clarify are you saying you wouldn’t limit the 118m in that scenario, you’d allow Southampton to make any loss as long as it’s covered by equity?

There's long-term debt & there's operating costs underpinned by owner equity injection.

If the owner does one, unlike Leeds etc, the club only has a manageable 25% long-term amortised debt liability to service.

Any operating cost debts go with the owner. This means clubs are protected from crippling debt & owners aren't hamstrung from investing to grow their clubs.

 

[meltonblue]

There's long-term debt & there's operating costs underpinned by owner equity injection.

If the owner does one, unlike Leeds etc, the club only has a manageable 25% long-term amortised debt liability to service.

Any operating cost debts go with the owner. This means clubs are protected from crippling debt & owners aren't hamstrung from investing to grow their clubs.

Got it. So that’s basically exempting infrastructure spend and allowing any losses on the operational side.

I agree. It’s pretty much the exact same rules that used to be in place pre PL.

 

[Bez]

This has been an odd week. First theres meant to be a leak about some news on Citys 115
Than the City hating bbc show a nice documentary on Pep. Now klopp is leaving just at a time when he could dominate the pl when City are relegated ;)

Perhaps Klopp has been told that it is likely that City will be cleared.

 

[ganganvince]

Pound to a pinch of shit he will change his mind and say he's been rejuvenated if they win the title this season.

Would expect its a similar situation to when Pellers left and we had agreed with Pep to take over we would have rather kept quiet but had to announce as Bayern would leak so I assume Klopp is leaving and his replacement has been sourced but they are controlling the narrative.

 

[Dribble]

Got it. So that’s basically exempting infrastructure spend and allowing any losses on the operational side.

I agree. It’s pretty much the exact same rules that used to be in place pre PL.

Any long-term commercial lending, mortgage etc comes under the 25% amortised annual debt limit.

There's also an argument to limit wages to 50% of total annual turnover. This leaves 25% of turnover for operating costs/transfers etc, which owner equity investment can top up to what they see as necessary.

Obviously this approach needs refining, but it takes care of the reckless owner issues & allows for responsible owner equity investment, which the owner stands personally responsibility for.

 

[Rochdale Blue]

Would expect its a similar situation to when Pellers left and we had agreed with Pep to take over we would have rather kept quiet but had to announce as Bayern would leak so I assume Klopp is leaving and his replacement has been sourced but they are controlling the narrative.

We will soon find out, meanwhile, rope sellers will be making a fortune on miseryside.