PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[jockblue]

Shouldn't that apply to every club who has been found in breach of UEFA's FFP regs down the years? From us (in 2014) to Hull City to Wolves to Chelsea, as well as United?

But how could it logically?
If UEFA's loss limit is £35m, and the PL's is £105m (sorry, cant remember if those are exact numbers) , then by default if the PL charge someone that fails UEFA, then their £105m limit is redundant.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

But how could it logically?
If UEFA's loss limit is £35m, and the PL's is £105m (sorry, cant remember if those are exact numbers) , then by default if the PL charge someone that fails UEFA, then their £105m limit is redundant.

Not if the rule says "must comply with UEFA". It doesnt matter what the limits are?

 

[Centurions]

Fair enough, take your point on UEFA only announcing ongoing monitoring for clubs under a settlement regime.

But saying my assumptions are nonsensical speculation is going a bit far. They may be wrong, but they aren't nonsensical.

It is given that nobody outside of the people who should know have access to the actual figures, so posting they must have failed is nonsensical. Everything after that just follows on from a (possibly) incorrect assumption.

On an aside and not pointed at you, why are people finding it difficult to distinguish between UEFA and PL charges plus failing FFP and being charged with deliberately misleading UEFA and the PL? I blame the modern disease of whataboutery. People seem to have stopped using their own brains and believe whatever some no-mark on Twitter tells them without just pausing a moment and thinking about the actual facts.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Why mention FFP specifically in the charge then

Because PL are the FFP licensors for their clubs.

If we've submitted deliberately mis-stated accounts to support our FFP licence then we've broken a PL rule, regardless of what the financial impact from a pure FFP point of view would have been if we'd submitted "accurate" accounts.

So even if "accurate" accounts would still have seen us pass FFP, my understanding is that we'd still potentially be in breach of our requirement to submit true and fair accounts.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Because PL are the FFP licensors for their clubs.

If we've submitted deliberately mis-stated accounts to support our FFP licence then we've broken a PL rule, regardless of what the financial impact from a pure FFP point of view would have been if we'd submitted "accurate" accounts.

So even if "accurate" accounts would still have seen us pass FFP, my understanding is that we'd still potentially be in breach of our requirement to submit true and fair accounts.

I'll simplify the question for you.

Have United broke this Premier League rule "member clubs must comply with UEFA’s regulations, including UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations"?

 

[halfcenturyup]

It is given that nobody outside of the people who should know have access to the actual figures, so posting they must have failed is nonsensical. Everything after that just follows on from a (possibly) incorrect assumption.

On an aside and not pointed at you, why are people finding it difficult to distinguish between UEFA and PL charges plus failing FFP and being charged with deliberately misleading UEFA and the PL? I blame the modern disease of whataboutery. People seem to have stopped using their own brains and believe whatever some no-mark on Twitter tells them without just pausing a moment and thinking about the actual facts.

Why do you keep talking about United on here? They have their own thread. :)

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Why do you keep talking about United on here? They have their own thread. :)

the reason he's posting about United is that there's only one team in the history of the premier league that has been charged with breaking

"member clubs must comply with UEFA’s regulations, including UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations"

When at least another 3 premier league teams have broken the above rule without charge, most recently United.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I'll simplify the question for you.

Have United broke this Premier League rule "member clubs must comply with UEFA’s regulations, including UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations"?

Well they failed FFP of course but my understanding was that was down to a disagreement over what they could claim for Covid-related losses. That's somewhat different to submitting false accounts. As much as we'd love to see them being treated like us or Everton, I wouldn't expect the PL to enforce that rule in those circumstances (i.e. a genuine difference of opinion).

However Everton got docked 10 points because they interpreted the allowable exclusions to PSR calculations rather imaginatively.

We don't know what the specific issue with united was but if they'd clearly tried it on then I'd have expected action from the PL.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

It is given that nobody outside of the people who should know have access to the actual figures, so posting they must have failed is nonsensical. Everything after that just follows on from a (possibly) incorrect assumption.

On an aside and not pointed at you, why are people finding it difficult to distinguish between UEFA and PL charges plus failing FFP and being charged with deliberately misleading UEFA and the PL? I blame the modern disease of whataboutery. People seem to have stopped using their own brains and believe whatever some no-mark on Twitter tells them without just pausing a moment and thinking about the actual facts.

That might be pointed at me. And I didnt know. Just didnt know. Which is why I asked. It was a simple thing but I dint know you had all those thoughts around it wow.

 

[KS55]

I still have not had a reply to my complaint. What a surprise?! If you don't hear from me again the UEFA police have probably paid me a visit. LOL. I have sent them a reminder...

I complained to UEFA about the apparent abandonment of the enquiry into the leaks from the Investigatory chamber. No reply. Reminder sent. No reply.