Completely agree, and debt should be limited as well but that wouldn’t fit the Rag’s narrative so it won’t happen.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Citizen of Legoland
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 9,099
Bury didn't go bust.Clubs have also gone bust since the start of time & no one gave a fuck but those fans impacted so if it happens, they go bust & start again like Bury.
give it to gordon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2013
- Messages
- 15,775
- Team supported
- Manchester City
When you really look at what is going on in the pl its truly bonkers. Trying to protect the red shirts + spuds is going to destroy the pl and the football pyramid.
clubs need to be able to buy and sell players that's how they generate income.
If the pl clubs are scared to spend it works it way down the football pyramid.
It also effects the ability of the pl to bring in top players so reduces the quality of the pl.
Is the English football world going to stand by and let the game be ruined just to protect 4 clubs ?
clubs need to be able to buy and sell players that's how they generate income.
If the pl clubs are scared to spend it works it way down the football pyramid.
It also effects the ability of the pl to bring in top players so reduces the quality of the pl.
Is the English football world going to stand by and let the game be ruined just to protect 4 clubs ?
StillBluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2020
- Messages
- 1,851
- Team supported
- City
This thread is supposedly about the charges, all 115 of them, which City face but clearly debate is much more wide ranging than that. My view of the charges is that City have never falsified the club's accounts and is therefore completely innocent and the IC will reach this conclusion. I was convinced, however, by Stefan's argument (completely rejected by Nik Harris!) that FFP was imposed, not by a cartel but by a number of clubs determined to support rules very much in their favour. It has been pointed out today that there is no "American" view of FFP or investment. But back in 2008-9 UEFA were concerned about the problem of debt and many of Europe's most successful clubs at that time had financed growth through debt and had built up impressive revenues by heavy spending/investment. As Stefan pointed out action on debt was not in their interests but relating spending to revenue from sources other than owner investment was. It has to be added now that government and the independent regulator (whoever/whatever that might be) seem favourable to some form of "cost control". It seems to me to be a waste of time to try and decide what City's attitude to this would be now since City will not decide the matter. It would not surprise me if "cost control" still meant control of player costs, though perhaps not the crude control of FFP. I remember, at the time of the takeover or just after, and I think it was Khaldoon, saying that many in football seemed to think that money was the problem whereas that the new regime saw money as part of the answer. This may be very close to the view of the independent regulator. Certainly they seem to want a more equal distribution and this seems at odds with FFP but also with unrestricted investment.
invisibleandalone
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 244
Obscurity ! The obvious name for the rags new groundEveryone who responds to a tweet is blocked by him. I asked a perfectly civil question about a net spend table he posted a couple of years ago and got blocked for that. He doesn’t want anyone countering his narrative on Twitter. It’s quite pathetic really. Like many have said he’s best ignored and allowed to fade into obscurity.
I don’t think our owners care much for regulation. They trust themselves to run things in the right way. I guess they would welcome cost controls on players and agents provided it was done in such away that we didn’t not loose players to Saudi or wherever. It would make us more profitable and their lives easier. Not sure how this would work and comply with EU and UK rules on rights of employees to earn what they wantThis thread is supposedly about the charges, all 115 of them, which City face but clearly debate is much more wide ranging than that. My view of the charges is that City have never falsified the club's accounts and is therefore completely innocent and the IC will reach this conclusion. I was convinced, however, by Stefan's argument (completely rejected by Nik Harris!) that FFP was imposed, not by a cartel but by a number of clubs determined to support rules very much in their favour. It has been pointed out today that there is no "American" view of FFP or investment. But back in 2008-9 UEFA were concerned about the problem of debt and many of Europe's most successful clubs at that time had financed growth through debt and had built up impressive revenues by heavy spending/investment. As Stefan pointed out action on debt was not in their interests but relating spending to revenue from sources other than owner investment was. It has to be added now that government and the independent regulator (whoever/whatever that might be) seem favourable to some form of "cost control". It seems to me to be a waste of time to try and decide what City's attitude to this would be now since City will not decide the matter. It would not surprise me if "cost control" still meant control of player costs, though perhaps not the crude control of FFP. I remember, at the time of the takeover or just after, and I think it was Khaldoon, saying that many in football seemed to think that money was the problem whereas that the new regime saw money as part of the answer. This may be very close to the view of the independent regulator. Certainly they seem to want a more equal distribution and this seems at odds with FFP but also with unrestricted investment.
Robanompivenov
Well-Known Member
Real sinister undertones to this. I do think he needs help, but he is just as much a piece of shit as well imo.Since Nick Harris seemingly has no qualms about posting private messages, here’s an unsolicited text message that he sent me in the early hours a while ago. It’s not normal behaviour for a journalist. I genuinely think he needs help.
View attachment 108551
There is an old Irish joke:
Q. How do I get to Dublin?
A. Well, I wouldn’t start from here.
With ffp everyone starts with spend, ie the P&L. Why? Because that’s what is regulated now. And why is that? Because the G14 realised that was the best way to protect their position. They refused Platini’s plan which included debt.
Regulate the balance sheet, including debt. It is the fairest and most effective way. Forget the P&L, except for some small matters that don’t affect clubs’ ability to have whatever business plan that they want.
Q. How do I get to Dublin?
A. Well, I wouldn’t start from here.
With ffp everyone starts with spend, ie the P&L. Why? Because that’s what is regulated now. And why is that? Because the G14 realised that was the best way to protect their position. They refused Platini’s plan which included debt.
Regulate the balance sheet, including debt. It is the fairest and most effective way. Forget the P&L, except for some small matters that don’t affect clubs’ ability to have whatever business plan that they want.
ZanteWeatherman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 1,217
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Yo blud.... innitYou must subscribe to OnlyFams to access.
Crikey. Mad as a hatter, stating the exact opposite of the truth.Since Nick Harris seemingly has no qualms about posting private messages, here’s an unsolicited text message that he sent me in the early hours a while ago. It’s not normal behaviour for a journalist. I genuinely think he needs help.
View attachment 108551