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
ganganvince
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 6,654
Hence the reason to move the voting system to give a bigger vote to the clubs with the longest membership. Liverpool, Everton, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham and the RagsExactly and Scudamore was no different. It’s always been down to the clubs. The difference potentially now is owners that actually want to invest may soon be the majority.
But we do not need to know thatWe might know that for transfers that have already happened but we don't for transfers that will happen in summer
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 7,014
Hence the reason to move the voting system to give a bigger vote to the clubs with the longest membership. Liverpool, Everton, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham and the Rags
I’ve not seen that proposal? I saw one where we were included rather than Everton.
We do as it is saying clubs can spend x amount of money this summer.But we do not need to know that
If they sign everyone on 1 year deals and pay them a million a week, they can spend a lot less than if they signed them on 5 year deals paying 100k a week
That'll explain why him and Beckham fell out then ;). Fuck Neville, he still thinks it’s the 90s and still wanking over his Spice Girl posters in his bedroom.
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
643m though mate?A couple of years ago I did an in-depth analysis of the top 6's finances and how much 'free' cash each club could potentially spend on transfers, and Spurs surprisingly topped the list. They generate a lot of cash but Danny Boy chose not to spend it.
Until recently, their model was to only spend on new players what they got in for outgoing transfers.
They should have one hell of a team then!
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
Neville's a hypocrite - doubtless that he actually shares Ratcliffe's views and wants United to replicate City's model tooIt’s too late for idiots like Neville, our club led the way on new thinking in the last ten years. A multi club organisation in the CFG that’s grown interest in City globally. A second to non training academy right in the heart of Manchester not hidden away in Carrington where former rag players now send their kids. This is producing the likes of Foden, Diaz, Palmer, Sancho, Lewis, Bobb etc that if they don’t make the grade City can get very good fees selling them on.
City have qualified for the champions league consistently every season since 11–12, United and Liverpool don’t do that and don’t get all the extra tv money from it. Winning 7 Premier league titles since 2012 also helps with exposure and revenue.
They like picking apart the Etihad sponsorship however it’s £10 million more a season than Arsenal who haven’t won a league in 20 years and have never won the European cup. It’s certainly at market value and probably should be upped.
We’ve got the largest indoor arena in the U.K. opening up on the Etihad campus which means more revenue coming into the CFG. The biggest endorsement of City’s commercial success is the COO now stepping up to CEO at the swamp, Radcliffe seems to think what City are doing is right and wants to replicate it. Fuck Neville, he still thinks it’s the 90s and still wanking over his Spice Girl posters in his bedroom.
Of course they don’t do that and yes to a degree you are right about clubs that signed up for it but like any rule it has to remain fit for purpose and ok many agree FFP was never fit for anything it certainly wasn’t during COVID so they changed the rules. Clubs lobbed for the length over which a transfer fee could be amortised so they change it. AI don't have a problem with rules designed to uphold sporting integrity. Surely, no-one does? The rules we have don't do that, of course, and that is the problem.
But that wasn't my point. My point is that the clubs signed up for these stupid rules, so they should be willing to meet them. We are told the rules have been good for financial discipline, so why relax them? And why should clubs that voted for this shitshow and then gambled on a financial penalty have any say on what happens when the stupid rules actually start to bite them? They can whistle as far as I am concerned.
And people try to tell me the PL is coming out of all this looking good. It's a shitshow.
The £105 million upper limit was thought fit 10 years ago but my argument is that the massive increase in just utility costs could never have been budget for I believe , you clearly don’t, that the £105 million of allowable equity should be increased . It’s not as if many owners couldn’t or wouldn’t fund it.
ganganvince
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 6,654
It was part of project big picture still being touted by that nice Mr ParryI’ve not seen that proposal? I saw one where we were included rather than Everton.