PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[ali benarbia's studs]

In regard to our legal costs to fund our fight of accusations, its important that we protect our Club business and the future damage it may get as a result. As other posters have said who is supporting the costs of the agenda against us, including all media outlets.
If cleared our counter suing we will be able to get our accusers to foot some of that bill.

They really are trying everything to throw at us to take us down. I think we will get through this.

 

[lonestay]

the last thing the cartel want is equality

Equal was being sarcastic

 

[eastmanc]

As far as I’m concerned, their club getting a 6 point reduction, having to sell off their best players or having no money to buy anyone is the best education for those fans.

People only care about something when it directly affects their club.

We don't like to say "we told you so", but we told you so. What these clubs don't understand is that we are fighting not only our corner but also theirs. We are not the enemy here.

 

[eastmanc]

In regard to our legal costs to fund our fight of accusations, its important that we protect our Club business and the future damage it may get as a result. As other posters have said who is supporting the costs of the agenda against us, including all media outlets.
If cleared our counter suing we will be able to get our accusers to foot some of that bill.

They really are trying everything to throw at us to take us down. I think we will get through this.

The mad thing is if there wasn't any charges brought against us there wouldn't be a big fuck off legal bill.

 

[eastmanc]

Are you sure?

They do get included in the books, as we saw post cas. Whether they are part of the assessment though I don't really know.

It wouldn't be very fair if they did though would it? Mind you when have any of these hierarchies ever been fair to us.? Probably trying another way to fuck us over.

 

[Coatigan]

It wouldn't be very fair if they did though would it?

No of course not, but not much fair about the whole thing, really.

I don't know one way or the other, happy to trust someone that does. It makes sense that it is excluded, for sure.

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

Are you sure?

They do get included in the books, as we saw post cas. Whether they are part of the assessment though I don't really know.

Just include them in the FFP accounts assessment, but put a f*ckoff big asterisk next to them that prevents any action based off them until the whole thing is resolved. If found in our favour, expunge them from the reckoning.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Is he useless mate, or is he a sacrificial lamb…?
They probably didn’t hand pick him because he’s useless

The two aren’t mutually exclusive and in my estimation he is unquestionably useless.

Firstly, he was picked after others were appointed and subsequently inexplicably resiled from taking the role. That is very telling imo, given the profile and responsibility attached to the job. Being offered a such a job then walking away is highly unusual. For it to happen more than once, truly exceptional. This demonstrates that he wasn’t objectively the ‘best’ candidate and also that he was likely prepared to operate in a way the others weren’t - but that doesn’t stop him being useless.

Secondly, he has spectacularly miscalculated with regards to these charges against City and has placed the PL in a wholly unnecessary and invidious position. This demonstrates extremely poor judgement and lack of vision, both loudly proclaiming his uselessness.

Thirdly is the wider way the financial rules are currently playing out within the most successful sporting brand in human history, on his watch. He is presiding over a farce in relation to financial restrictions within the most commercially successful sporting product on the planet. That is actually absurd and further underlines his uselessness.

Fourthly, I’ve seen and heard him talk. A conspicuously unimpressive and uncharismatic man. Not someone who I think is remotely suited to a role that is palpably considerably above his talents.

In short, he is a useless ****.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Is £105m high enough?​

Extract from The Athletic 17th January 2024.

Kieran Maguire, a football finance expert and host of The Price of Football podcast, suggests there is an argument for the £105million to be increased in line with football inflation.

“The inflation issue for PSR is that there’s a case for saying that the original allowable loss of £105m should take into account changing circumstances concerning clubs’ buying power and acceptable losses,” Maguire told The Athletic.

Since the three-year figure was set in 2013, football-related prices have gone up, whether that is player wages or transfer fees.

“Inflation eats away at buying power and in taxation, this is addressed by increasing the personal allowance (the amount you can earn before you start paying tax),” Maguire adds. “Failure to do this creates ‘fiscal drag’ where more and more people are captured by tax and higher tax rates.

“I applied the same principle to Premier League PSR and took the 2013 wages and compared them to 2022 (and a few clubs for 2023). If £105m was deemed fair in 2013, then adjusted for current wages, £218m would be ‘fair’ now.”

If the allowable losses had risen in line with football inflation to £218m, then Everton, Nottingham Forest, Leicester (maybe Chelsea) would have been well within the limit and Newcastle would have been able to spend more freely.

The main reason for the current mess appears to be the PL failure to include an allowance for inflation in their 3 year threshold calculations.

This is actually absurd.

 

[KS55]

Is £105m high enough?​

Extract from The Athletic 17th January 2024.

Kieran Maguire, a football finance expert and host of The Price of Football podcast, suggests there is an argument for the £105million to be increased in line with football inflation.

“The inflation issue for PSR is that there’s a case for saying that the original allowable loss of £105m should take into account changing circumstances concerning clubs’ buying power and acceptable losses,” Maguire told The Athletic.

Since the three-year figure was set in 2013, football-related prices have gone up, whether that is player wages or transfer fees.

“Inflation eats away at buying power and in taxation, this is addressed by increasing the personal allowance (the amount you can earn before you start paying tax),” Maguire adds. “Failure to do this creates ‘fiscal drag’ where more and more people are captured by tax and higher tax rates.

“I applied the same principle to Premier League PSR and took the 2013 wages and compared them to 2022 (and a few clubs for 2023). If £105m was deemed fair in 2013, then adjusted for current wages, £218m would be ‘fair’ now.”

If the allowable losses had risen in line with football inflation to £218m, then Everton, Nottingham Forest, Leicester (maybe Chelsea) would have been well within the limit and Newcastle would have been able to spend more freely.

The main reason for the current mess appears to be the PL failure to include an allowance for inflation in their 3 year threshold calculations.

More evidence of the farcical nature of PL governance.