PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

I never said the idea was to encourage losses, that would (somehow) be even more absurd than the current rules.

I was merely responding to what you said (whilst citing logic) namely that the idea of the rules is for clubs not to make losses, when the rules expressly allow losses. If the idea was for clubs not to make losses, then that it surely (and logically) what the rules would provide for.

The idea is plainly to limit losses, and that limited losses are actually ‘fine’ in certain circumstances - and on that basis it is logical and warranted to increase those allowable losses to reflect inflationary changes in wages and transfer fees etc... especially given the period involved, namely 11 years.
But it's not logical. If a club declares a loss of £125m in year t-2, breaks even in t-1, and then reports a £15m profit in t-0, they'll in theory fail PSR as their aggregate losses are £110m. If those figures were reversed, so they report a £10m profit in t-2, break even in t-1, then report a £125m loss in t-0, they're clearly in a worse situation than in the first scenario, despite reporting exactly the same aggregate losses. What happened 3 years ago has little or no bearing on the current situation or future prospects.

As an example, as at May 2008, our aggregate losses over 2006-2008 were £25m. We'd have easily passed PSR. Yet on July 1st 2008 we couldn't pay the £15m due for the previous summer's transfers, and were days away from going into administration.

There is simply no way you could describe a system of financial regulation that supposedly encourages sustainability, but would allow that to happen, as 'logical'.
 
Last edited:

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.