applecentral
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 May 2011
- Messages
- 1,566
I come from Margate
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
Passive aggressive much. It’s alright you saying you don’t care if we spent more than allowed everyone else did but the allegations amount to fraud. If proven leaving aside the relegation that would follow police etc would be involved and then criminal proceedings striking off of directors etcI think I don't care for your opinion, bucko
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Another twelve months will do me.But for how long? How long before the fans need placating again?
applecentral
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 May 2011
- Messages
- 1,566
Never in doubt!I remember Julia. Lovely lady. Manager's secretary at Maine Road.
He's Kosher, lads and lasses.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
I think why the club’s silence has come into my mind now, when it didn’t really occupy my thoughts a week or so ago, is that the sands appear to be shifting quite quickly with regards to PL financial rules - and now seems to me to be an apposite time for the club to try and take some initiative, assuming they are supremely confident of the ground they are standing on, which I believe is the case.
Rightly or wrongly, I feel now is the time for the club to be more on the front foot with this than hitherto, as the whole thing is descending into a farce from which City could accrue some advantage, that possibly wasn’t available a month or so ago.
Has any other club been charged today btw?
Rightly or wrongly, I feel now is the time for the club to be more on the front foot with this than hitherto, as the whole thing is descending into a farce from which City could accrue some advantage, that possibly wasn’t available a month or so ago.
Has any other club been charged today btw?
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,098
I think why the club’s silence has come into my mind now, when it didn’t really occupy my thoughts a week or so ago, is that the sands appear to be shifting quite quickly with regards to PL financial rules - and now seems to me to be an apposite time for the club to try and take some initiative, assuming they are supremely confident of the ground they are standing on, which I believe is the case.
Rightly or wrongly, I feel now is the time for the club to be more on the front foot with this than hitherto, as the whole thing is descending into a farce from which City could accrue some advantage, that possibly wasn’t available a month or so ago.
Has any other club been charged today btw?
You don't know what the club is doing behind the scenes, though. We could be getting together a core of ten clubs who are determined to get FFP right for the good of the sport and who can block any more nonsense (already press talk of "rebel clubs"). Maybe a rebellion against Masters (must be getting close to ten clubs for that now ....).
Not that I see how any of that could help our case, btw.
Whatever happens, it's going to be an interesting six months until the start of next season :)
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
I understand why they refuse to comment on the current case but when cretins like Jordan come out on national radio saying that we only got off at CAS because of time-barring, they could come out with a statement of fact that rubbishes that myth. Then he can't repeat it.No one is expecting Khaldoon to call up TS and give it the big one, but the club has not issued a statement about this for over a year. I fail to see how a brief statement about our engagement with the process; the absence of any substantive evidence; asserting that the delay is down to the process, not us; and reaffirming our innocence would be against the club’s best interests. If those four elements are true (which I believe they are) I can’t see why that doesn’t happen, given the length of time for this still to play out and recent events in relation to other clubs.
I can see nothing wrong with the club reaffirming its position at this stage.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Yeah, you might be right mate, and of course I’d welcome that, but that’s speculation and the reality before my eyes is the club isn’t taking the initiative at a time where there appears to be an opportunity to do so.You don't know what the club is doing behind the scenes, though. We could be getting together a core of ten clubs who are determined to get FFP right for the good of the sport and who can block any more nonsense (already press talk of "rebel clubs"). Maybe a rebellion against Masters (must be getting close to ten clubs for that now ....).
Not that I see how any of that could help our case, btw.
Whatever happens, it's going to be an interesting six months until the start of next season :)
StillBluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2020
- Messages
- 2,142
- Team supported
- City
I spent an hour of the international break this afternoon listening to Stefan on Typical City again. I think hia analysis and explanation of the PL's difficulties in trying to deal with City is both encouraging and informative but I find that I cannot accept some of his analysis of the background to FFP and some of his comments on the cases of clubs in breach of the rules at the present time.
Stefan may be able to understand why clubs want a system of rules suited to their needs - and I think we all understand that - but the PL has a responsibility to ensure that it does not favour one group's sectional interests over those of another. It is a governing body and should "govern" in the interests of all clubs, the game and the fans. Stefan is right to point out that in the early 2000s there were clear problems confronting the game and it was right that they needed dealing with/solving, but they concerned finance and the markets and UEFA and the domestic game had to face the fact that it is he law that regulates the market NOT the football authorities and the only coursr of action was negotiation with sovereign bodies as to the regulation which would be acceptable in law. When UEFA introduced its regulations it was the opinion of sports lawyers in reputable universities on the continent that FFP was very vulnerable to legal challenge because its effect would be to solidify the existing order ie it was anti-competitive. The PL's regulations are even more intrusive. But Stefan goes on to say that if you don't want to be sanctioned it's quite simple - don't overspend. In other words accept a quite arbitrary figure for expenditure which you can only exceed by another arbitrary figure because it may or may not endanger your "sustainability". In other words obey the rules because they are the rules. Stefan goes on to talk of fan involvement and that the case of Everton, Nottingham Forest and Leicester, whose fans are furious, without considering the fans of Leeds, which was relegated last season because these three clubs enjoyed a sporting advantage by breaking the rules which condemned Leeds to relegation. This ignores a great deal. Are Leeds fans not entitled to be furious at Manchester United, who bought a sporting advantage by years and years of overspending under Ferguson and became the most successful club of the nineties and noughties, generating unrivalled revenues so that when they, Manchester United, proposed that the PL adopt rules restricting spending they were in a unique position to profit from these rules. Leicester City and Nottingham Forest were not in the PL at that time and so could not even vote. Liverpool should have been in administration at that time, I'm told.
The impending advent of the IR gives the PL an opportunity to introduce a series of regulations which are in the best interests of football, the PL and the football pyramid and which are not designed to buy off a group of greedy Americans who intend to take money out of the game without putting any in. The opportunity should not be wasted
Stefan may be able to understand why clubs want a system of rules suited to their needs - and I think we all understand that - but the PL has a responsibility to ensure that it does not favour one group's sectional interests over those of another. It is a governing body and should "govern" in the interests of all clubs, the game and the fans. Stefan is right to point out that in the early 2000s there were clear problems confronting the game and it was right that they needed dealing with/solving, but they concerned finance and the markets and UEFA and the domestic game had to face the fact that it is he law that regulates the market NOT the football authorities and the only coursr of action was negotiation with sovereign bodies as to the regulation which would be acceptable in law. When UEFA introduced its regulations it was the opinion of sports lawyers in reputable universities on the continent that FFP was very vulnerable to legal challenge because its effect would be to solidify the existing order ie it was anti-competitive. The PL's regulations are even more intrusive. But Stefan goes on to say that if you don't want to be sanctioned it's quite simple - don't overspend. In other words accept a quite arbitrary figure for expenditure which you can only exceed by another arbitrary figure because it may or may not endanger your "sustainability". In other words obey the rules because they are the rules. Stefan goes on to talk of fan involvement and that the case of Everton, Nottingham Forest and Leicester, whose fans are furious, without considering the fans of Leeds, which was relegated last season because these three clubs enjoyed a sporting advantage by breaking the rules which condemned Leeds to relegation. This ignores a great deal. Are Leeds fans not entitled to be furious at Manchester United, who bought a sporting advantage by years and years of overspending under Ferguson and became the most successful club of the nineties and noughties, generating unrivalled revenues so that when they, Manchester United, proposed that the PL adopt rules restricting spending they were in a unique position to profit from these rules. Leicester City and Nottingham Forest were not in the PL at that time and so could not even vote. Liverpool should have been in administration at that time, I'm told.
The impending advent of the IR gives the PL an opportunity to introduce a series of regulations which are in the best interests of football, the PL and the football pyramid and which are not designed to buy off a group of greedy Americans who intend to take money out of the game without putting any in. The opportunity should not be wasted