PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[waspish]

A lot of their losses are for the stadium so they don’t count towards PSR.

The interests do

 

[Coatigan]

Do any of the PL financial and legal experts on this thread believe that City could reasonably request that the PL look into other clubs dubious financial dealings, the same way that City's have been intrinsically scrutinised? Or is that not possible. If that is the case why not? As a member of the PL could City not request this?

I have read reports that Liverpool 'hid' lost revenue in stadium development costs that wasn't properly accounted for just to pass FFP and that Spurs did dodgy transfer deals under rednapp that weren't disclosed in their books.

I don't know but I wouldn't think there was a mechanism for a club to request another is investigated, or accuse another etc.

Our one came about because of the der speigel articles claiming all sorts, and uefa opening an investigation. Which the PL then decided they needed to follow suit.

The Chelsea one came supposedly as a result of self reporting.

Other than that, there would need to be something with some sort of substance in the public domain to make them investigate.

Although 8 clubs did feel they had the right to write a letter to Uefa when our case was in the headlines, so who knows.

 

[deano ou812]

Spurs have just put out their annual revenue and another loss was made for the 4th time in a row, Does the Premier League FFP rules apply in London

Yip the new stadium gets them off failing PSR apparently,with money taken into account for that ,unless I have read it wrong on the bbc article,fantastic rules they’ve got the premier league..

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I don’t know who told you that mate but Liverpool paid £50m for plans to be drawn up for a new stadium.

That’s seems the going rate to me so I doubt they can be touched.

The going rate? I don't think so. We work with multi million pound developers and I know 'plans' don't cost that much. Unless it's a government scheme obviously.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I don't know but I wouldn't think there was a mechanism for a club to request another is investigated, or accuse another etc.

Our one came about because of the der speigel articles claiming all sorts, and uefa opening an investigation. Which the PL then decided they needed to follow suit.

The Chelsea one came supposedly as a result of self reporting.

Other than that, there would need to be something with some sort of substance in the public domain to make them investigate.

Although 8 clubs did feel they had the right to write a letter to Uefa when our case was in the headlines, so who knows.

Eight clubs decided they didn't like the competition. We should do the same. Definitely some creative accounting going on with LFCs mystery stadium.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Yip the new stadium gets them off failing PSR apparently,with money taken into account for that ,unless I have read it wrong on the bbc article,fantastic rules they’ll got the premier league..

If stadium costs were included in PSR, no club could afford a new stadium.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Yip the new stadium gets them off failing PSR apparently,with money taken into account for that ,unless I have read it wrong on the bbc article,fantastic rules they’ll got the premier league..

Depreciation is over £70m a year, largely because of the stadium. So they're in no danger of failing FFP, despite their losses.

But this is why FFP in its current form is so unreliable as a financial sustainability indicator. Like united, they're burning through cash, with a net £50m cash outflow in the latest financial year and nearly £20m in 2022 before financing. They've had to take on further borrowing and issue shares to cover that outflow (a total of £700m of borrowing and equity injection over the five years to 20233), yet the PL never look at that and decide whether it's sustainable.

Edit: I've just looked at their latest accounts and realised I misread the figures in their accounts for net cashflow, which were higher than the actual figures and which I've amended. But they've burned through £50m in the year to 2023, despite record revenues from being in the CL and the new stadium. Kane's transfer will be in the next accounts but you can see why they needed to sell him.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Eight clubs decided they didn't like the competition. We should do the same. Definitely some creative accounting going on with LFCs mystery stadium.

It would.also appear that if other clubs can put pressure on the PL to investigate that sets a precedent and City can ask for the PL to check LFS accounts and see where the missing £50m was spent when there is nothing to show for it. That's a fair few big invoices that LFC paid.

 

[Prophet of Doom]

The going rate? I don't think so. We work with multi million pound developers and I know 'plans' don't cost that much. Unless it's a government scheme obviously.

And did you ever see the architects plans for Anfield circulating at that time ? Looked like they had been drawn up by a 10 year old on a Commodore 64 - embarrassing 80’s graphics.

My arse they spent £50m with no construction started.

 

[KS55]

Do any of the PL financial and legal experts on this thread believe that City could reasonably request that the PL look into other clubs dubious financial dealings, the same way that City's have been intrinsically scrutinised? Or is that not possible. If that is the case why not? As a member of the PL could City not request this?

I have read reports that Liverpool 'hid' lost revenue in stadium development costs that wasn't properly accounted for just to pass FFP and that Spurs did dodgy transfer deals under rednapp that weren't disclosed in their books.

The PL is a private company in which all clubs own an equal share. The PL Rules form a contract between the clubs who agree to obey the rules. Also every club has signed the Owners charter which commits them to treat each other fairly.
It would therefore be possible to raise a shareholders dispute claiming that a particular club has broken the rules to the detriment of the others. Tabling a paper with the company secretary would be the normal route to raise such an issue.
Good luck with that one.
P.S. The PL decided to take no action on Liverpool hacking our player data because it was “so long ago”. Not as long ago as some of the actions they allege against us, though. Time is relative at the PL.