PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

domalino said:
Again, you’re coming at this from the angle of “the PL” protecting the “cartelclubs” instead of being 20 independent businesses voting for themselves.

PL owners want to protect the investment they’ve already made, see it grow by being a fantastic “product” and have a chance to realise it by cashing out in the future.

They want to have some spending rules in place so they personally aren’t bailing out the club every year, they want competitive football across the division but they don’t want to block all investors who could buy the club off them.

FFP did 1 but not the others. They’re now rewriting the rules after 15 years to get all 3.
Click to expand...

Last word from me on this until I see what is actually approved by the PL, but I suppose this is where we differ.

You see the PL as 20 different businesses but then ascribe to them three things they want as a collective.

I see the PL as 20 different companies in at least three groupings each with their own objectives and interests, but not only that, I also see an executive (CEO and Chairman) whose responsibility it is to take decisions in the wider interest and whose job it is to propose them to the shareholders for ratification in general meeting.

I have worked in such an unwieldly structure and it is vital that you have a strong executive, otherwise it degenerates into a big, political mess with deals between the various groupings in the interests of the most powerful, not in the interest of the company as an entity in itself. The only way Luton has a voice, if you will, is if a strong executive forces the others to listen. If not, they just have to go along with the most powerful in return for some breadcrumbs.

This is where the weak Masters has taken us, imo. He needs to be stronger, or preferably, his replacement does.

Then I may believe that the changes they are rumoured (and they are only rumours, again I am suspicious of the source) to be considering are for the greater good, and not just for the benefit of the few.

For what it's worth, I don't think for a minute these changes will be about stopping City. We are pretty much past that now. I do think other clubs will be feeling it, though, one way or the other.
 
domalino said:
If people actually consider the luxury tax for what it is, rather than getting angry at the idea PSR rules are being changed or the idea it's come from America then I think they'll realise it offers everybody what they want and is quite clearly the way forward.

Hedge fund vultures can sit back and get paid for other owners' ambitions.

Owners with a big plan or who want to invest can do so and just pay a small fine for a spend now, grow later approach.

It disincentivises overspending so that it's going to be temporary.
Click to expand...
Opens the way for owners to spend then get bored and the club to go bust
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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.