PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Prestwich_Blue said:
Exactly. To deduct points you have to be certain that those points were a direct consequence of the excess spending. You can never do that with any degree of accuracy. Chelsea and united have shown that spending huge amounts of money is not necessarily effective.

The sensible approach is probably to restrict spending in future years. So if Everton overspend by £25m in a 3-year period, restrict them to spending £25m less in the following season. That would involve a cap on transfer fees and wages, similar to what La Liga does.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with this. The sporting advantage is there, whether or not they make a mess of that advantage by not spending the excess wisely is another matter but it's there to begin with.

I think the rules are a nonsense but if they're going to be enforced it's my view that if found guilty/admitted guilt in Everton's case then it's irrelevant what they done with the advantage they initially gained.
 
I notice that the Guardian is prattling on again that it is the level of irresponsible spending of PL clubs which makes these P&SR necessary and that those (17) PL clubs which have published accounts for 2022-3 so far have run up losses of £600 million! This suggests that 10 years of financial regulation has failed miserably to do what it was intended to do but what the article doesn't argue is that this is because the rules have been introduced largely at the behest of the wrong clubs to tackle the wrong problem. The PL rules were proposed by Manchester United to protect "smaller" clubs from overspending and going bust. It is certainly true that no English football club has gone bust since the war without these regulations to help them so why Manchester United were so keen to see these rules introduced is puzzling. It is still puzzling that the regulations introduced should hammer clubs like Everton and Nottingham Forest and, apparently think the club with the richest owners in world football need interventionist care at the behest of those clubs which have set an example of overspending and ever increasing debt. Funnily enough Manchester United's debt is not far short of twice the overspending of the entire PL this year, and it seems to go up rather than down. How much do Spurs owe? Liverpool? Why are there no points deductions for increasing debt? Oh, it's because the stability of those clubs isn't under threat even though revenue isn't enough to pay their debts and their debts are "long term"!

The fact is that the problem is not so much the overspending. It's that we don't need these half baked rules and we certainly don't need any ridiculous luxury "taxes". What we do need is for anyone associated with Manchester United, Liverpool or Spurs to stop meddling, shut up and let an independent regulator apply the law.
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
If not already posted here is Richard Master's take in the Times about not wanting an IR.



View attachment 113442
Click to expand...
The first image used is Haaland... The star striker at the club the Premier League are trying to sanction out of existence.

It's fuckin laughable that Masters is talking up the dangers of mixing politics & sport. So what about legislating for the self interest of 4 clubs, to the detriment of the other 88 league clubs, more specifically any of the 88 who have the ambition or temerity to challenge the Cartel.

Masters can go fuck himself with a barbed wire wrapped pick axe handle... Actually, that fucker would probably see it as a perk of his job...
 
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.