PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Screenshot_20240411_202733_Chrome.jpg

Premier League clubs have reportedly agreed in principle to adopt new rules to control costs.

A number of alternative options, such as a luxury tax and salary cap, have been discussed by fans and pundits but the league appears ready to press ahead with a squad-cost ratio system.

This will allow clubs to spend up to 85 per cent of their revenue on transfers, wages and agent fees. A similar system is being adopted by UEFA whereby clubs in European competition can only spend 70 per cent of their income.

Thursday’s Premier League shareholders meeting saw the 20 clubs hold two votes on the new rules, according to Sky Sports, one of which reached a unanimous verdict. Now said to be agreed in principle, the league will aim to enshrine in it their rulebook at their summer AGM.

Critics of the squad-cost ratio say it will only serve to keep the existing established order in tact, with the current biggest clubs able to bring in the most revenue. There are also questions over how clubs will be allowed to artificially increase revenue via sponsorships with businesses related to their ownership, particularly clubs with owners linked to wealthy states.

Opinion: A couple of points... The squad-cost ratio system will still stop ambitious owners from being able to invest beyond their turnover in order to compete with the wealthiest clubs, who have the highest turnovers.

A fairer system would be to allow owners to invest what they like, as long as the investment debt is levied against them personally & not the clubs.

Also a club's actual debt on their balance sheet should not exceed 25% of their turnover & the clubs must demonstrate they have the means & wherewithal to service that debt annually.

Another glaring issue is related parties. Why doesn't this apply to American owned clubs having sponsorship deals with American based & owned sponsors?

It's evident why these transatlantic sponsorship deals are seen as fine, but sponsors based in the same "exotic" countries as the club owners they sponsor, are viewed with suspicion & held to a higher standard of relatability tests?

Also which "State" in the world is wealthier than the United States of America?

If the above reports are true, the thick chasing pack & "Just happy to be in the PL" twats who voted for the squad-cost ratio system, have essentially voted to remain where they in perpetuity.

I'm sure this will suit the Red Top Mafia, Spuds, Chavs & City just fine. Talk about the rest being turkeys who're happy to vote for Christmas...

UnFuckinBelievable!

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/fo...rules-profit-sustainability-ffp-b1150904.html
 
Last edited:
Dribble said:
View attachment 113714

Premier League clubs have reportedly agreed in principle to adopt new rules to control costs.

A number of alternative options, such as a luxury tax and salary cap, have been discussed by fans and pundits but the league appears ready to press ahead with a squad-cost ratio system.

This will allow clubs to spend up to 85 per cent of their revenue on transfers, wages and agent fees. A similar system is being adopted by UEFA whereby clubs in European competition can only spend 70 per cent of their income.

Thursday’s Premier League shareholders meeting saw the 20 clubs hold two votes on the new rules, according to Sky Sports, one of which reached a unanimous verdict. Now said to be agreed in principle, the league will aim to enshrine in it their rulebook at their summer AGM.

Critics of the squad-cost ratio say it will only serve to keep the existing established order in tact, with the current biggest clubs able to bring in the most revenue. There are also questions over how clubs will be allowed to artificially increase revenue via sponsorships with businesses related to their ownership, particularly clubs with owners linked to wealthy states.

Opinion: A couple of points... The squad-cost ratio system will still stop ambitious owners from being able to invest beyond their turnover in order to compete with the wealthiest clubs, who have the highest turnovers.

A fairer system would be to allow owners to invest what they like, as long as the investment debt is levied against them personally & not the clubs.

Also a club's actual debt on their balance sheet should not exceed 25% of their turnover & the clubs must demonstrate they have the means & wherewithal to service that debt annually.

Another glaring issue is related parties. Why doesn't this apply to American owned clubs having sponsorship deals with American based & owned sponsors?

It's evident why these transatlantic sponsorship deals are seen as fine, but sponsors based in the same "exotic" countries as the club owners they sponsor, are viewed with suspicion & held to a higher standard of relatability tests?

Also which "State" in the world is wealthier than the United States of America?

If the above reports are true, the thick chasing pack & "Just happy to be in the PL" twats who voted for the squad-cost ratio system, have essentially voted to remain where they in perpetuity.

I'm sure this will suit the Red Top Mafia, Spuds, Chavs & City just fine. Talk about the rest being turkeys who're happy to vote for Christmas...

UnFuckinBelievable!

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/fo...rules-profit-sustainability-ffp-b1150904.html
Click to expand...
Club owners really must be complete numptys and take away all hope for their supporters of ever getting an ambitious owner. But I suppose they can still say, its all City’s fault. Also, I am sure they are not aware but City are not owned by a wealthy state. Dont understand how that has passed them by;-)1000018876.jpg
 
We've had the shit thrown at us over the last 10 years or so. As fans, we've had to develop thick skins, but it's a shame that we've had to be so defensive on many HYSs, even with all the success. Me included. Once these charges bollocks are out of the way, I won't be defending our club anymore. I'm just going to reply by laughing at every claim from then on. EVERY accusation will just get a "hahahahahahaha hahahahahaha"
 
Marklr said:
We've had the shit thrown at us over the last 10 years or so. As fans, we've had to develop thick skins, but it's a shame that we've had to be so defensive on many HYSs, even with all the success. Me included. Once these charges bollocks are out of the way, I won't be defending our club anymore. I'm just going to reply by laughing at every claim from then on. EVERY accusation will just get a "hahahahahahaha hahahahahaha"
Click to expand...
we;ll just no point watch football anymore lol
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
1 is sponsorship, so presumably Etihad & Etisalat
2 is Mancini & Fordham
3 & 4 aren't about failing FFP necessarily but not submitting accurate accounts for both the PL & UEFA. Those obviously depend on 1 & 2 but the latter is unlikely to involve material amounts.
Click to expand...
Isn't there a good chance PB that the Mancini & Fordham stuff will be time-barred?
 
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.