PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[manimanc]

I thought it said the amount the bottom of the league receives from the Premier League and used Sheff utd as the example as they will get 105m for getting relegated and therefore it's x5 that amount!?

Or have I heard that differently?

If that's the case then whoever finishes bottom will get the same amount whoever it is, right?

I'm sure that's how they explained it on sky sports news before!

 

[Atypical]

GAA and rugby getting bigger and bigger??? GAA is as big as it will ever get and has its crowd that are mostly best avoided while rugby is still a minority sport dispite the way over the top media coverage it gets, last rugby world cup was on you would hardly notice at all.

Have to disagree.

 

[blueparsman]

Then how much we could spend this summer. theoretically speaking if Sheffield has earned 100m and we have earned 712mil, then we could spend roughly 606mil on transfers, wages, agent fees, but they can’t exceed that of Sheffield’s 100x5 mil for the season if our expenditure for transfers, wages and agent fees is 500 then we can’t really buy anyone this summer window

but they looking at 6x not 5 so not much diff to wot we are allowed to spend at mo. wot it will do is slow us down if our growth continues financially or we make sure the lowest team grows too. Its stopping the gap get bigger. Rightly or wrongly ??? to me it shud be up to the other clubs to grow financially. why restrict well run clubs like ours.

 

[Dribble]

Are you in a court of law when you buy a house? Or a second hand car? Or when you sign an employment contract?

Ultimately, this is a contractual dispute that is governed by its terms and is subject to English and Welsh law. And is enforced in relation to both.

This is still a legal case, as much as a claim for unfair dismissal heard by an employment tribunal, rather than a court.

Mate, everything we do is governed by the law. Going to the corner shop & purchasing something is essentially a contract, which is governed by consumer law. I wouldn't say I've been involved in a legal scenario because I emerged from my corner shop with a can of baked beans & a loaf of bread...

There's a very important distinction here. I honestly believe that if this were a serious legal matter, we'd be in a court of law whether criminal or civil. No matter how it's dressed up, we're essentially up before the Wheel Tappers & Shunters Social Club Committee, with their silly onerous rules designed to kneecap us.

Too many of our fans have had the crap frightened out of them, leading to the belief an international arrest warrant will be issued for HRH, & Pep, Txiki, Soriano & Khaldoon will be spending a few days in CDC, whilst the turnstiles at the Etihad will be padlocked.

They won't.

It's time we called these breaches out for what they are. It's the Red Top Mafia & Spuds attempt at stopping City by any means necessary. They've failed on the pitch, so are now trying it from the boardroom... Again.

It's not a legal case in the sense of what most people recognise.

 

[Jam Tomorrow]

Bet Benfica are gutted, there’s no way they’ll be able to rinse the scousers for their next Darwin Nunez.

 

[BlueMonkey79]

From what is now being proposed to limit our spending, it is yet another indicator that the charges levied against us have gone to rat shit for the PL.

My thoughts exactly.

All these financial rules and proposals are all dressed up to stop us.

If it was just United, Arsenal and Liverpool going toe to toe for the league every year these rules wouldn't even exist.

If the PL were confident that we are guilty and are going to get relegated they wouldn't need to Introduce these pie in the sky proposals!!!

 

[OntarioBlue]

So, if I understand things correctly all 20 teams in the Premier League will be allowed to spend the same amount of money. The figure being touted is £500m. In 2023 only three Premier league Clubs had revenue higher than £500m so any of the other 17 Clubs which wishes to spend the cap amount will have to borrow money. Within a few short years we could easily see half the teams in the league insolvent and out of business.

Meanwhile those Clubs with the high revenues will be forced to cut spending and will very quickly find themselves falling behind the big European Clubs.

Are the people running the Premier League so blind they cant see this.

Btw how did Newcastle vote ?

 

[Dribble]

This isn’t that complicated. There’s 2 parts.

1) Each club can spend 85% of revenue. This is agreed on and happening.

2) No club can spend more than 6x revenue of 20th team. Things agreed on principle but details tbc and voted on again.

Nowhere are Luton going to be allowed to spend £560m a year on wages and transfers, that would break PSR, wouldn’t it?

The only thing this does is make sure that the gap between top and bottom doesn’t grow too big by incentivising the top clubs to keep growing the revenues of the league as a whole.

My whole point is based on these crucial missing details highlighted, which could end up with City's situation not being so bad, or our situation being made a shit load worse.

Everything else is mere speculation. I get all the rest, it's the detail myself & everyone else is interested in.

 

[OntarioBlue]

Just one more thought. Won’t this just drive the “big“ clubs in the premier league to look at a European Super League again ?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It's not a legal case in the sense of what most people recognise.

Possibly not, but it’s a dispute that arises out of a legal agreement that is subject to and will be enforced via English and Welsh law and it is therefore undeniably a legal case.

If you’d said that isn’t what most people would recognise as a legal case then you might very well be correct.