PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
It will be wages plus amortised contract/agents costs. I suppose the question is whether profit on sales is deducted from those costs or not? I can think of no reason (well, just the one ...) why it shouldn't be.

Then again, I can think of no reason (well, just the one ...) why they are considering this stupid rule in the first place. It doesn't encourage clubs to become better, it drags the clubs with the highest revenues down to the level of the rest. Madness.

I'm surprised Masters has any feet left, he shoots himself in them so often.
Click to expand...


Depends how much people think better should always be linked to higher revenues to be fair. That’s a slippery slope in itself too.
 
Metalartin said:
The wrong doing would be a lack of due-diligence but there are so many clubs with the same question mark that singling City out would be discrimination(or some other such legal word). Also, the argument from the club's point of view would be it's hard to prove because a lot of companies are registered in Isle of Man(where an owner can nominate a shareholder in their place) and/or use the British Virgin Islands(to avoid tax).

Rabin did a thread which pointed to United's(and Arsenal's?) betting company sponsorship('s), after Nick Harris tried to make it City only story, based on their being 'no online presence' for the company. He seemed so excited and pleased with himself, at the time.

While some pointed out; China based companies have no legitimate access to western social media platforms because they are blocked by their country... Which makes looking for their online presence on those platforms in the first place, rather stupid, especially for an 'investigative journalist'.

The United one Rabin mentioned was Yabo, who later changed their name to HTH. It seemed to have no more than a placeholder website that was barely functioning, just like the City one.

Newcastle, Watford, Leicester City, along with Manchester United have been mentioned on a Financial Time's video documentary they made in 2023. City weren't mentioned in that, surprisingly. I think it's because their focus was on Xela Holdings and it's connection to Suncity.



Along with the above mentioned clubs, I seem to remember Arsenal, Everton and number of other PL clubs made the list of clubs with questionable betting sponsors, in an article from a few years back. Maybe someone else remembers which paper/online outlet did that article.

Money laundering in the UK seems to be a far wider reaching issue than just betting companies(crypto companies also being used) and football.
Click to expand...
Thanks, mate. They're so desperate to believe City have done ANYthing wrong just to ease their jealousy. They must pray at night for more negative news about us.
It's amazing what good football can do...
 
BlueRockape said:
Super league is looking better by the day rather than working with the wankers running the PL.
But maybe that's the plan ?
Click to expand...
Begs the question, did the club know what they were doing when they got involved in the super league? Were they privy to information that we weren’t? Should we have trusted the professionals who are running the club?
Whilst City fans were busy criticising the club and pleading the case for the integrity of the league, the other clubs were busy hatching a plan to nobble our club.
 
meltonblue said:
Depends how much people think better should always be linked to higher revenues to be fair. That’s a slippery slope in itself too.
Click to expand...

I'm all for a degree of fairness as long as it encourages clubs underneath to invest to compete, rather than restricting the growth of the top clubs to enable a few others to compete, no matter how badly they are managed.

By all means introduce an anchor if you think it's in the best interest of the league (which I don't, granted) but then get rid of the 85% rule so the clubs underneath can choose to invest if they want to.

It's the two rules together with which I have a problem. Seems completely counter-productive to me. Stifles investment and leads to degradation in quality.

Maybe it's just me :)
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
I'm all for a degree of fairness as long as it encourages clubs underneath to invest to compete, rather than restricting the growth of the top clubs to enable a few others to compete, no matter how badly they are managed.

By all means introduce an anchor if you think it's in the best interest of the league (which I don't, granted) but then get rid of the 85% rule so the clubs underneath can choose to invest if they want to.

It's the two rules together with wjich I have a problem. Seems completely counter-productive to me. Stifles investment and leads to degradation in quality.

Maybe it's just me :)
Click to expand...

Personally I’d rather they look more at the redistribution of wealth within the game, currently the disparity means that clubs can be ran well and never breach the top, or ran badly whilst at the top and still be in with no real danger. I’d rather reduce the requirement of there needing to be a wealthy benefactor or a rise in revenue through increasing ticketing income from fans in order for a club to grow. That doesn’t mean don’t allow them either, I agree with your sentiment there, just reduce the necessity of it.
 
Marklr said:
Does anyone know anything about this claim from 2022...i can only find the claim.
"Mystery surrounds 8XBet, Manchester City’s new Asian betting partner.It has many of the hallmarks of a fake company: a founder who doesn’t seem to exist online and a CEO appearing to hide behind a stolen avatar."
Click to expand...

When was those quotes reported?
 
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.