PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[KS55]

You may be right, but don't you think legal fees would be included in the shared cost service agreement between CFG and the club, and I don't really see a problem with owners paying protection costs for owned assets, tbh. Analogous to IP owners paying protection costs irrespective of the company incurring the costs, in my view.

Anyway, the United situation is the opposite, it's pushing down owner-specific costs to the subsidiary, which is on much shakier ground, at least if I was a United fan and cared at all. Which I'm not and don't. I doubt they are tax allowable which is a pretty good company-related expense test.

Anyway. whatever, don't care much other then the hypocrisy in the flexibility given to United on things like this (and Liverpool - 50 million stadium costs? Illegal hacking activity?) when City are charged for every small breach, like a minute late for a kick-off.

Agreed. CFG are entitled to defend their asset, but that wouldn’t stop the PL trying to make something of it.
Of course the rags and dippers get preferential treatment from the PL CEO that they appointed.

 

[mancboy]

Agreed. CFG are entitled to defend their asset, but that wouldn’t stop the PL trying to make something of it.
Of course the rags and dippers get preferential treatment from the PL CEO that they appointed.

I think the pl are just backing themselves further and further into a corner with this, it will be almost impossible for the pl to argue that they are impartial with the likes of this hanging over them, even if you wrongly accept that the rags are the biggest british club it is absolutely impossible to accept that their acceptable losses amount to three times more than all the other teams put together without accepting that the pl is bias towards them and its even further impossible to argue that this was the case while they were spending over 100m on transfers in these seasons where they were claiming these losses.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

You may be right, but don't you think legal fees would be included in the shared cost service agreement between CFG and the club, and I don't really see a problem with owners paying protection costs for owned assets, tbh. Analogous to IP owners paying protection costs irrespective of the company incurring the costs, in my view.

Anyway, the United situation is the opposite, it's pushing down owner-specific costs to the subsidiary, which is on much shakier ground, at least if I was a United fan and cared at all. Which I'm not and don't. I doubt they are tax allowable which is a pretty good company-related expense test.

Anyway. whatever, don't care much other then the hypocrisy in the flexibility given to United on things like this (and Liverpool - 50 million stadium costs? Illegal hacking activity?) when City are charged for every small breach, like a minute late for a kick-off.

There was a reason those two particular clubs chose Richard Masters. His past experience really didn’t include anything to indicate he’d be a candidate for CEO of the wealthiest league in the world, which is at least worthy of a question. Unfortunately what passes for journalistic curiosity in football these days isn’t exactly from the Woodward & Bernstein school…..

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Now Utd are Fudging PSR by a country mile and nobody says or blinks an eye, £40million for season 2022 and £30 million the season after, Everton and Notts Forest should going to town with the Premier league. Failed FFP under Uefa got a small fine and Now PSR is letting them off with Fudging the books.

Let's ask UNITED to hand over all the books dating back to 2013,

Half an Anthony.....let that sink in.

 

[bluetonium]

I do hope that clubs such as Forest and Everton raise this. It seems clear that, specifically, different interpretations of COVID losses have been used for different clubs despite the core reason being the same for everyone.

We all lost out on money due to the pandemic, why exactly is United's loss around forty times greater than anyone else's? Is that demonstrable? Was it even checked or did they just come up with the sum required to avoid action, and work back from there?

It may well be that United's loss of income is justified, but then isn't every other clubs to some amount? Loss of income, gate receipts, tour turnover, was there an allowance for everyone? No there was not. So why United? Given that fines, point deductions, loss or gaining of prize money have all resulted directly from that interpretation of the data by the same body, it needs clarification and I do suspect that the answer is as dark as we fear.

The whole process is very murky and, some may say, cloak and dagger. It certainly doesn't help the image of the premier league in that it does appear certain clubs have the ear of the rule makers. Independent regulation anyone?

 

[Stoned Rose]

I do hope that clubs such as Forest and Everton raise this. It seems clear that, specifically, different interpretations of COVID losses have been used for different clubs despite the core reason being the same for everyone.

We all lost out on money due to the pandemic, why exactly is United's loss around forty times greater than anyone else's? Is that demonstrable? Was it even checked or did they just come up with the sum required to avoid action, and work back from there?

It may well be that United's loss of income is justified, but then isn't every other clubs to some amount? Loss of income, gate receipts, tour turnover, was there an allowance for everyone? No there was not. So why United? Given that fines, point deductions, loss or gaining of prize money have all resulted directly from that interpretation of the data by the same body, it needs clarification and I do suspect that the answer is as dark as we fear.

The whole process is very murky and, some may say, cloak and dagger. It certainly doesn't help the image of the premier league in that it does appear certain clubs have the ear of the rule makers. Independent regulation anyone?

These cunts thought no one would have the balls to question/challenge any of this bollocks.

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

Well. At least the independent regulator will have something meaty to get their teeth into when they start :-)

 

[Pontypool Blue]

Well. At least the independent regulator will have something meaty to get their teeth into when they start :-)

When they start they will be allowed to look at the 15 filing cabinets, 1 for each club. The other "Special" 4 clubs will be locked away and kept private due to security clearance. If they even manage to get a high court order allowing them access to these 4 then they will find the redaction pen has been worked overtime.
Then of course they will be eagerly directed towards the new building they have just built for us that houses all of the 6 million documents they have collected over the last 12 years or so!

 

[Asa's left peg]

There was a reason those two particular clubs chose Richard Masters. His past experience really didn’t include anything to indicate he’d be a candidate for CEO of the wealthiest league in the world, which is at least worthy of a question. Unfortunately what passes for journalistic curiosity in football these days isn’t exactly from the Woodward & Bernstein school…..

Would still like to know why the woman resigned after a couple of weeks, before Masters appointment.

 

[KS55]

Would still like to know why the woman resigned after a couple of weeks, before Masters appointment.

She was supposed to have said some clubs wielded too much influence. Which clubs could she possibly have had in mind?