PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

117 M34 said:
No. The selling club and his agent did.
Click to expand...
That's why Cardiff are suing Nantes, the selling club. To get potential loss of earnings.
It's crass of Cardiff City t
However, the agent Willie McKay seems to getting out of this relatively lightly...
 
Mr Fraser said:
Wondering what would happen if club failed SPR/FFP because their predicted income was lower than expected due to PL distributing less monies due to their legal expenses. Or is that a silly question
Click to expand...

Points deduction if over 105 million. No rules to prevent it. May be a mitigating factor to reduce the sanction, though.

Edit: PL could settle without a points deduction, I suppose, but then points deductions for FFP breaches would be dead if they become discretionary.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
Are you saying you think City didn't have a contract with Mancini that included termination clauses. That is the rule we've been charged with says. It makes no difference if Mancini had a separate contract with any other company at all as long as the contract between city and Mancini existed and was handed in on time. Also no fraud has been committed so statute of limitations apply. The Mancini charges are easy to prove that city haven't broken any of the PL rules
Click to expand...
Correct, when Bobby left Inter City put him on a contract to advise AD football until the following season.

However Hughes failed badly so Mancini's appointment was brought forward, his contract is not something we're all privy to but there's no way the PL can prove Bobby's original contract or his renegotiated one was in any way dodgy.
 
Mr Fraser said:
Wondering what would happen if club failed SPR/FFP because their predicted income was lower than expected due to PL distributing less monies due to their legal expenses. Or is that a silly question
Click to expand...
No I would say it's perfectly reasonable. A club normally know how much to expect from the PL every year. Suddenly, having predicted an 8 mill spend on legals the PL had to find 45 mill. The shortfall per club isn't much but that was last season. They now have to pay for the 115 hearing which could easily be double, then there's Chelsea and maybe others. I think it why some clubs are questioning the clowns. They were criticised in the Everton case by an independent panel and have been shown to be utter fools in the Leicester case. Maybe we will see a club saying they wouldn't have failed PSR if the PL had not wasted the money and allocated the amount originally projected.
 
Blue Mist said:
No I would say it's perfectly reasonable. A club normally know how much to expect from the PL every year. Suddenly, having predicted an 8 mill spend on legals the PL had to find 45 mill. The shortfall per club isn't much but that was last season. They now have to pay for the 115 hearing which could easily be double, then there's Chelsea and maybe others. I think it why some clubs are questioning the clowns. They were criticised in the Everton case by an independent panel and have been shown to be utter fools in the Leicester case. Maybe we will see a club saying they wouldn't have failed PSR if the PL had not wasted the money and allocated the amount originally projected.
Click to expand...
I believe the term is “allowances will be made for….”
 
Platt Lane 59 said:
That's why Cardiff are suing Nantes, the selling club. To get potential loss of earnings.
It's crass of Cardiff City t
However, the agent Willie McKay seems to getting out of this relatively lightly...
Click to expand...
Willie fucking McKay, I thought that bastard was dead.
 
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.