PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

itsnevereasy said:
The downside to normal fans of FFP is that clubs will focus on growing revenue rather than cutting costs. The vast majority of increasing revenues will be commercial deals but that extra 2% that might be needed to pass FFP… put the ticket prices up, put the prices of drink and food up, charge more for shirts etc.. and us fans get hit in the pocket.

The even bigger downside is that FFP is all done to protect the teams not owned by people from a certain area of the world.
Click to expand...
I remember when the pundits were forecasting free entry to PL games as clubs would be making so much money on the commercial side. Ha!
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
I get the impression from some posts that the belief that City are accused of not meeting FFP rules. This is not and cannot be the case because City have been granted a license to play in UEFA competitions every season since the 2011-12 season. The charges brought by the PL are much more serious since they would require proof of criminal behaviour to uphold them. It seems (and we are not certain what the charges are in detail) that the claim is that City have falsified the club's accounts to maintain that the club's income is higher than it is in reality. In particular it is claimed that what is income from sponsors is, in fact, investment from the owner. This may be (and probably certainly would be) prohibited by FFP but the payment itself would not be against the law, though the misrepresentation and false accounting would be.
Click to expand...
Why would income from the owner be prohibited by FFP?
 
BrianW said:
They don't want a 'level playing field'.

That would be all revenues pooled and split 20 ways. They would be absolutely horrified if it was set up that way.

'Level playing field' is code for 'as it was' with Rags, Red Scouse, Arsenal and Chelsea in the top 4 almost every year, only the order of the 4 varying.
Click to expand...
'As It Was'? That Harry Styles cove gets everywhere, doesn't he..?!
 
halfcenturyup said:
Why would income from the owner be prohibited by FFP?
Click to expand...
That's been a fundamental part of FFP since it was introduced.

The original concept was to target debt, and at various times Madrid, Chelsea, United were all accused of cheating by UEFA, but after a lot of lobbying the target became financial input from owners.

All of City's FFP issues have been related to the authorities arguing that part of our sponsorship is actually paid by our owner, or that the owner is paying players and managers extra money off the books.
 
bluenova said:
That's been a fundamental part of FFP since it was introduced.

The original concept was to target debt, and at various times Madrid, Chelsea, United were all accused of cheating by UEFA, but after a lot of lobbying the target became financial input from owners.

All of City's FFP issues have been related to the authorities arguing that part of our sponsorship is actually paid by our owner, or that the owner is paying players and managers extra money off the books.
Click to expand...

Yes, sorry, I should have been more specific. Why would sponsorship income funded by the owner be prohibited by FFP?
 
halfcenturyup said:
Tell that to Leicester, pre-takeover Newcastle and many others. Owner sponsorship isn't against FFP. Why should it be as long as it is at fair value?
Click to expand...
But our owner isn't supposed to own our sponsors.

There's little logic to it, and it has been suggested that if some of these sponsorships were considered related parties City wouldn't have had any ffp problems. Once they are considered unrelated though, the sponsorship can't be funded by the owner.
 
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