PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[schfc6]

Are all the other clubs oblivious to the bigger picture.

Depends what you deem bigger picture? The American owned clubs will see this as a chance to close the shop even more. Take Bournemouth for example. Their revenue compared to a promoted club will theoretically keep the gap. Teams who come up simply won’t be able to compete with the established.
Thus closing the shop. Bournemouth aren’t looking up. They’re looking back.

United, Liverpool, Chelsea & Spurs want to close the door on Villa and Newcastle.
But Bournemouth, Wolves, Brentford etc will want to close the door on Leeds, Burnley, Luton, Southampton etc.

 

[Damanino]

many owners clearly happy with the PL revenues, the status of being a PL club owner, and the fact they can vote for saving their own ass in a way not really allowing for any ambitious other club to grow quickly let alone someone coming from Championship all of a sudden become a force.
on top of this with these rules they can always point at the rules when asked for spending more etc.

how mike Ashley would love these stricter rules...

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Yeah, it stops investment and progress and development in the English game.
They the (Scum) did nothing for the game in England and it was always, take take take and me me me.

Manchester City owners have done more for the game and the UK economy than anybody else has done in the whole history of the game. The media cheats claims they write about should be very careful what they wish for .

its Funny how the Premier League invited outside Investment to buy clubs and to boost the game and standards of the league with world-class talent, Now they want to protect United and Liverpool from becoming just a normal run of the mill clubs

United have invested virtually nothing in the Greater Manchester community. Most of their community projects are essentially PR spin. The complete opposite of City. In fact even before Sheikh Mansour came in we did more locally for the City of Manchester than United. The Glazers have spent on players and taken dividends to line their own pockets. Their business model stinks and it is all built on a £1bn mountain of debt which continues to rise each year. This latest rule change by the PL will be carved up in a private meeting between Masters, LFC, MUFC, Arsenal and Spurs just like the last one. It is pure protectionism.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

great stuff, thank god they didn't bring this in a decade ago it would have stopped us in our tracks, now I couldn't give a fuck about it. bring it on

That attitude‘s fine as long as we win our case. Either way though I wouldn’t vote alongside those cnuts even if it suited us to. They want the complete ruination of our club and there’s no rule change they won’t contemplate to nobble us at any given point. Give them nowt. Ever

 

[Dannyblue52]

Depends what you deem bigger picture? The American owned clubs will see this as a chance to close the shop even more. Take Bournemouth for example. Their revenue compared to a promoted club will theoretically keep the gap. Teams who come up simply won’t be able to compete with the established.
Thus closing the shop. Bournemouth aren’t looking up. They’re looking back.

United, Liverpool, Chelsea & Spurs want to close the door on Villa and Newcastle.
But Bournemouth, Wolves, Brentford etc will want to close the door on Leeds, Burnley, Luton, Southampton etc.

Excellent analogy. Most clubs will vote for it to try to maintain their league status. The red tops will be laughing their socks off. From a fans perspective a table of what their team can spend on players compared with the so called top 6 would be interesting and open their eyes to the inequality. Spending restrictions should include debt as part of the calculation to give a more equitable position. That won't happen for obvious reasons.

 

[ancoats]

Simply just vote against it,but as we have seen with voting before on certain things,some are either to thick to realise what it means,happy just to be in the premier league collecting tv money or will be pressured into voting for it ..

Parachute payments.
all the smaller clubs that are up and down all the time will vote for it because they are getting protected with money from Parachute payments over 3 seasons

 

[anyoldblu]

don’t they need a super majority of 14/6 to bring this in? If the turkeys want to vote for Christmas it’s up to them. on the face of it, shouldn’t impact us, unless there is something in the small print about clubs called Manchester City.

Agreed:

• Deloitte Football Money League: This annual report ranks the top 20 football clubs globally based on revenue. In 2023, the top 5 Premier League clubs by revenue were:
  1. Manchester City: €731m
  2. Liverpool: €702m
  3. Manchester United: €624m
  4. Chelsea: €560m
  5. Tottenham Hotspur: €519m

 

[ancoats]

All to pull up the drawbridge if they manage to get rid of us. They’ll make sure we never come back

I think the Premier League needs Manchester City more than ever now because we are the best-run club in football
and makes the most money and will only grow bigger and bigger,

 

[MMA]

Are all the other clubs oblivious to the bigger picture.

Not so much the clubs but don't underestimate the thickness of football supporters who can't see the bigger picture due to tribal allegiance.

 

[Berts Neck]

Please excuse me for perhaps asking silly questions or making dubious points.
1. I have tried to ascertain exactly what the 115 charges are and cannot find this online anywhere.
2.Do the PL not have a duty to clarify these charges to fans of a club ?
3. When precisely did the PL become aware of these misdemeanours ?
4.My reasoning is simple. I do not hold a SC, go when I can.But say you are a SC holder, and were made aware of the charges you may not wish to renew your SC. You will have spent money following City on the premis we have done nil wrong.You will have paid for travel, SCs, and yet a possible sanction would be losing those titles which devalues the investment you have made following City.So you have incurred a loss.
5. If you have incurred a loss due to the intransigence of the PL are you able to make a claim in the small claims court ?? i am aware that you can make a personal claim against the CEO of an organisation if you have incurred a loss.
6. So let us say 5k SC City fans serve Richard Masters a notice to prosecute him personally for potential losses in light of the fact they have failed to clarify matters, when exactly accusing City of the same, is this argument feasible.

One for the leagal eagles.

I understand that one answer will be the claim could be made against City !!