PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

Got to say myself with regards to spending and richer clubs, there needs to be a level; playing field and I dotnt like the idea that some clubs pay a luxury tax.. Thats pay to win. Fuck that. Fuck that if it was utd, lfc or City

It's a tricky problem to solve.

Fwiw, I favour no cost control in the PL as long as there is FFP at UEFA level (so that the top 7/8 must comply), but then a proactive monitoring of losses (you expect to make losses next year, put the equity in now) together with some proactive controls of debt/cash generation ratios, and on "community" assets.

Enough of these ineffective and dangerous retrospective rules.

 

[domalino]

So, what would you propose?

I think you have to start from the destination.

What do we want football to be?

I could write about ways to make it be competitive and have 3/4/5 way title, European and relegation battles, regularly rotating which teams are at the top and winning beyond “the top 4” but I feel like I’d get 20 comments from people who don’t want that and the whole thing would get derailed like the first post.

If you do want that then you have to narrow the gap between richest and poorest somehow, which means changing the revenue distribution, I’d definitely bring back ticket rev sharing because it would get rid of the arms race to exploit fans (5% ticket increase is less attractive when half is going to the other teams). Then you have to address the CL money problem, you’re always going to get a top 4 when 4th gets £60m extra a year to defend that position against 5th.

The ideas are easy, the difficulty is that you’re trying to bring in a system that benefits the poorer smaller players in the sport and hurts the big players by taking away their advantages.

 

[Dribble]

I don’t really want to intrude but the bulk of the charges aren’t using PSR rules they fall elsewhere in the wider PL rule book.

Agreed, which are governed by FFP/PSR.

Also they're not charges, they're allegations of rule breaches.

Cutting to the chase, they're essentially accusing City of industrial scale fraud. The question is, why've they never used the term, & as per the CAS ruling, where's their evidence?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I don’t really want to intrude but the bulk of the charges aren’t using PSR rules they fall elsewhere in the wider PL rule book.

But they have been instigated purely with the desired outcome (for the PL) of the club failing FFP.

They want to restate the accounts for Etihad's and possibly Etisalat's "disguised equity funding", the fair value of those and other AD sponsorships, Mancini's salary, the Fordham expenses, the sales of IP and the rest so that the club fails FFP.

I thought that was pretty clear.

 

[lancs blue]

Got to say myself with regards to spending and richer clubs, there needs to be a level; playing field and I dotnt like the idea that some clubs pay a luxury tax.. Thats pay to win. Fuck that. Fuck that if it was utd, lfc or City

A level playing field has never existed in English football since the league structure started in 1888. Preston went out and signed some top players of the time on big wages and won the first two titles until a few of the others started to follow suit. Then came the maximum wage and retain and transfer system. The maximum wage wasn't difficult to get around, Chapman's Arsenal did it by their directors creating "ghost" jobs in their own companies for their top players. The nearest to a level playing field was probably in the 60s and early 70s - ironically after the maximum wage was abolished - 7 different champions in 7 seasons from 65/66 to 71/72.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Hello Hello
We are the 115!
Hello Hello

 

[Coatigan]

I don’t really want to intrude but the bulk of the charges aren’t using PSR rules they fall elsewhere in the wider PL rule book.

But with the overarching implication of breaching FFP/PSR.

 

[Tomblue]

I think you have to start from the destination.

What do we want football to be?

I could write about ways to make it be competitive and have 3/4/5 way title, European and relegation battles, regularly rotating which teams are at the top and winning beyond “the top 4” but I feel like I’d get 20 comments from people who don’t want that and the whole thing would get derailed like the first post.

If you do want that then you have to narrow the gap between richest and poorest somehow, which means changing the revenue distribution, I’d definitely bring back ticket rev sharing because it would get rid of the arms race to exploit fans (5% ticket increase is less attractive when half is going to the other teams). Then you have to address the CL money problem, you’re always going to get a top 4 when 4th gets £60m extra a year to defend that position against 5th.

The ideas are easy, the difficulty is that you’re trying to bring in a system that benefits the poorer smaller players in the sport and hurts the big players by taking away their advantages.

Your last point just about sums up why any idea you or anyone else comes up with would never be accepted. Can you imagine going to the cartel with this kind of thing 15 - 20 years ago. You would be in a straitjacket.

Its like asking Apple to share profits from IPhone sales to other manufacturers because 'its not fair'.

 

[applecentral]

kim gordon disagrees with this post

We're all a few decades older now but any excuse to post this:

View attachment 114637

I’m just Wilde about Kim

 

[inchy14]

Don’t be a dick. The charges are all based on allegations that came from the Der Spiegel leaks. So no they haven’t faced 115 charges from the premier league but all charges have come from the same source of information & our execs have stated we have irrefutable evidence & I have no reason to doubt considering our execs seem calm as fuck & the results of CAS showed just how amateur & prejudiced the UEFA case was.

As I also said if the premier league was confident with their evidence they wouldn’t have loaded 115 charges. They’d go big on 1 or 2 years on the most likeable conviction & get it over & done with.

Good luck with that first sentence. I’m sure he’s related to my extremely argumentative ex-wife…. ;0)