PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

thegoatsthegoat said:
I am a rookie but how can it be public news that they have lost 270m in that three year period, but no explanation as to why they haven't been punished or what their "allowances" are to then make them compliant?

How isn't this highlighted anywhere? How can this information not be disclosed?
Click to expand...
They haven’t actually lost it, they have merely temporarily misplaced it, but it’s alright because it’s ‘organic’ money and will soon grow back and then everything will be all lovely in the wacky world of the PL.
 
spinney said:
Yes I thought I'd seen this pop up on MEN site

Absolutly disgraceful

Why arnt our club taking this up with the MEN ?
Click to expand...
Taking up what exactly with the MEN (more likely Reach PLC)? It's a headline that's designed to attract clicks which leads to an absolutely nothing article (I'm guessing at that last bit as I won't click on them).
 
Roachy said:
There was an identical one the other day with Middlesbrough being the benefactor. It's bonkers.
Click to expand...
They're all the same company, it's just a copy and paste job with the place name changed to gain likes
 
give it to gordon said:
behind a pay wall thingy but why would City settle ? Surely superdry beef would be with the other company using a similar name
Click to expand...
Because consumers won't get confused and try and drink their mid-market high street hoodies but might get confused between sportswear and t-shirts with the same name on that are both sold in the Arndale (or so the claimant will have said).
 
thing is we wont even know how much Chelsea stretched their own limit of 105m. were they just under despite all the tricks of hotel sales, arms length transfers, that strange related party shirt sponsor for last year, and many players signed up for 8/9 year contract to amortize their fees in lot smaller portions did they got close to the limit even with all these tricks or were they comfortably under the limit.
again this season they have no CL income, not even a shirt sponsor deal.

United also no CL this season, no CL next season pretty much, some of their sponsors cut some % of their deals due to this, you would think this can limit their spending next summer but I think both them and Chelsea will spend much more than the likes of Forest, Barcodes who would now really need a big investment to be able to step higher.
which is pretty much the goal of PSR to try to avoid lesser teams to be able to get a regular place in the CL places while giving much more leeway to richer teams to keep trying spending their way out of trouble more often.
 
Vester said:


Not sure how (if at all) relevant it is to our case but its looking like Chelsea will see no point deduction in their case against PL.
Click to expand...


And they apparently withheld £150m of the sale price, in order to cover any fines.

Bearing in mind that money was earmarked for the people of Ukraine, due to the sanctions on Abramovitch, it would seem like an extremely good deal for the new owners. If it's under £150m, it costs them effectively nothing, and money that would have gone to Ukraine, goes to the Premier League.
 
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