jonmcfc
Well-Known Member
is this the death of football as we know it ?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Serious question relating to us and FFP(update P17)
- Thread starter Johnsonontheleft
- Start date
blueju
Well-Known Member
I clicked on the FFP website today and scrolled down to see what was said about City and in what context it was written. The first mentions of us were basically setting the scene for what I read further down the page. The basically said our association with Abu Dhabi and subsequent sponsorship by Etihad was unethical due to possible human rights breaches. I can't believe they actually wrote that but then you realise that scrolling down there was absolutely no mention of the rag shites debt.
How can they justify their shitty argument that we shouldn't be allowed to spend our debt free money and in the same breath tell us they are doing all this to avoid the certain Armageddon otherwise known as 'doing a Portsmouth '?
These bastards are so transparent it's untrue. I think the only way out of this is through the courts, surely everyone outside can see what's going on.. The greedy 'big 4' that is no more dont even try to disguise it any more.
Sorry for rambling but today is the day City should start shouting loud and clear they won't be held to ransom by yesterday's heroes.
How can they justify their shitty argument that we shouldn't be allowed to spend our debt free money and in the same breath tell us they are doing all this to avoid the certain Armageddon otherwise known as 'doing a Portsmouth '?
These bastards are so transparent it's untrue. I think the only way out of this is through the courts, surely everyone outside can see what's going on.. The greedy 'big 4' that is no more dont even try to disguise it any more.
Sorry for rambling but today is the day City should start shouting loud and clear they won't be held to ransom by yesterday's heroes.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
bluscuba said:Prestwich_Blue said:It certainly would seem to be fine for us. We should be in profit next year anyway or at least close to break-even.City Raider said:This would appear to be a lot better than we'd hoped for or have I read it all wrong?
Is the possible deterioration in stature and appeal of the premier league as a result of these rules a bigger worry for our owners and us than complying with these rules.
For a 4 post guy, that's a very astute comment.
Sheikh Mansour bought City not because of fond memories of Gillingham (honest!) but because the PL is the biggest league in the world and he wanted a showcase of Abu Dhabi investment and prowess that would be seen by the biggest world wide audiences. And he likes football a bit.
With other leagues not imposing such sanctions, these rules unilaterly damage the Premier League in a momumental shoot_ourselves_in_the_foot kind of way. Scudamore must be quietly furious. And doubtless the Sheikh is not best pleased either.
nijinskybell
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 May 2009
- Messages
- 806
Anyone know what happens if a promoted team hasn't/can't/won't comply with these rules once promoted?
lust overlord
Well-Known Member
Number13 said:So the turkeys have finally voted for christmas.
I can't believe the other clubs have been suckered for Manchester United's brand of "fairness".
They have condemed themselves to an eternity of no success now the only fair income streams are the ones that United have. Any other way of funding is deemed unfair. Does that sound fair? Everton is a good example, how will they ever out sell the rags for merchandise and branding?
Funny how United's massive debt has somehow escaped the rules?.
Uniteds debt is being paid back slowly.They will now be able to pay back the rest of what they owe quicker.All while maintaining their position as top dogs.In the real world if you are in debt you budget yourself and make cuts in outgoings if needed.United have tried to do this,decided they didn't like it so decided to make every other club do their budgeting to suit united and their quislings,and all within the "rules".
Genius really
masterwig said:The value of the club to the owner is only as strong as the league itself. The Premier League is losing its status as top dog and as such it's use as a marketing tool (and that's ultimately why we are where we are) will diminish. If these rules weaken the league's attraction around the globe then fewer people will be seeing the name of Manchester City and by proxy Abu Dhabi.
The PL is a very strong brand with a massive following so the effect probably won't be that great but still it could be a concern to the owner.
The door is closing behind us though, not in front of us.
This is a bit of a concern, we voted against it, possibly not because we want other clubs to have a chance but because we are concerned about the Premier League losing it's shine. I'd hope this is challenged legally and thrown out becuase who knows what rule changes the declining big four are planning next if this doesn't work. It's the thin end of the wedge.
I can't see if it was challenged there is any legal backing for this type of protectionism. It's completely anti competitive - as far as I know all clubs abide by UK and Eu business legislation. Are there any business minded lawyers on here that can shed any light? Could a challenge come from clubs outside of the premier league? I can't see why not as it would be a challenge under company law and irrelevant what division a club plays in.
Spurs and Everton were big movers behind breaking away to form the Premier League and it bit them on the arse. Why didn't they learn about United's selfish motives from that?
oakiecokie
Well-Known Member
We shouldn`t as fans be concerned about any of this crap.You only have to look at our last figures,to realise that we will generate more money over the next few years,thus bringing down our overall losses.
Keep faith in our Owner and his Band of Merry Men.
Keep faith in our Owner and his Band of Merry Men.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
lust overlord said:Number13 said:So the turkeys have finally voted for christmas.
I can't believe the other clubs have been suckered for Manchester United's brand of "fairness".
They have condemed themselves to an eternity of no success now the only fair income streams are the ones that United have. Any other way of funding is deemed unfair. Does that sound fair? Everton is a good example, how will they ever out sell the rags for merchandise and branding?
Funny how United's massive debt has somehow escaped the rules?.
Uniteds debt is being paid back slowly.They will now be able to pay back the rest of what they owe quicker.All while maintaining their position as top dogs.In the real world if you are in debt you budget yourself and make cuts in outgoings if needed.United have tried to do this,decided they didn't like it so decided to make every other club do their budgeting to suit united and their quislings,and all within the "rules".
Genius really
All helped of course by having their serving Chief Executive on the board of the FA. A blatant and most ridiculous conflict of interest that would not be tolerated in any other sport. Institutional corruptional runs throughout world football I am afraid.
Skashion
Well-Known Member
Four Champions League places was the death. This is merely the funeral.jonmcfc said:is this the death of football as we know it ?
oakiecokie
Well-Known Member
comments (2)
Prem clubs agree new controls
Premier League clubs will face a points deduction if they breach new spending controls agreed by a narrow majority of chairmen on Thursday.
The 20 club chairmen voted by 13 to six - with one abstention - to implement two significant controls - to limit players' wage bills from next season, and longer-term measures that will restrict the amount of losses clubs can make to £105million over three years.
Clubs whose total wage bill is more than £52million will only be allowed to increase their wages by £4million per season for the next three years, though that cap does not cover extra money coming in from increases in commercial or matchday income.
The effect of the financial controls should prevent hugely wealthy owners achieving the almost-overnight success of Chelsea and Manchester City.
Any club breaching the rules will face tough sanctions - and Premier League chief executive Scudamore said they would be pushing for points deductions.
Scudamore told reporters: "As all things in our rulebook you will subject to a disciplinary commission.
"The clubs understand that if people break the £105m we will looking for the top-end ultimate sanction range - points deduction.
"Normally we stay silent on sanctions as the commission has a free range, but clearly if there is a material breach of that rule we will be asking the commission to consider top-end sanctions."
It emerged tonight, however, that the vote for the financial regulations could hardly have been closer - only 13 of the 20 clubs voted in favour, six against with Reading abstaining. It meant that the 'yes' vote only narrowly achieved the necessary two-thirds majority of the 19 votes cast.
Clubs sources say Fulham, West Brom, Manchester City, Aston Villa, Swansea and Southampton all voted against. Chelsea, who had initially been viewed as opponents of financial fair play regulations, voted in favour.
Of the 20 clubs in the top flight, only Manchester City, Chelsea and Liverpool have reported losses of more than £105million over the last three years, according to the most up-to-date published accounts.
Scudamore said there would be an "absolute prohibition" on clubs reporting losses of more than £105million over the next three years with the first sanctions possible in 2016. He said that the measures would mean it will take longer for benefactor owners to achieve success - but that it would still be possible.
He said: "The balance we have tried to strike is that a new owner can still invest a decent amount of money to improve their club but they are not going to be throwing hundreds and hundreds of millions in a very short period of time.
"While it has worked for a couple of clubs in the last 10 years, and I am not critical of that, if that's going to be done in the future it's going to have to be over a slightly longer term without the huge losses being made.
"I think at £105million you can still build a very decent club with substantial owner funding but you have to do it over time, you can't do it in a season."
Chelsea won the Premier League two years after Roman Abramovich's takeover, and Manchester City's title success came three years after Sheikh Mansour's takeover.
Any club making any loss of over £5million a year will have to guarantee those losses against the owner's assets.
"In some ways that's the most significant part, this is a three-year rolling system of secure funding - it's one year at the moment," Scudamore added.
The ceiling when the wage increase restrictions kick in will be £52million next season, £56million the following year and £ ;60million i 2015/16. Only seven of the current top-flight clubs would be under that ceiling at the moment.
The Premier League's legal advisers will now work on the detailed proposals and these will be brought back before the chairmen in April to be ratified.
In a statement, Chelsea said they are supportive of moves that promote financial stability.
The statement said: "Premier League clubs today reached an agreement to introduce financial stability rules and wage controls for the league. Chelsea Football Club is supportive of moves that promote financial stability in football. We are already subject to UEFA's financial fair play principles and will comply with those.
"The new rules will be subject to further detailed discussions before they are brought in and we will play our part in those to ensure implementation is fair for all clubs in the league."
West Ham's co-owner David Gold said the proposals would prevent Portsmouth's descent in administration happening again.
He said: "It's not a salary cap - it's a restraint on over-spending. If clubs increase their revenues then they can increase their spending.
"We have got restraint - that's the important thing. What's driving the whole thing is we've got to avoid another Portsmouth."
Prem clubs agree new controls
Premier League clubs will face a points deduction if they breach new spending controls agreed by a narrow majority of chairmen on Thursday.
The 20 club chairmen voted by 13 to six - with one abstention - to implement two significant controls - to limit players' wage bills from next season, and longer-term measures that will restrict the amount of losses clubs can make to £105million over three years.
Clubs whose total wage bill is more than £52million will only be allowed to increase their wages by £4million per season for the next three years, though that cap does not cover extra money coming in from increases in commercial or matchday income.
The effect of the financial controls should prevent hugely wealthy owners achieving the almost-overnight success of Chelsea and Manchester City.
Any club breaching the rules will face tough sanctions - and Premier League chief executive Scudamore said they would be pushing for points deductions.
Scudamore told reporters: "As all things in our rulebook you will subject to a disciplinary commission.
"The clubs understand that if people break the £105m we will looking for the top-end ultimate sanction range - points deduction.
"Normally we stay silent on sanctions as the commission has a free range, but clearly if there is a material breach of that rule we will be asking the commission to consider top-end sanctions."
It emerged tonight, however, that the vote for the financial regulations could hardly have been closer - only 13 of the 20 clubs voted in favour, six against with Reading abstaining. It meant that the 'yes' vote only narrowly achieved the necessary two-thirds majority of the 19 votes cast.
Clubs sources say Fulham, West Brom, Manchester City, Aston Villa, Swansea and Southampton all voted against. Chelsea, who had initially been viewed as opponents of financial fair play regulations, voted in favour.
Of the 20 clubs in the top flight, only Manchester City, Chelsea and Liverpool have reported losses of more than £105million over the last three years, according to the most up-to-date published accounts.
Scudamore said there would be an "absolute prohibition" on clubs reporting losses of more than £105million over the next three years with the first sanctions possible in 2016. He said that the measures would mean it will take longer for benefactor owners to achieve success - but that it would still be possible.
He said: "The balance we have tried to strike is that a new owner can still invest a decent amount of money to improve their club but they are not going to be throwing hundreds and hundreds of millions in a very short period of time.
"While it has worked for a couple of clubs in the last 10 years, and I am not critical of that, if that's going to be done in the future it's going to have to be over a slightly longer term without the huge losses being made.
"I think at £105million you can still build a very decent club with substantial owner funding but you have to do it over time, you can't do it in a season."
Chelsea won the Premier League two years after Roman Abramovich's takeover, and Manchester City's title success came three years after Sheikh Mansour's takeover.
Any club making any loss of over £5million a year will have to guarantee those losses against the owner's assets.
"In some ways that's the most significant part, this is a three-year rolling system of secure funding - it's one year at the moment," Scudamore added.
The ceiling when the wage increase restrictions kick in will be £52million next season, £56million the following year and £ ;60million i 2015/16. Only seven of the current top-flight clubs would be under that ceiling at the moment.
The Premier League's legal advisers will now work on the detailed proposals and these will be brought back before the chairmen in April to be ratified.
In a statement, Chelsea said they are supportive of moves that promote financial stability.
The statement said: "Premier League clubs today reached an agreement to introduce financial stability rules and wage controls for the league. Chelsea Football Club is supportive of moves that promote financial stability in football. We are already subject to UEFA's financial fair play principles and will comply with those.
"The new rules will be subject to further detailed discussions before they are brought in and we will play our part in those to ensure implementation is fair for all clubs in the league."
West Ham's co-owner David Gold said the proposals would prevent Portsmouth's descent in administration happening again.
He said: "It's not a salary cap - it's a restraint on over-spending. If clubs increase their revenues then they can increase their spending.
"We have got restraint - that's the important thing. What's driving the whole thing is we've got to avoid another Portsmouth."