City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with 130 FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th Sep 2024 | Concluded 9th Dec 2024 - Awaiting outcome
- Thread starter VanGaalEra
- Start date
There's no way Perez and Laporta play ball on any kind of breakaway league if city are calling the shots. The whole purpose of the super league was so that they could try to consolidate their status as the top dogs, they won't join one where city can spend as freely as they like. The only way any project that doesn't include the big clubs from England gets off the floor is if Real and Barca are part of it, and I can't see that happening.
The worst thing we ever did was pandering to Gary Neville’s meltdown and pulling out of the Super League. What a joke the PL is.
I knew there was going to be a class action from every club affected. I expect domestic cup and European teams to follow suit.
You actually liked the Super League?
The super league was simply an alternative to the champions league lacking in any sporting merit or jeopardy. How would that help in this scenario?
Weren't City part of it?
They were.
There were rules designed to limit the impact of outside wealth but i dont see any reason why City would follow them.
Also true, obviously depends on how they'd set the entire thing up, potential punishments and all of that. Imo, a large part of the problem is that the PL have been utter fecking useless, no foresight whatsoever or they simply didn't give a shit.
They kicked out of the league yet?
Paywall keeping out the regular folks, what are the numbers in the article?
A daily reminder that whenever we think City fans can’t be more deluded… they keep on digging.
“Nasty man didn’t allow us to do what we wanted. Boo hoo…”
https://www.change.org/p/demand-richard-masters-immediate-resignation-as-ceo-of-the-premier-league
“Nasty man didn’t allow us to do what we wanted. Boo hoo…”
https://www.change.org/p/demand-richard-masters-immediate-resignation-as-ceo-of-the-premier-league
Well yes because it was just a bunch of rules that all shareholders agreed to abide by. Except one club who thought it was ok to quietly ignore the rules.
No numbers, just that due to limitations there's a few clubs that are preparing legal notice pending the outcome of the independent commission.
I recommend using 12ft to browse a cleaner web.
Specifically my mouthy stepson.Strange vendetta against just….children being children?
When you say preparing legal notice - are the other clubs suing City? Or the league themselves?
City
What an absolute joke. Just reading through that petition, the only thing that's missing are the words "red cartel".
They're going out of their way to make themselves the most hated club and fanbase in the world. And doing a good job of it.
Nah, that there… “He needs to go, he is trying to protect the red cartel”
The funny part is that they seem to be under the illusion that they are almost the saviours of football and that somehow the cartel as they seem to want to tag historically bigger clubs have more votes than they do rather than accepting the fact that not every club accepts there view off how shareholders can and often do not agree but those that have the most support do control matters .
Encouraging that there’s been more of these kind of articles the last couple of days.
I do agree with them slightly, the rules in certain situations can seem a bit unfair in terms of PSR. I do find it a bit awkward that teams like Villa have to sell main first team players like Douglas Luiz when they have just qualified for the Champions League, and I do think it's great to have more competition in the league. I also don't like the selling Academy products for 'pure profit' which seems the latest fad to come out of it.
However, there just needs to be some sort of cost control, I can't see any other way. It's just a glorified arms race without it, which they can argue it's always been, but there's a difference with it being between rich business men and being between oil states with unlimited resources, there just is, and it's nothing to do with racism or greed.
And they might claim it's self preservation of the Red Cartel, but you only have to look at Everton. If Moshiri and his ilk were given carte blanche to throw more money at it, they still might have had no real success, so instead of owing them £400M, it might have been £500M, £600M, even more?! It would only be a matter of time before a senior club were going to be left in the lurch and not able to repay these debts with administration the only option.
I also understand that Fair Market Value is a hard thing to try and quantify, but what's the alternative, have none at all and have Etihad give City a billion a year sock sponsorship?
I don't understand why they want to blow it all apart? City claim they haven't cheated to get to where they are. So if they haven't cheated, but were able to rise to the top and dominate at the top of the game in England, should they not be the poster boys of how you can grow a club within the rules to dominate? Something doesn't quite add up.
Newcastle also showed they can take a club from near bottom of the league into Champions League places with a couple of seasons within these rules. So even in present day you can still fast track your way there.
I don't even know how this gets resolved. Pandora's Box has already been opened as soon as Nation States were allowed to buy clubs. An Independent Regulator? Would it be government backed? A government that wouldn't be influenced by oil states having there hands across multiple pies across multiple businesses in this country, that the government leans on for funding? It's actually quite sickening to be honest.
In no real world are City bringing in more revenue than United, Barca, Madrid, Liverpool. These are the best supported clubs in the world with a rich history. City can't even fill their own stadium at times, so most of their revenue comes from off field streams, most of which is from Etihad/Etihad owned groups, who just so happened to be owned by their owners.
It's not hard to see that it's just a means of filtering money into the club from the owners pockets.
unfortunately we live in a World where "common sense" is not so common
Very good post, the rules are far from perfect, but we absolutely need something before the premier league becomes Qatar FC v Abu Dhabi FC, etc for the title.
Last edited:
Woah they’ve almost had the whole of the Etihad sign it!!!
13k signatures since April! Massive fan base! Massive club!
I think similar to you. The problem football has is that it wants cost regulations but it doesn't want a hard cap like a salary cap.
This causes a few issues.
1) It does provide clubs outside the established elite with a justified argument that they're unfair and essentially rules that a cartel would use in order to keep their market position.
2) It means rules become abstract and/or face serious cases of bias/unfairness. For instance, the shareholder loan thing is unfair when compared to the restrictions elsewhere on pumping personal wealth in.
3) Without a hard cap. Nothing will ever really be fair.
I actually do not like FFP/the type of financial regulations you see in football, as I don't think they're actually fair/equal as it places 'established' teams with too much power. To actually make things fair would be a fixed salary/transfer cap (say £500m a year - or whatever figure anyone wants to use so long as it is firmly fixed) and all teams can finance that cap as they see fit - sponsorships, personal wealth etc.
However, in City's case, the problem they have is that they signed up for the rules and the rules by and large are legal/in situ. They appeared to break those rules. As a result, they must be punished as otherwise it is complete anarchy.
Last edited:
Upon reflection, I do agree with their stance on the loans from owners, it's pretty much inflated revenue in a different form and there's no reason why that should be allowed. And if this decision leads to the FMV criteria being strengthened and clarified, I'd say that's a win for the PL. City's spin has been quite amusing though.
Legal actions. Live by the sword, die by the sword, seems fair enough to me.
Agreed. Even though my club might be negatively affected by it I agree with the principle as well. I'm not quite sure how it works, most of our owner loan happened when KSE paid off the bank and bonds of the stadium financing so they could refinance at a lower interest rate. So would that be under stadium infrastructure cost, or because that's historical and it's actually a refinancing of debt would that be included in PSR etc? It's all a bit murky still for me.
Not might, would. You've been one of the biggest beneficiaries of this rule.
But it's better if it's properly regulated, with market-rate interest for those loans.
This is what should happen but then, the clubs who want to spend more, will call it discrimination. I am fan of the idea of putting in a cap and then allowing teams to spend over it but having to then match what they overpay and put it into a separate pot for the football pyramid. If Saudi want to go and spend £1b in a year, just let them do it, but they would have to then pay £500m to the broader league using your cap value (i.e. the second £500m of the £1b must be matched). That then gets shared down the football pyramid every season.
The reality is this would not affect many clubs, it just allows the state backed teams a legal way to spend heavily without taking the piss.
Im not a finance expert though, I've heard stuff thrown about like they'll just convert the loans to equity but not sure if that's even possible or to what extent we would suffer. I've read something like 5% would be roughly £12M a season, so not earth shattering amounts. From what I've read the loan interest rate we have is between 2 and 2.5%.
Point is, focussing on technicalities (a cumulated number of single acts, bad faith or not) without considering the underlying goal since day 1 (penetrating a porous game for visibility and political purposes, same as PSG or even Barcelona) is a misrepresentation of this case… no suprise Abu Dhabi is incensed. Khelaifi at PSG was smarter overall, he finally occupied UEFA after the SuperLeague fiasco.
The entirety of that article stems from this point;
Which, as we know, is utter shite. The Mail are just stirring up drama for drama's sake
If the City argument is that some rules they'd signed up to are unlawful, doesn't this argument also apply to various other rules in football too? Can they strike the offside rule, handball rule, etc. as being unlawful and thus not needing to be followed by City?