Jump to content

Man City charged (again) over FFP


sage

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mucker1884 said:

 

No.  This is serious this time.

They'll also be made to put their hands on their head, and face the wall.  

 

That seems a bit excessive to me,

 Article 15 of the United Nation covenention secificaly bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

Article 15 – Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 1. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.?

 

Edited by Elwood P Dowd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

 

No.  This is serious this time.

They'll also be made to put their hands on their head, and face the wall.  

 I think we are looking at significant repercussions here.

 It's very likely the Premier will get a good talking to and have to promise never to check the accounts of such an important club again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rsmini said:

If proven Sky Sports reporting they could expelled from the league. Is this why Chelsea have started giving out 8 year contracts to spread transfer fees over a longer period 

If they get relegated, like Juventus did a few years ago, that would be at the detriment of a club further down the pyramid. 

Just like us Chelsea's accountants found a perfectly legal loophole in the amortisation regulations - give a player a longer contract, amortise their fee over a longer period = more FFP wriggle room.

Uefa eventually spotted it, closed the loophole - contracts are still allowed to be 8 years if the clubs wish but amortisation must be over 5 years maximum - and Chelsea are still allowed to play in Europe.  The EPL so far as anyone can see haven't said or done anything.  Presumably they didn't spot it as a loophole (or let Uefa take the flak).

The EFL could learn from Uefa about how to close loopholes fairly.

Apparently Chelsea still have plenty of FFP room even after spending 100's of millions.  Whether anybody in authority is actually testing that is probably unlikely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will generate some headlines and some further interest and hits for PL press conferences, click here to hear what Klopp thinks about it etc. 

Guilt? Pretty sure we all know that they've not taken FFP seriously for years, so it could fall against them.

Punishment? Without doubt a fine. I said when they won their first title and there was some controversy that deducting 3 points would be a more meaningful punishment and preventative measure than any kind of fine. But clubs that can pay always get fines, those that cant get points deducted. It may even be a record fine that would easily pay for the EPL Christmas dinner ... sorry ... erm grass roots football?

They may get an embargo for 2 windows starting in Jan 24, as I reckon the EPL would think it overly harsh to prevent them from buying players this summer at this short notice.

No faith that any of the big boys will ever get punished. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange that these FFP laws only look to serve the status quo, eh? 

It could easily be remodelled into a wage cap, spending cap, etc but isn’t so the historically big clubs get to preserve their positions at the top end of the table whilst others (even if they have the money) struggle to get a seat at the top table.

The financial laws in football, particularly in our leagues, are an absolute joke - they do nothing to protect clubs or create a level playing field which is what they’re disguised as. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

Strange that these FFP laws only look to serve the status quo, eh? 

It could easily be remodelled into a wage cap, spending cap, etc but isn’t so the historically big clubs get to preserve their positions at the top end of the table whilst others (even if they have the money) struggle to get a seat at the top table.

The financial laws in football, particularly in our leagues, are an absolute joke - they do nothing to protect clubs or create a level playing field which is what they’re disguised as. 

200.gif
 

‘Down, down City are going down’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

Strange that these FFP laws only look to serve the status quo, eh? 

It could easily be remodelled into a wage cap, spending cap, etc but isn’t so the historically big clubs get to preserve their positions at the top end of the table whilst others (even if they have the money) struggle to get a seat at the top table.

The financial laws in football, particularly in our leagues, are an absolute joke - they do nothing to protect clubs or create a level playing field which is what they’re disguised as. 

Even if it was a wage cap, clubs including City would find a way around it.

Haaland gets a sponsorship deal with Etihad for the duration of his City contract for X million….obviously that’s not written into his City contract, as that would be naughty.

Agents would be paid obscene amounts of money, then they pay the players to represent them.

Personal gifts of houses, cars, you name it made from Sheikh to player outside of the club.

So many ways to get around it that the cap would be a joke within weeks.

I’m not ready to offer my sympathies with Man City, sponsorships with companies that have fake profiles and no staff used as a way of pumping money in, about time they were reigned in. Chelsea next.

I appreciate they have the money and the rules are not protecting the club, if they are allowed to spend what they like we’ll end up with a league of Middle East owned teams with the first billion pound signing just windows away. 

The trickle down effect of that will be huge and destroy football in this country, you only have to look at the state of the Championship now and that’s with FFP rules in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of obvious thoughts - Chelsea have been giving out 8 year contracts etc to spread the player costs over a period of time which is basically what we did, not illegal not against the rules as written yet we got penalised well after the fact causing us being unable to be sold. Then covid hits and money runs dry and a microcosm away from destruction thanks to the actions of two other football clubs owners (never to be forgiven) no mention what happened to us!

secondly if as reported former managers and players at Man City were also being paid into bank accounts overseas as well into English ones for work based in the UK - they will owe the HMRC a fortune ( 45-50% of all money received I suggest) now I know our club didn’t ultimately pay everything owed to the HMRC due to administration but that’s not the case for Manchester City or their former players and hiding that money from taxation is illegal and should face charges. I assume the HMRC are all over this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth I reckon a nice even handed punishment that would discourage other clubs would be: 

Deduction of 21 points

A 3 year transfer ban, retrospectively applied so that any player purchased in the last 2 years gets their contracts cancelled (they will easily find other clubs) and then have 1 more year of embargo.

An allowance of 25 senior pros, with senior pros being defined as it was for Derby.

All TV money going to to the other EPL clubs

I'm sur ewith those, Man City would still stay in the Premier this season, would find it a struggle next and would really think  carefully before doing it again.

What they will get is a fine that amounts to the drinks bill of their owner on a night out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/02/2023 at 08:00, Sparkle said:

Chelsea have been giving out 8 year contracts etc to spread the player costs over a period of time which is basically what we did

I don't think Chelsea are using anything other than a SL amortisation method though - the 8 year contracts are highly unusual and more about spreading the transfer fees evenly over a longer period than using any residual value method. I think our contracts were 5 years maximum, but we obviously used the RV method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Crewton said:

I don't think Chelsea are using anything other than a SL amortisation method though - the 8 year contracts are highly unusual and more about spreading the transfer fees evenly over a longer period than using any residual value method. I think our contracts were 5 years maximum, but we obviously used the RV method.

It’s stretching in a different direction that’s all but it’s the same principle 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...