Jump to content

Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability


Mattoon

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, madras said:

I understood that though. I've no idea what he's accusing those nine teams of.

The top teams want them punished to help them win the title.

Us / spurs for Champions League

Burnley for promotion

Leicester for relegation

 

But I'm sure the other the teams would all love them to be punished just as much as those named do?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RobsonsWonderland said:

The top teams want them punished to help them win the title.

Us / spurs for Champions League

Burnley for promotion

Leicester for relegation

 

But I'm sure the other the teams would all love them to be punished just as much as those named do?

 

 

Did he not just mean 19 teams

 

Nope just seen the quotes he said 9 even went as far as naming them

 

 

 

 

Edited by Dembacha

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, madras said:

I understood that though. I've no idea what he's accusing those nine teams of.

Pushing for UEFA to punish them when they were up against it last time?

 

Literally the only way the inclusion of Burnley makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Eveready said:

That doesn’t mean that it can’t be implemented differently.

 

For example - have the penalties as reduced spend for totalling 150–200% of the overspend (this could be spread over 3-4 years).  If they then don’t follow that then instant relegation, they’d have been given fair warning.

 

It would also result in a situation where they’d have to have a fire sale to ensure they comply with the penalty, which would be a further deterrent.

 

With an absolute cap they know the number to work to and there could be no ambiguity in claiming that they expected their commercial revenue to increase or that outside factors out of their control (COVID for example) reduced their revenue.  Any non-compliance would be sheer negligence.


Yeah of course, you could implement all sorts of things. I’m just saying it’s not conventionally as strict or absolute as it seems when people think of a cap. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hovagod said:

Blue moon were banging on about a ‘hateful nine’ this week as well. Was going to ask what they were talking about

The hateful nine should sit back and let City do whatever they want ?

 

Kind of hope we are in on this now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Even in sports that have caps in place, like in baseball, the punishment is just an extra tax/fine. So if you're a rich owner you can spend beyond the cap as long as you're also prepared to pay the tax. 

 

Each sport is different and it could be implemented in a hundred different ways. Baseball doesn't have a cap, just a luxury tax. Go over an amount and pay more fines. Stay over that limit in consecutive years and the fines escalate. The NBA has a cap, but it's known as a soft cap (kind of similar to a tax). The NFL and NHL have hard caps. 

 

No matter what is implemented there will be loopholes. The NFL basically has a separate sport of accounting gymnastics that takes place in spreadsheets. The thing that matters IMO is the punishment and how well it is enforced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Pep should just focus on the team and not get into any of these questions about finances. It’s not his remit. 

Agreed, he could learn a bit from Howe who won't answer any questions about SA. Playing the victim isn't going gain him much support.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dembacha said:

Did he not just mean 19 teams

 

Nope just seen the quotes he said 9 even went as far as naming them

 

 

 

 

 

I’m sure I read somewhere that this letter we signed with 8 other clubs was under FCB’s ownership. Then again I could be totally wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 9 teams reference was from about 6years ago.

Nothing to do with us competing for anything.

Ashley resented playing in the domestic cups he had zero interest in playing in Europe.  Thus I've no idea why he bothered since he wasn't in it for our benefit. Probably just a useful idiot for the others - which sums up his entire reign here and why the others were so okay with it.

 

 

Edited by Wolfcastle

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, OverThere said:

What is the purpose of FFP?

 

If its supposed to prevent clubs from going bust then why would that apply to a Man C or us who are so rich they are NOT going bust.

 

Its obviously more of a pulling up a drawer bridge by the old guard. A team, no matter who they are, are caught in a catch 22 situation where they cant build revenue without attracting better players and cant attract better players without increasing revenue.

 

In theory, you could build an academy and in decades create a pipeline to avoid FFP but even youngsters may not stay and move to the same "big six".

Yeah, whatever the stated aims this is ultimately true.

 

’Doing a Leeds’ is often the cited example of why FFP exists.  The problem is that FFP wouldn’t have prevented Leeds’s ‘00s collapse.  They actually had the income to sustain what they were doing when they spent big - the problem is that was based on the assumption that CL qualification would be a regular occurrence, and not (as it was) a one-off.  The panicky fire-sale that followed caused a domino effect.

 

It isn’t unimaginable that the same fate could be Chelsea’s if they have a season or two without CL qualification.  Everything they’re doing is predicated on future income increases - always a risky venture (not in our case, as we know there’s plenty of room to grow) 

 

 

Edited by TheBrownBottle

Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel for the City supporters, there support of old was top notch, very different to the Man U fans.

Moss side was never the most welcoming mind, and the Kippax was fond of launching airborne coins and anything else to stot of ya nappa!

 

After the 76 final some of us had a drink with the City fans down Victoria coach station, we even went looking for the Cockney Reds together, after a rumour started they were wanting a meet!

 

Anyway, I expect Man City will get a wrap across the knuckles with a fine and maybe points deduction, if truth be told the Premier League, F.A. and Uefa need the monies City hoy about!

 

 

Edited by Wild Geese

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Wolfcastle said:

The 9 teams reference was from about 6years ago.

Nothing to do with us competing for anything.

Ashley resented playing in the domestic cups he had zero interest in playing in Europe.  Thus I've no idea why he bothered since he wasn't in it for our benefit. Probably just a useful idiot for the others - which sums up his entire reign here and why the others were so okay with it.

 

 

 


he signed it because FFP was one of his main excuses for holding us back and he didn’t want to undermine that

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably a stupid question, if it's the owners who are responsible for this financial cheating, is there a chance that the league could remove their standing as being fit and proper and so unable to own the club any longer forcing it to be sold off?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So they have put the wrong breaches in their charges as they changed recently? Yes it's probably a minor error but things really should be watertight given the seriousness of it all. We seen first hand how amateurish the PL lawyer was during arbitration and can guarantee Man City lawyers will be the best in the world. I haven't got the faith on justice being served here

Link to post
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 in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...