Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Jackie Broon]

4 hours ago, wiseman said:

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?

 

A think there would need to have been criminally fraudulent behaviour for that, I don't think that is being alleged.

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

Hopefully this case brings “ffp“ front and centre and more people start exposing it for that it is (like Neville). 
 

I wish someone would write an article showing how much it costs the uk economy on income tax.  Loads of assumptions here be if ffp was not there.  Pif spent the money to take Ronaldo to Newcastle rather than Saudi. He’s on about 180 million per year.  45%(top rate income tax) of that is about 80 million lost income.  That’s one player.  Say Newcastle get 5. Then Man City spend more. Man Utd get oil money and spend more. This would soon adds up. 
 

But instead the money goes on projects outside the uk.  
 

 

[Cronky]

I really think Pep should just be giving a 'no comment' response to any questions about this. He's not in a position to judge what's been going on - he's only going by what he's been told by the people who have been charged.

 

He also seems to be confusing 'getting off' with an offence with being 'proved innocent'. What happened with UEFA and the CAS did not represent being given a clean bill of health. One authority found the offence proven, the other did not, partly on procedural grounds. He can't pretend that this doesn't still leave some question marks. 

 

I find it very hard to believe that the Premier League would have brought all these charges, after such a length of time, if they weren't convinced that City had breached the rules. At the end of the day, it may be possible for City to go to a Court and have the whole concept of FFP thrown out as a restraint of trade or something - I don't know. But victory gained that way is nothing to be proud of. You joined a club, with full awareness of that club's rules.

[morpeth mag]

8 hours ago, Cronky said:

I really think Pep should just be giving a 'no comment' response to any questions about this. He's not in a position to judge what's been going on - he's only going by what he's been told by the people who have been charged.

 

He also seems to be confusing 'getting off' with an offence with being 'proved innocent'. What happened with UEFA and the CAS did not represent being given a clean bill of health. One authority found the offence proven, the other did not, partly on procedural grounds. He can't pretend that this doesn't still leave some question marks. 

 

I find it very hard to believe that the Premier League would have brought all these charges, after such a length of time, if they weren't convinced that City had breached the rules. At the end of the day, it may be possible for City to go to a Court and have the whole concept of FFP thrown out as a restraint of trade or something - I don't know. But victory gained that way is nothing to be proud of. You joined a club, with full awareness of that club's rules.

They should slap a 'bringing the game into dispute charge' against Man City for Pep's comments.

[gbandit]

He might be endearing himself with the fans but it’s a terrible play regarding his own legacy and how he’s regarded. Hope they get absolutely fucked and Pep comes out of it looking terrible

[FloydianMag]

8 hours ago, Cronky said:

I really think Pep should just be giving a 'no comment' response to any questions about this. He's not in a position to judge what's been going on - he's only going by what he's been told by the people who have been charged.

 

He also seems to be confusing 'getting off' with an offence with being 'proved innocent'. What happened with UEFA and the CAS did not represent being given a clean bill of health. One authority found the offence proven, the other did not, partly on procedural grounds. He can't pretend that this doesn't still leave some question marks. 

 

I find it very hard to believe that the Premier League would have brought all these charges, after such a length of time, if they weren't convinced that City had breached the rules. At the end of the day, it may be possible for City to go to a Court and have the whole concept of FFP thrown out as a restraint of trade or something - I don't know. But victory gained that way is nothing to be proud of. You joined a club, with full awareness of that club's rules.

Just my opinion but I think challenging FFP in a Court would be the nuclear option for Man City should things go badly especially if demoted.

[greydos]

Thought there would be a lot of chat in here about this. 10 points for effectively going £20m over the total permitted loss, 1-year after COVID. Seems harsh. It may be reduced on appeal. But will they stay up? Also, in their statement, Everton say they’ll watch the sentences that other clubs receive. Wonder who they’re thinking of? 

[MrRaspberryJam]

5 minutes ago, greydos said:

Thought there would be a lot of chat in here about this. 10 points for effectively going £20m over the total permitted loss, 1-year after COVID. Seems harsh. It may be reduced on appeal. But will they stay up? Also, in their statement, Everton say they’ll watch the sentences that other clubs receive. Wonder who they’re thinking of? 

There is. 
Yes. 

Man City and Chelsea. 
 

Thank you. Next 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by MrRaspberryJam

[Neil]

Can't believe there's been no chat about it either.

[Stifler]

11 minutes ago, greydos said:

Thought there would be a lot of chat in here about this. 10 points for effectively going £20m over the total permitted loss, 1-year after COVID. Seems harsh. It may be reduced on appeal. But will they stay up? Also, in their statement, Everton say they’ll watch the sentences that other clubs receive. Wonder who they’re thinking of? 

From what I understand, Everton not only went over the £105m threshold, but in doing so they deliberately lied too the Premier League, and tried to cover their tracks.

On top of this their losses were actually well over £19.5m, in total I believe it was over £300m, but they were allowed to adjust this due to covid. They over inflated the price of their players on their books to make it look like they had more value, including the player who they sacked, who they tried to claim the money back.

[TheBrownBottle]

17 minutes ago, greydos said:

Thought there would be a lot of chat in here about this. 10 points for effectively going £20m over the total permitted loss, 1-year after COVID. Seems harsh. It may be reduced on appeal. But will they stay up? Also, in their statement, Everton say they’ll watch the sentences that other clubs receive. Wonder who they’re thinking of? 

Doesn’t look harsh at all to me.  They cheated in comparison to other clubs.  They should be thankful they weren’t relegated.  

[Yorkie]

 Been knocking around here for 18 years but still not found the Not Worthy of a Thread thread...

 

It's probably thread worthy tbf.

[The Prophet]

29 minutes ago, Stifler said:

From what I understand, Everton not only went over the £105m threshold, but in doing so they deliberately lied too the Premier League, and tried to cover their tracks.

On top of this their losses were actually well over £19.5m, in total I believe it was over £300m, but they were allowed to adjust this due to covid. They over inflated the price of their players on their books to make it look like they had more value, including the player who they sacked, who they tried to claim the money back.

 

I've just read the report through very tired eyes and I don't think that's quite right.

 

It was found Everton had provided misleading and inaccurate information regarding the source of funds for the development of the new stadium. As part of their mitigation, Everton had been trying to exclude interest costs relating to the project from the equation.

 

It is also mentioned they kept buying players in the mistaken belief they'd be able to sell enough to balance the books. Nothing about inflating players transfer fees, but there was an agreement in place where they were meant to be getting their transfers signed-off by the PL. It wasn't honoured.

 

Everton tried to cite the contract termination of "player X" as part of its mitigation. The PL claimed they could have taken him to an employment tribunal, but Everton argued they were looking after the player's mental well-being.

 

"Player Y" was also cited in mitigation. Everton claimed they couldn't sell him as COVID had drastically reduced his value. The PL pointed out it out it was ultimately the club's decision whether to sell him or not, regardless of the fee.

 

Pretty funny Everton used the very in vogue excuses of COVID and the Ukraine invasion though.

[r0cafella]

If the premier league wants to continue with the farce which is FFP they had literally zero choice but to throw the book and the same will be the case for any other clubs they breach it. 
 

Ultimately, these rules are what these mugs all voted for. 

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

I dont know any of the finer details of this, and any other club's potential transgressions, or even really the rules for certain, but this still stinks a little.

 

If you've got rules in place they have the be enforced, otherwise there's zero point in any rules at all and its just the wild west. Whether or not those rules are fit for purpose is another matter entirely. If other clubs have broken the rules, they need to be enforced the same way they are being with Everton. If other clubs have managed to swerve the rules by exploiting loopholes, then those loopholes need closing but you cant apply them retroactively. If they've swerved them with fancy accounting, that's breaking the rules and they should be punished. The stuff coming out about the Roman years sound insane and clear rule breaking, but who knows what finer detail may get them off. Same with City. 

 

The whole thing is a fucking mess. There's no real authority enforcing this, and lumping clubs and fans with the consequences when it's individuals at fault isnt good for football. I think the authoritative bodyt needs to have much more clout and there needs to be more consequences on individuals higher up, rather than for the fans. \And it has to be enforced by law. You'd see a change in attitude then.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2023 by Super Duper Branko Strupar

[Yorkie]

Good post, Branks. I feel very little schadenfreude here tbh (pointless anyway cos they'll be fine); just morose at this latest miserable episode in the story of football governance and ownership. 

 

I'll be very surprised to see any truly groundbreaking punishments dished out to anyone. The Premier League is as glossy and as desirable a brand as you can possibly get; an English calciopoli would be hugely damaging to that.

[Guest]

I know we had the cheek to threaten and break it, but before Abramovich, the league was beginning to be Arsenal and Man Utd streets ahead, Liverpool were closing the gap on and off the pitch, then the rest pretty much. 

 

Two of the other clubs seemingly in the dock here, are the two clubs who had the audacity to put pay to these three pissing everything year in, year out. 

 

Posted in the other thread, just give top 3 to those three clubs every year, the rest of us know our role and let them get on with it. The occasional top 3 finish if we're lucky, and that's it. Fuck anyone else who tries to spend to break into it.

[Dr Jinx]

They were misreporting figures based on Karen style assumptions. "We didn't sue our resident sex pest and then we fired him - so we just knocked 10 million off the figures"
 

Its like watching one of those hopeless hopefuls have their business plan torn to shreds on dragons den.
 

It's as Hunter S Thompson alluded to.. The only thing worse than committing a crime is the stupidity of getting caught. Man City or Chelsea will never get that sort of punishment. They actually have smart people working for them.

[Kanj]

It’s all weird. Like walls closing in and circular to me. For the most part, prior to any rules truly being in place - have at it. Then someone said nah it needs to be sustainable. Okay fine that makes sense you don’t want to bankrupt clubs because that ultimately hurts the fans. 

But an often posted thought needs to be said again, there was no fair market value or inter company / related party red tape limiting growth before. Now there is. And it seemingly is all motivated to stop anyone disrupting the main pack + their London friends. (palace). It’s crooked as fuck. 

 

 

Edited November 18, 2023 by Kanji

[Guest]

We're having to fudge our sponsorship deals just to comply. Pretty much having to fix sums "not quite on par with the 'big 6' but above the rest" etc. It's all bullshit.

[ToonCanuck]

easy to "pick on" Everton tbf,lets see what happens to chelsea.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2023 by ToonCanuck

[Bizza]

3 hours ago, greydos said:

Thought there would be a lot of chat in here about this. 

 

There is: 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 18, 2023 by Bizza

[Maineblue]

3 hours ago, MrRaspberryJam said:

There is. 
Yes. 

Man City and Chelsea. 
 

Thank you. Next 

 

 

 

ha ha, different case involving City, were being accused of under the table payment to Mancini and false sponsorship deals, when we get proven innocent I can’t wait to drink all those salty tears from the red clubs and the media.

[r0cafella]

1 hour ago, Maineblue said:

ha ha, different case involving City, were being accused of under the table payment to Mancini and false sponsorship deals, when we get proven innocent I can’t wait to drink all those salty tears from the red clubs and the media.

Why? You lot are guilty of those charges though. 

[Maineblue]

1 hour ago, r0cafella said:

Why? You lot are guilty of those charges though. 

Er no we’re not that’s why we’re fighting the charges.