Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Miggys First Goal]

Aye, this isn't just 1 or 2 breaches. Fucking 100.

[FloydianMag]

You can see legal challenges by City if this goes horribly wrong for them. FFP and owners financing their own clubs (businesses) before the high court or whatever court that has the legal powers to rule over this.

 

If its dodgy accounting they could be fucked.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Amazing they’ve been this bad at hiding it really, if it really is 100 things. 

[Bimpy474]

So what's the simple version ?

 

They falsified their income to be able to spend more ?

[TRon]

6 hours ago, Pokerprince2004 said:

Chelsea need investigating too, I think they've been the worst of the lot

 

Chelsea have been the worst of the lot IMO.

[The Prophet]

Chelsea could just be reckless, rather than dodgy. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Depends on the accounting I guess. If Chelsea are just ploughing money in from the owner, they might breach FFP but in a much more simple way. 

[Cronky]

8 minutes ago, Bimpy474 said:

So what's the simple version ?

 

They falsified their income to be able to spend more ?

 

So far as I'm aware, the main accusation is that some of their sponsorship money has in fact come from the owners, albeit indirectly. 

 

They're also accused of supplementing Mancini's salary through a covert route.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Let’s hope we don’t try to get money from companies related to PIF or anything of that nature. 

[danny]

3 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

Chelsea have been the worst of the lot IMO.

 

Didnt chelsea have revenue streams for servicing the 3.5bil debt they owed roman, and when that debt was removed they had fuck tons of legal revenue to spunk

 

I dont agree with what chelsea have done, far from it. but they have a inexperienced yank (prem wise) who has gone gungho with that money on his latest plaything

 

Which may go wrong in the not to distant future

 

I am prob wrong with this

[Bimpy474]

3 minutes ago, Cronky said:

 

So far as I'm aware, the main accusation is that some of their sponsorship money has in fact come from the owners, albeit indirectly. 

 

They're also accused of supplementing Mancini's salary through a covert route.

 

Inflating the income with sponsorship I get, but the Mancini thing is weird.

 

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by Bimpy474

[FloydianMag]

Just now, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Let’s hope we don’t try to get money from companies related to PIF or anything of that nature. 

If its all above board its allowable and within FMV.

[SAK]

1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Let’s hope we don’t try to get money from companies related to PIF or anything of that nature. 

Nothing against that in the rules as long as it’s fair market value though. I suspect  where City have got it wrong is they created front companies to sponsor them who have no staff or business.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Yeah, actually occurred to me it might be OK as long as it comes from the capital of an established and profitable business. And they get something tangible back for it. 
 

Would be hard to prevent that if the accounting is all in order. 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by AyeDubbleYoo

[gdm]

5 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Let’s hope we don’t try to get money from companies related to PIF or anything of that nature. 

Already have with Saudi Air have we not ? 

[TRon]

3 minutes ago, danny said:

 

Didnt chelsea have revenue streams for servicing the 3.5bil debt they owed roman, and when that debt was removed they had fuck tons of legal revenue to spunk

 

I dont agree with what chelsea have done, far from it. but they have a inexperienced yank (prem wise) who has gone gungho with that money on his latest plaything

 

Which may go wrong in the not to distant future

 

I am prob wrong with this

 

No idea tbh, just rubs me up the wrong way. First they spent their way to success using Roman's dirty cash, and even with him gone they just seem to be able to throw cash at every player going.

[Scotty66]

So are the Premier League going to punish them before Man City can challenge it? 

 

I mean they broke the PL rules so how is it then allowed for them to run to a CAT hearing and say well hear us out first. If the PL have charged them then the punishment follows directly surely? 

 

[davidnolan13]

6 minutes ago, SAK said:

Nothing against that in the rules as long as it’s fair market value though. I suspect  where City have got it wrong is they created front companies to sponsor them who have no staff or business.

yeah theyve had a few fake companies apparently and thats probably where theyll be hammered.

[SAK]

4 minutes ago, Scotty66 said:

So are the Premier League going to punish them before Man City can challenge it? 

 

I mean they broke the PL rules so how is it then allowed for them to run to a CAT hearing and say well hear us out first. If the PL have charged them then the punishment follows directly surely? 

 

Normally a trial follows a charge to establish guilt. That’s what the special commission will do.

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

1 hour ago, James said:

 

To confirm your identity, please answer the following question:

 

What happens if an aircraft’s autopilot is set to ascend indefinitely?

a fuckwit designed the control panel?
 

I am Sparti-Yorkie

[McDog]

Some of these accusations pre-date even FFP.

 

They apparently violated PL rules, lied about it, covered it up the spent 5 years refusing to show their books per PL rules. These guys are kinda fucked.

[Kid Icarus]

34 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Those people are only here because PIF are involved, they wouldn't be if they were not.

Ashworth was at Brighton, Eales at Atlanta, Silverstone at Arsenal, 2/3 are a step up regardless of whether PIF are here. So I disagree, but even if that were right it doesn't change how I'd want the club to function anyway. Brighton and Leicester operate in the same way afterall. 

[nufcnick]

14 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Let’s hope we don’t try to get money from companies related to PIF or anything of that nature. 

It’s not a problem getting sponsorship from related party’s, the problem with what city was doing is they overinflated the deals massively 

[et tu brute]

2 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Ashworth was at Brighton, Eales at Atlanta, Silverstone at Arsenal, 2/3 are a step up regardless of whether PIF are here. So I disagree, but even if that were right it doesn't change how I'd want the club to function anyway. Brighton and Leicester operate in the same way afterall. 

You're in the minority then.

[Geordie Ahmed]

12 minutes ago, Scotty66 said:

So are the Premier League going to punish them before Man City can challenge it? 

 

I mean they broke the PL rules so how is it then allowed for them to run to a CAT hearing and say well hear us out first. If the PL have charged them then the punishment follows directly surely? 

 

The PL have charged them, the independent commission will make a judgement and at that stage they can appeal but they won't be allowed to appeal via CAS