The Footie Thread

[Neilds]

That only affects that 1 club, which the owners can do what they like...as they own it. It might not be pallatable, but the only club those owners are affecting is their own.

Playing devils advocate here - If an Owner can take as much money as he likes out of a club, why can't a different owner put as much money as he likes into the club? This is one of the 'crimes' that Man City are accused of as the owner put money in and declared it a sponsorship.

 

[Bdill93]

Playing devils advocate here - If an Owner can take as much money as he likes out of a club, why can't a different owner put as much money as he likes into the club? This is one of the 'crimes' that Man City are accused of as the owner put money in and declared it a sponsorship.

Sustainability.

What happens when said owner runs out of money and needs to sell the club?

New owners wont buy the club if its running at a huge loss due to high wages etc

Team forced into administration

Team folds

Town/ City lose their team and game day revenue into their local economy

 

[fundy]

Playing devils advocate here - If an Owner can take as much money as he likes out of a club, why can't a different owner put as much money as he likes into the club? This is one of the 'crimes' that Man City are accused of as the owner put money in and declared it a sponsorship.

Thats an opinion the rules are wrong not whether City broke them and how they should be punished.

Dont think anyone thinks the rules are perfect but most fans think there should be some safeguards to protect clubs

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Playing devils advocate here - If an Owner can take as much money as he likes out of a club, why can't a different owner put as much money as he likes into the club? This is one of the 'crimes' that Man City are accused of as the owner put money in and declared it a sponsorship.

As per @Bdill93 it's to stop another Leeds, Derby, Bury (take your pick, there are lots out there).

It does fix the odds somewhat to the status quo, partly why I can't get too excited by what City have done, but there is method to the rules.

 

[clubchamp98]

As per @Bdill93 it's to stop another Leeds, Derby, Bury (take your pick, there are lots out there).

It does fix the odds somewhat to the status quo, partly why I can't get too excited by what City have done, but there is method to the rules.

Rules are only any good if all follow them.
City and others I imagine havnt.
Said on the news “ City have Proof they have done nothing wrong”
begs the question “why they havnt shown it to the PL?”.

 

[Pin-seeker]

Imagine if City get off with it,or get a fine.
This thread will go crazy

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Rules are only any good if all follow them.
City and others I imagine havnt.
Said on the news “ City have Proof they have done nothing wrong”
begs the question “why they havnt shown it to the PL?”.

It's like big business and tax, they all tinker on the margins, push the boundaries as far as they can go and sometimes go over. If anyone thinks City are the only ones at it then they are kidding themselves. Saying that, if City have been caught then they have to take their medicine.

As you rightly say, if City have clear proof of meeting the rules, why are we at this stage? They have had 4 years to squash this with evidence. There is clearly some ambiguity, qu'elle surprise! Time for the lawyers to get even richer.

 

[Swango1980]

Obviously a lot of discussion on this in media. So far (mainly as no one knows all, the details), the only real defence people make about City is that other clubs are doing it. Danny Mills was saying "how far do you go back?", implying it isn't that fair to go as far back as they are going, and if they do they should go back even further, such as when Abramovich bought Chelsea.

Now, as a layman, I'm not overly informed. I'd like to think Danny Mills, who obviously gets paid handsomely for his media contributions, does his due diligence and researches issues that he is going to talk about? Therefore, does he have a point? Did Abramovich break the rules and get away with it? I would have guessed that the FPP was not in operation at that time, or if it was, the rules were very different? That is just me thinking about it logically, as if FPP was in force, then all the talk would have been Chelsea being in breach of something at the time. Instead, as far as I remember, it was more like other clubs and fans just saying "this is unfair".

I'm still intrigied how Chelsea have managed to remain within the guidelines this transfer window. Even signing players on slightly longer contracts, they still spent a huge amount of money. I guess it must all be legit, given the focus on it these days, it just seems remarkable. Could it have something to do with their recent transfer ban, and they have money to burn?

 

[clubchamp98]

It's like big business and tax, they all tinker on the margins, push the boundaries as far as they can go and sometimes go over. If anyone thinks City are the only ones at it then they are kidding themselves. Saying that, if City have been caught then they have to take their medicine.

As you rightly say, if City have clear proof of meeting the rules, why are we at this stage? They have had 4 years to squash this with evidence. There is clearly some ambiguity, qu'elle surprise! Time for the lawyers to get even richer.

yes the lawyers will be rubbing their hands.

 

[clubchamp98]

Imagine if City get off with it,or get a fine.
This thread will go crazy

Lots of clubs will be looking for an oil rich owner to overspend on them.
If it was Liverpool I can think of one forummer who would be irate.

 

[fundy]

Obviously a lot of discussion on this in media. So far (mainly as no one knows all, the details), the only real defence people make about City is that other clubs are doing it. Danny Mills was saying "how far do you go back?", implying it isn't that fair to go as far back as they are going, and if they do they should go back even further, such as when Abramovich bought Chelsea.

Now, as a layman, I'm not overly informed. I'd like to think Danny Mills, who obviously gets paid handsomely for his media contributions, does his due diligence and researches issues that he is going to talk about? Therefore, does he have a point? Did Abramovich break the rules and get away with it? I would have guessed that the FPP was not in operation at that time, or if it was, the rules were very different? That is just me thinking about it logically, as if FPP was in force, then all the talk would have been Chelsea being in breach of something at the time. Instead, as far as I remember, it was more like other clubs and fans just saying "this is unfair".

I'm still intrigied how Chelsea have managed to remain within the guidelines this transfer window. Even signing players on slightly longer contracts, they still spent a huge amount of money. I guess it must all be legit, given the focus on it these days, it just seems remarkable. Could it have something to do with their recent transfer ban, and they have money to burn?

FFP Came in in 2011/12, 8 years after Roman bought Chelsea so only applied for part of his tenure and by then they were generating much bigger revenues

As to this window, all their purchases are being amortised over 7 1/2 years so spreads the cost but does restrict them continuing to spend at that sort of rate somewhat unless the rules change. Theyre also claiming a dispensation for the time they couldnt operate properly because Abramovic assets been frozen by the UK govt and making up for lost time. Plenty of creative accounting going on for sure, whether it will be deemed to have broken the rules once there accounts are filed............

 

[Swango1980]

It's like big business and tax, they all tinker on the margins, push the boundaries as far as they can go and sometimes go over. If anyone thinks City are the only ones at it then they are kidding themselves. Saying that, if City have been caught then they have to take their medicine.

As you rightly say, if City have clear proof of meeting the rules, why are we at this stage? They have had 4 years to squash this with evidence. There is clearly some ambiguity, qu'elle surprise! Time for the lawyers to get even richer.

Of course, there isn't black and white, and there will be many grey areas. Every club will look to tread as closely to that line as possible. If they play it safe, they may well feel that they are losing ground on other clubs that are more "business savvy". Although, hopefully nearly all clubs are being as transparent as they can possibly be to the authorities. So, even if there are any questionable issues, it can be brought to light very quickly. Argue the case, and maybe at worst get a slap on the wrist.

However, in City's case, it looks like they have not just leaped over the grey area, but they have hop, skipped and jumped over it Jonathan Edwards style. They have then clearly not been anywhere near up front with the authorities in any way that could be considered reasonable.

So, I think it is overly simplistic and unfair when anyone says "other clubs do it". They don't. Unless we think that the Premier League have decided to just pick on City randomly, and they could have chosen one of many other clubs?

 

[Bdill93]

Obviously a lot of discussion on this in media. So far (mainly as no one knows all, the details), the only real defence people make about City is that other clubs are doing it. Danny Mills was saying "how far do you go back?", implying it isn't that fair to go as far back as they are going, and if they do they should go back even further, such as when Abramovich bought Chelsea.

Now, as a layman, I'm not overly informed. I'd like to think Danny Mills, who obviously gets paid handsomely for his media contributions, does his due diligence and researches issues that he is going to talk about? Therefore, does he have a point? Did Abramovich break the rules and get away with it? I would have guessed that the FPP was not in operation at that time, or if it was, the rules were very different? That is just me thinking about it logically, as if FPP was in force, then all the talk would have been Chelsea being in breach of something at the time. Instead, as far as I remember, it was more like other clubs and fans just saying "this is unfair".

I'm still intrigued how Chelsea have managed to remain within the guidelines this transfer window. Even signing players on slightly longer contracts, they still spent a huge amount of money. I guess it must all be legit, given the focus on it these days, it just seems remarkable. Could it have something to do with their recent transfer ban, and they have money to burn?

Chelsea have spent some serious money no doubting it - but the recent business is all fine with FFP. They are paying the cost of these players over long periods of time so the annual cost is minimal - Mudryk (89m) is costing around 10m per year. Even Bournemouth sign players for more than that in the transfer window - its championship level spending! So they can afford to do that 5x over if they want and their spend that year is only 50m.

I think they must have some money in the coffers from when they were banned from signing players - plus CL money and just "the London factor" in it all..

 

[clubchamp98]

Chelsea have spent some serious money no doubting it - but the recent business is all fine with FFP. They are paying the cost of these players over long periods of time so the annual cost is minimal - Mudryk (89m) is costing around 10m per year. Even Bournemouth sign players for more than that in the transfer window - its championship level spending! So they can afford to do that 5x over if they want and their spend that year is only 50m.

I think they must have some money in the coffers from when they were banned from signing players - plus CL money and just "the London factor" in it all..

Can’t remember why Chelsea got a ban!
they must have done something wrong.
some of the rules City have broken might have been a reaction to the way other clubs were doing business In the past ,so rules were tightened up to stop it.
feels to me like a test case against City to put others off doing the same.
if they have broke the rules they should take their punishment.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Can’t remember why Chelsea got a ban!
they must have done something wrong.
some of the rules City have broken might have been a reaction to the way other clubs were doing business In the past ,so rules were tightened up to stop it.
feels to me like a test case against City to put others off doing the same.
if they have broke the rules they should take their punishment.

I think the Chelsea ban was about buying younger players in a way that they shouldn't have. That was specifically a transfer ban in response to dodgy transfers.

 

[Bdill93]

Can’t remember why Chelsea got a ban!
they must have done something wrong.
some of the rules City have broken might have been a reaction to the way other clubs were doing business In the past ,so rules were tightened up to stop it.
feels to me like a test case against City to put others off doing the same.
if they have broke the rules they should take their punishment.

Couple of things from memory -

They signed some academy player/s that they shouldnt have or something - which led to the ban when Lampard was in charge.

Romans finances and assets were frozen last year due to links to Putin so no money could be spent in Jan and no players re-signed to new deals.

 

[Orikoru]

I remember Swindon Town getting relegated for irregularities....

Guess what will happen to City if found guilty? Relatively speaking not very much l expect!

It'll be a pathetic fine that they pay with pocket change no doubt.

 

[clubchamp98]

It'll be a pathetic fine that they pay with pocket change no doubt.

Which will just give other clubs the green light to do the same.

 

[Swango1980]

It'll be a pathetic fine that they pay with pocket change no doubt.

After a day of hearing the reaction to this news, I suspect it will be more than a slap on the wrist if confirmed guilty. There is to much anger from people of all clubs, and if it is a slap on the wrist, FFP is definitely dead in the water

I very much doubt, however, they'd relegate City. Maybe they'd think that damages the PL brand too much, plus the impacts on City staff and fans would probably be quite severe. But, then again, if City fight against them too much, maybe they would quite like to absolutely throw the book at them and penalise them as much as possible?

I suspect they'll get a heavy points deduction. Not enough for them to get relegated, but enough to rule them out of Europe for a season or 2. They may limit their transfers for several seasons, and also will likely include a big fine.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Do we know when any punishment will be announced?