So this 'civil war' is basically Man City/Newcastle and possibly Chelsea against Arsenal/Liverpool/Man U, with the rest of the clubs picking whose side they're on.
I can see both sides of this. On one side it's stupid a club cannot spend what they want if they have the resources. I can't think of many industries where a business owner is not allowed to spend what he wants on his business.
On the other hand it's going to be very bad for the league if they win. It's basically then going to be City and Newcastle spending whatever they want and dominating everything.
No idea which way it will go although i think City will have a point on the discrimination part. The fact the league changed the rules (basically enforced to suit the current big clubs interests) just a matter of weeks after the Newcastle takeover is going to be a hard point for the PL to refute.
So this 'civil war' is basically Man City/Newcastle and possibly Chelsea against Arsenal/Liverpool/Man U, with the rest of the clubs picking whose side they're on.
I can see both sides of this. On one side it's stupid a club cannot spend what they want if they have the resources. I can't think of many industries where a business owner is not allowed to spend what he wants on his business.
On the other hand it's going to be very bad for the league if they win. It's basically then going to be City and Newcastle spending whatever they want and dominating everything.
I'm happy with that if it stops Liverpool or Arsenal winning the league.
This is the problem with allowing states to own sports clubs, they think they're bigger than the system and the rules should bend for them. When you sign up to what is effectively a members club you have to abide by the rules. Especially when you have the ability to vote for or against those rules. The threat of cutting funding to the women's team, youth teams etc. shows how stupid the argument is as you can spend as much as you want on them under PSR so the owners wouldn't have to hide behind dodgy deals.
So this 'civil war' is basically Man City/Newcastle and possibly Chelsea against Arsenal/Liverpool/Man U, with the rest of the clubs picking whose side they're on.
I can see both sides of this. On one side it's stupid a club cannot spend what they want if they have the resources. I can't think of many industries where a business owner is not allowed to spend what he wants on his business.
On the other hand it's going to be very bad for the league if they win. It's basically then going to be City and Newcastle spending whatever they want and dominating everything.
I'm happy with that if it stops Liverpool or Arsenal winning the league.
So having spent years pleading their innocence they are now taking legal action as the rules are unfair. Didn't Pep say he would.leave immediately if they had broken even one rule at some point?
To be honest, I know it's an unpopular opinion but I'm with City on this. FFP is a ridiculous concept put in place to hamstring teams who aren't part of the old guard and stop new potential winners popping up. It's weird to let a state buy a football club and then be annoyed when the state owns a club and tries to buy players. And the teams really getting kicked by it are the likes of Everton, Forest and Leicester instead. Fuck FFP, let clubs spend whatever and run themselves into the ground, I'll enjoy the good football in the meantime.
To be honest, I know it's an unpopular opinion but I'm with City on this. FFP is a ridiculous concept put in place to hamstring teams who aren't part of the old guard and stop new potential winners popping up. It's weird to let a state buy a football club and then be annoyed when the state owns a club and tries to buy players. And the teams really getting kicked by it are the likes of Everton, Forest and Leicester instead. Fuck FFP, let clubs spend whatever and run themselves into the ground, I'll enjoy the good football in the meantime.
That's ok, but what about when it goes tits up and teams go bust?
Football club's aren't like other business', the main stakeholders should always be the fans. Ultimately it's a fan who loses out when there is no club left to support.
To be honest, I know it's an unpopular opinion but I'm with City on this. FFP is a ridiculous concept put in place to hamstring teams who aren't part of the old guard and stop new potential winners popping up. It's weird to let a state buy a football club and then be annoyed when the state owns a club and tries to buy players. And the teams really getting kicked by it are the likes of Everton, Forest and Leicester instead. Fuck FFP, let clubs spend whatever and run themselves into the ground, I'll enjoy the good football in the meantime.
That's ok, but what about when it goes tits up and teams go bust?
Football club's aren't like other business', the main stakeholders should always be the fans. Ultimately it's a fan who loses out when there is no club left to support.
In the championship you are allowed to lose £39M over 3 years and comply with FFP. I'm the PL a higher number. It won't stop clubs going bust when they can make losses that high and comply. So I am not really sure of the point of it.
To be honest, I know it's an unpopular opinion but I'm with City on this. FFP is a ridiculous concept put in place to hamstring teams who aren't part of the old guard and stop new potential winners popping up. It's weird to let a state buy a football club and then be annoyed when the state owns a club and tries to buy players. And the teams really getting kicked by it are the likes of Everton, Forest and Leicester instead. Fuck FFP, let clubs spend whatever and run themselves into the ground, I'll enjoy the good football in the meantime.
That's ok, but what about when it goes tits up and teams go bust?
Football club's aren't like other business', the main stakeholders should always be the fans. Ultimately it's a fan who loses out when there is no club left to support.
Well that's dangerously close to happening to Everton now and FFP hasn't helped them at all has it? All it's done is added points deductions on top of their precarious situation and made it even more likely that they'll go under by pushing them closer to the trapdoor. Forest came up with a squad of loanees and brought in a lot of players to compete, and now the Premier League is essentially telling newly promoted teams that if they spend to try and do that they'll be punished. Leicester spent to try to survive, it didn't work, they rebuilt in the Championship and now they'll be punished on their return. Look forward to lots more Sheff Utds when teams realise it's easier just to take the windfall and quietly return to where they came from in the black. Chelsea are currently in a position where they're actively trying to sell off their homegrown players because it's pure profit regardless of who they are. Conor Gallagher, the bloke who wore the armband most of the season and is a lifelong Chelsea fan is being nudged towards the door because him leaving is the best way of avoiding sanctions.
In all of these cases FFP hasn't changed how these teams have behaved, it's just kicked them in the knees after the fact. The only team really in financial peril is Everton and that's because their backer's money is no longer available due to Putin's actions. FFP is a way for the powers that be to try and show a bit of interest in the horse after it's bolted and it serves no function other than to artificially constrict the possibilities of teams to function in a league that that became a total cashcow long ago. It's a joke
City's legal team have played a blinder. Awful lot of charges are now spent for prosecution purposes and FFP/PSR didn't exist in their current incarnation when breaches allegedly happened. Absolute can of worms.
City's legal team have played a blinder. Awful lot of charges are now spent for prosecution purposes and FFP/PSR didn't exist in their current incarnation when breaches allegedly happened. Absolute can of worms.
I don't know how the PL will prove anything anyway, particularly with the claims that the Etihad sponsorship money was actually paid to them by Mansour. You'd expect that Etihad are audited, and by very top level auditors, so surely this is pretty easy for City to prove.
The PL are basically claiming that top level executives (who already testified in the UEFA case) and top level auditors are all lying. That's never going to be proven.
People are constantly asking why the EPL/EFL don't put rules in place about spending and ownership and when they do have things such as FFP it's called ridiculous. Mental.
City's legal team have played a blinder. Awful lot of charges are now spent for prosecution purposes and FFP/PSR didn't exist in their current incarnation when breaches allegedly happened. Absolute can of worms.
I don't know how the PL will prove anything anyway, particularly with the claims that the Etihad sponsorship money was actually paid to them by Mansour. You'd expect that Etihad are audited, and by very top level auditors, so surely this is pretty easy for City to prove.
The PL are basically claiming that top level executives (who already testified in the UEFA case) and top level auditors are all lying. That's never going to be proven.
Worth remembering they were found guilty in the UEFA case, the problem was that the charges were time barred rather than being wrong. Don't think a) they would have done 115 charges or b) City would want to change the rules if they were totally innocent. PL are trying to show the independent regulator isn't needed so want to be seen as cracking down on this stuff. Same with the Everton & Forest points deductions
As a cynic I expect City will leak rumours of an imminent European Super League breakaway and a panicked PL will quickly drop the major charges. City might receive a slap on the wrist but more likely it'll be a grovelling apology.
People are constantly asking why the EPL/EFL don't put rules in place about spending and ownership and when they do have things such as FFP it's called ridiculous. Mental.
I do think there should be rules about spending and ownership, I just think those rules shouldn't be shit. The ownership test doesn't work - Newcastle having their club taken over via a bid that was the same bid again but this time wearing a hat - and FFP by design only works to enshrine the commercially successful old guard in their positions and long term will create a wider and wider gap between the very top and everyone else. Rules are good, rubbish ones aren't.
Bury are a great example of how the ownership system needed to change
People will point to their spending as the reason they went out of business, they paid their way to the League Two title, and paid the price of it.
However it seemed that to be the very simple version. Instead it was the way the club had been ran... Even down to Parking Spots being sold off etc. as from memory there were people willing to buy, and save them but the club was an absolute mess when it came down to Due Diligence so the interested parties backed out... Wasn't helped either with that prick; Steve Dale who was allowed to buy the club from Stewart Day, in one sense, the original concept behind ESI with us.
If clubs want to try and buy their way to success, then fair enough. But then you equally have to pay the price if the club fails.
However as we found out under ESI ourselves, FFP wouldn't have saved us from being fucked over, there need to be separate rules to protect clubs from bad ownership. Whilst FFP should be thrown out, it was never a White Knight concept from the big clubs, other than to keep themselves comfortably at the big table. Cant see how any Football fan (With no allegiance to the Top Six) can agree with it, when it does nothing more than keep us in our place.
City's legal team have played a blinder. Awful lot of charges are now spent for prosecution purposes and FFP/PSR didn't exist in their current incarnation when breaches allegedly happened. Absolute can of worms.
I don't know how the PL will prove anything anyway, particularly with the claims that the Etihad sponsorship money was actually paid to them by Mansour. You'd expect that Etihad are audited, and by very top level auditors, so surely this is pretty easy for City to prove.
The PL are basically claiming that top level executives (who already testified in the UEFA case) and top level auditors are all lying. That's never going to be proven.
Worth remembering they were found guilty in the UEFA case, the problem was that the charges were time barred rather than being wrong. Don't think a) they would have done 115 charges or b) City would want to change the rules if they were totally innocent. PL are trying to show the independent regulator isn't needed so want to be seen as cracking down on this stuff. Same with the Everton & Forest points deductions
Yes but CAS then ruled that they did not disguise equity funding as sponsorship contributions. So surely City would just point to this in their defence?
Comments
What's the big fuss?
I can see both sides of this. On one side it's stupid a club cannot spend what they want if they have the resources. I can't think of many industries where a business owner is not allowed to spend what he wants on his business.
On the other hand it's going to be very bad for the league if they win. It's basically then going to be City and Newcastle spending whatever they want and dominating everything.
Then call up Newcastle and ask them, politely, if they'd like to consider changing their mind.
Football club's aren't like other business', the main stakeholders should always be the fans. Ultimately it's a fan who loses out when there is no club left to support.
In the championship you are allowed to lose £39M over 3 years and comply with FFP. I'm the PL a higher number. It won't stop clubs going bust when they can make losses that high and comply. So I am not really sure of the point of it.
The PL are basically claiming that top level executives (who already testified in the UEFA case) and top level auditors are all lying. That's never going to be proven.
People will point to their spending as the reason they went out of business, they paid their way to the League Two title, and paid the price of it.
However it seemed that to be the very simple version. Instead it was the way the club had been ran... Even down to Parking Spots being sold off etc. as from memory there were people willing to buy, and save them but the club was an absolute mess when it came down to Due Diligence so the interested parties backed out... Wasn't helped either with that prick; Steve Dale who was allowed to buy the club from Stewart Day, in one sense, the original concept behind ESI with us.
If clubs want to try and buy their way to success, then fair enough. But then you equally have to pay the price if the club fails.
However as we found out under ESI ourselves, FFP wouldn't have saved us from being fucked over, there need to be separate rules to protect clubs from bad ownership. Whilst FFP should be thrown out, it was never a White Knight concept from the big clubs, other than to keep themselves comfortably at the big table. Cant see how any Football fan (With no allegiance to the Top Six) can agree with it, when it does nothing more than keep us in our place.
Yes but CAS then ruled that they did not disguise equity funding as sponsorship contributions. So surely City would just point to this in their defence?