Premier League Financial Rules Discussion - including Man City Charges

It would be difficult to get a practising lawyer to stake their reputation on giving an opinion like that tbh. They are slippery creatures by their very nature so to tie them down to an opinion they aren't being paid for wouldn't be easy.

Stefan is a Man City fan who used to work for Man City iirc.

I remember him from twitter a year or so ago before he sold out and went down the Talksport route. Horrible crowd they are. But his viewpoints on Man City seems to have changed. He used to infer that Man City were very clearly in trouble and would outline why whereas now his tweets don't seem to be. Not heavy handed, and at the same time there is more troll-y undertone to his tweets on the actual football when it comes to Man City's rivals, IMO.

Someone might have had a word with him, as he became more prominent on Twitter and in the media. It happens.

Ya I don't think he can be taken seriously regarding anything to do with City, he's clearly a fan and rarely criticises them in any way.

It seems like whoever gets promoted will have a large say in this cos there still ain't a 14 majority willing to vote against city.

Aston Villa and Crystal Palace abstained, with Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur, Bournemouth, Brentford, Brighton & Hove Albion, Burnley, Fulham, Luton, West Ham United and Wolverhampton Wanderers forming a 12-club majority.

I read something the other day that said the Villa owners were moving all their loot to the UAE so it's not surprising.

I can absolutely see a breakaway league happening.

Personally, I'd love to see all the state clubs f*cked out, and they can form their own "super-elite" league. Honestly, wouldn't bother me one bit.

I wonder what would happen though if the current (what is it, 12 that are vocally against City?) clubs voted to refuse to take part in the PL if the APT rules are found to be illegal. There's no chance any club will be able to compete against the state clubs, so what's the point? There's no level playing field there at all.

As someone else said, if the ATP rules fall, what's to stop City suing the PL to allow them to use unlimited substitutes as all the players have work contracts and the PL rules are officially preventing those workers from working?

It is interesting times. Who knows what will happen with a breakaway. Superleague is back on the agenda with the Spanish court ruling lately. Do City, Newcastle, Chelsea and Villa (I'm guessing these 4 are together) all go with Real, Barcelona and maybe the Italians and PSG to set up their own SL? How would UEFA respond? Which side would the broadcasters take? The American sponsors/ ME owners could throw money at these clubs if they're happy to play an overseas match. The Pl could be over as we know it if all the cash ends up with the potential breakaway or they completely make fools of themselves and they end up with nothing and the PL wins. Either way it's a shitfight that will probably be decided in a lawyers office in 10 or 20 years.

Up to two weeks apparantly for a result.

Agreed but titles should be redistributed.

Otherwise cheating wins.

Congratulations to Jose and Ole on their PL titles 😉

Football's governing bodies have chosen to be taken for absolute fools, and as they sow so shall they reap.

No, they don't.

MCFC can and should be expelled from the Premier League. Now, whether any league below the PL will accept them or not is certainly not the PL's problem.

It is the PLs problem there's a tribunal happening in a few hours. The lawyers will be fighting this battle. As much as we don't like it City aren't going anywhere.

You beat me to it.

Whatever about the legal outcome, all of MCFC's "trophies" are as valid as Armstrong's "wins".

Villa hinting they might join City now in the courts. At the very least they are clearly on Citys side.

https://www.espn.com.sg/soccer/story/_/id/40325886/aston-villa-owner-sue-premier-league-spending-rules

Kinda have to laugh at this, one good season and they want the rules changed to benefits themselves.

No, Billionaires should not be allowed to load a bunch of money into a football club to buy all the players around them.
That kind of crazy market inflation has serious knock-on effects on the rest of football. For clubs trying to compete, for fans etc..

Landing a club with a bunch of high-value, long-term contracts on players they could never hope to afford should their billionaire decide to switch their attention elsewhere is not good for clubs.
It will cost the league and local communities in England some of their clubs.

Just because Man City's owners aren't walking away doesn't mean we make it a free-for-all all for everyone. And actually City are a good example - should something change with their owners, a falling out with UK gov or something similar then what exactly happens to Man City? Because Man City cannot legitimately generate the funds they have been posting these last few years (not yet at least).

If UAE pull their funding, their sponsorship deals, their creative accounting then Man City as a football club is screwed. They would be gone. Their fans will lose everything and the UAE will walk away free.

If someone wants to take over a club and grow it over 5/10/20/30 years and make sure that club is being run in a way that is sustainable without their money being pumped in then that is excellent and should absolutely be allowed. But it does need to be regulated to insure this is actually happening.

The anchored salary cap is the best idea I have heard so far. It forces clubs to be well run if they want to get to the top and will punish those who are not. It will mean clubs who make mistakes cannot then just spend their way out of trouble. They need long-term plans.

We need to stop the idea that the only way to the top of the league is to become the asset of a state.

The main issue I have with the current rules is that there's a set threshold based on filed financial figures and specific date windows, but no standardisation on punishments or timing of punishments

Last season was absolutely ludicrous where they were changing the league table multiple times during the season because of different teams with different points deductions and different appeals

If you're strict on the timeframe of the financial figures then be strict on the mapping of points deductions to threshold breach %, and apply them all to offending teams uniformly at the same point with a set date for completion of appeal and any points adjustments - and to me this should all be at the very start of the season

There's a huge difference to getting a points deduction in December with a transfer window upcoming in Jan, and a points deduction in February or March where you might be suddenly pulled into a relegation battle you weren't prepared for and no opportunity to react in the transfer market

Start with properly defining punishments, then decide the date on which to apply for all offenders. That's a really good start.

Overall I agree that there has to be some sort of overhaul, but whatever the replacement rules are, I still think the appropriate punishment will be to have a points deduction meaning you have to sort out the timing of them regardless

The whistle blower is back.

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/football-leaks-whistleblower-rui-pinto-073200045.html

How close are Man Utd to breaching PSR regulations?

I see that they've posted a loss of £72m for 2023-2024, so far, with 3 more months to go in the season accounts. IIRC there was another big loss of a similar figure a year or two ago aswell.

and then also part of Chelsea's breach, and the reason why they got off, was one of those extra-curricular sales of the stadium to themselves. Which was ridiculous.

Yeah there doesn't seem to be a massive rush to sell players, but then Greenwood is being sold so maybe his sale is covering the limit. Maybe that security of knowing that sale will go through is easing any PSR breach fears. If there was more public knowledge of Man Utd being close to a PSR breach, then they would be in a weak position in the transfer market and so you would want to avoid that.

Any word or updates on the City case anywhere?

The hearing took 18 months to come about and it'll be 2 years since they were charged before a verdict. Then what happens assuming they get punished willl be multiple appeals. This case will probably drag on for god knows how many years.