Kiwivillan Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 14 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said: My point remains. Bookmarked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 16 Moderator Share Posted January 16 4 hours ago, Kiwivillan said: It's £35m loss per year over 3 years = £105m and I think that included some Covid leniency No it isn’t. For forest it’s not £35 mill for 3 seasons. Because 2 were in the championship it’s £61 mill total (13+13+35) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 48 minutes ago, blandy said: No it isn’t. For forest it’s not £35 mill for 3 seasons. Because 2 were in the championship it’s £61 mill total (13+13+35) Oh yeah, still response to post they can go and spend £150m in January still stands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanpablosaliceband Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 I’m amazed at the amount of people who seem to think a points deduction and relegation would be somehow excessive for Man City. If they are found guilty of these charges, they will have to be stripped of titles. Lance Armstrong was stripped of all his Tour de France titles for winning by cheating. It’s the same thing. The Premier League are not going to be soft on City after bringing 115 charges against them. That makes no sense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 48 minutes ago, juanpablosaliceband said: The Premier League are not going to be soft on City after bringing 115 charges against them. That makes no sense. Indeed. It's PL tribunal so high priced legal team may mean nothing. They can't go to CAS for arbitration like they did with UEFA charges. That's already been established. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calcifer Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 8 hours ago, Genie said: I think you’re wrong, if they were going to do something like that they’d have done it. Just because City have lots of money they cannot make their breaches which are vast, and clear, become legal. This whole “tying them in knots for years” is something which is threatened in the movies. The premier league will be getting grief from everyone else, especially people like Everton and Forest if they are not punished comparatively. I think they’ll get a massive points deduction which relegates them but they’ll come straight up. Transfer ban & fine too. I really don't see it, I would be absolutely shocked if the PL relegated City. PL is all about the money, I would love to see the book thrown at city but sadly I don't think the PL have the balls to do what's needed. Sending them to the Championship for 1 season isn't punishment. Send them down 3 divisions, full transfer ban for 3 seasons. Their owners would soon get bored. All this talk of stripping of titles. Fully justified, would call all the trophies they won in that period void. But will it happen? No. You can fully expect the city legal team is combing the rules with a fine tooth comb looking for any loophole. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 (edited) 6 minutes ago, calcifer said: I really don't see it, I would be absolutely shocked if the PL relegated City. PL is all about the money, It is all about money. It's a self sustaining beast and if City got kicked out of PL life would go on and would soon become fish and chip wrappers. There's 19 other members that probably want City kicked out. I don't think they have as much sway as people imply that they have. Edited January 16 by Kiwivillan 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 30 minutes ago, Kiwivillan said: It is all about money. It's a self sustaining beast and if City got kicked out of PL life would go on and would soon become fish and chip wrappers. There's 19 other members that probably want City kicked out. I don't think they have as much sway as people imply that they have. City are also not Liverpool or United. They are really not a big club with a huge real fanbase instead a lot of online fans who were Chelsea or Barcelona fans before that 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 55 minutes ago, calcifer said: I really don't see it, I would be absolutely shocked if the PL relegated City. PL is all about the money, I would love to see the book thrown at city but sadly I don't think the PL have the balls to do what's needed. Sending them to the Championship for 1 season isn't punishment. Send them down 3 divisions, full transfer ban for 3 seasons. Their owners would soon get bored. All this talk of stripping of titles. Fully justified, would call all the trophies they won in that period void. But will it happen? No. You can fully expect the city legal team is combing the rules with a fine tooth comb looking for any loophole. Clearly people have been taking the piss with the rules. City, Everton and Forest we know about so far. If City are relegated the PL don’t lose any money. The juggernaut rolls on with the other 19 plus whoever got their place, but with the added benefit that teams are going to start taking the rules seriously. Everyone piling on because the punishments are soft is much more of a risk to the PL bottom line than punishing a team or 2 properly now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 They are similar to us in terms of fan base. In the late 60s they were getting 50000 regularly and went through hard times like us but kept their support unlike Chelsea who were getting gates of 4000 before the Premier League was formed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 33 minutes ago, PaulC said: They are similar to us in terms of fan base. In the late 60s they were getting 50000 regularly and went through hard times like us but kept their support unlike Chelsea who were getting gates of 4000 before the Premier League was formed. See Leeds. Got busted. No one cared Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S-Platt Posted January 16 VT Supporter Share Posted January 16 These losses of 105 million over a 3 year period should increase with inflation. I don't know when these figures were set but wages keep increasing as do transfer fees. I reckon loads of clubs are just treading water. It's the fans that suffer ultimately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 Just now, S-Platt said: These losses of 105 million over a 3 year period should increase with inflation. I don't know when these figures were set but wages keep increasing as do transfer fees. I reckon loads of clubs are just treading water. It's the fans that suffer ultimately. In theory income increases with inflation so the loss amount can stay the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S-Platt Posted January 16 VT Supporter Share Posted January 16 5 minutes ago, Genie said: In theory income increases with inflation so the loss amount can stay the same. Everytime a new TV deal is agreed that money goes straight to players and agents it rarely services debt. I just think it could be looked at. Maybe it's fine as is but if teams are struggling apart from the cheating ones it's telling me something needs a slight change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 4 minutes ago, S-Platt said: Everytime a new TV deal is agreed that money goes straight to players and agents it rarely services debt. Not really, it goes to the club who use it for many things (including player wagers). Ticket prices go up every year. Merchandise goes up every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adman Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 I understand the delay in dealing with City. They lied and covered up their cheating, and it will take time to prove it (although there must be proof to bring the charges in the first place). Why's Chelsea taking so long? They've found they cheated and have admitted it to the PL, so 10 points per season + extra for the cover up and move on... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adman Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 8 minutes ago, S-Platt said: Everytime a new TV deal is agreed that money goes straight to players and agents it rarely services debt. I just think it could be looked at. Maybe it's fine as is but if teams are struggling apart from the cheating ones it's telling me something needs a slight change. I've always thought that if the owners guarantee the debt the club is taking on, then let them get on with it. The problem arises when owners gamble the club's fortunes, fail, then walk away without feeling the pain. So FFP should only apply to "non-guaranteed" debt and could then be squeezed down to a smaller figure 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 1 minute ago, Adman said: I've always thought that if the owners guarantee the debt the club is taking on, then let them get on with it. The problem arises when owners gamble the club's fortunes, fail, then walk away without feeling the pain. So FFP should only apply to "non-guaranteed" debt and could then be squeezed down to a smaller figure Me too. Abramovic always pumped the money into Chelsea in the form of loans. As long as owners are gifting the money then I think it should be allowed (but then this would upset the European elite clubs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 So forest's defence is that they got the Brennan Johnson money in September instead of selling him before the June deadline. They did this to get a better price (apparently) and if this money was included in the three year assessment period then they would not have breached FFP. Someone needs to tell them how accounting works. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 1 hour ago, Genie said: Me too. Abramovic always pumped the money into Chelsea in the form of loans. As long as owners are gifting the money then I think it should be allowed (but then this would upset the European elite clubs). I assume this is more tax efficient but I am not a tax expert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts