Genie Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 2 minutes ago, villa89 said: I assume this is more tax efficient but I am not a tax expert. It stops “the club” falling out with the owner because if he demands repayment the club goes under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 13 minutes ago, villa89 said: 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. Yeah it's not a great defence - I mean I owe the tax man some cash end of the month but think I'll leave it in my savings account till summer to make more interest. What could happen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Scorpio Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 7 hours ago, Kiwivillan said: Bookmarked Fine by me. Hope I am wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlobalVillan Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 4 hours ago, juanpablosaliceband said: 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. Nobody thinks a pounts deduction and relegation would be exvessive for Man City, people just know they'll get away with it. They could burn down the Etihad, kick them down to the Vanarama, give them a 10 year transfer embargo and a £10 billion fine and it wouldn't be excessive. They will get a slap on the wrist if anything though. Wait and see. You may be waiting a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 I actually don't see that FFP punishment for citeh needs to be some unprecedented expulsion - as much as I'd like that. They just need fair payback for their robbing of the game the last decade. I'd settle for an immediate large points deduction - stopping them in year 1 - and then subsequent transfer bans for next 3 years stopping them replenishing their squad as has been their model all this time. Then they meet FFP or they get it all again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 46 minutes ago, villa89 said: 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. 31 minutes ago, Jareth said: Yeah it's not a great defence - I mean I owe the tax man some cash end of the month but think I'll leave it in my savings account till summer to make more interest. What could happen! Depends what the purpose of FFP is - is it to stop clubs falling into financial ruin as was originally purported? If so, they could argue they were getting better value for money (and sustaining the club more effectively long term) by agreeing a deal in September, rather than June. They'd also secured another year of Premier League football so their permitted loss will increase by £26m or something for this season. If FFP is just a hard and fast "you just can't spend over loss amount at all" and not really about the long term safety of clubs, then the argument doesn't work at all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 3 hours ago, Zatman said: 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 They really aren't, they couldn't even fill their stadium a few seasons ago in a CL 1/4 final against Real Madrid FFS. They artificially inflated their revenues to give the impression they are a big club, and then you have Sky and the love affair with Pep, De Bruyne, Haaland etc. When they all go, nobody will care. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 24 minutes ago, GlobalVillan said: people just think they'll get away with it. FTFY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 59 minutes ago, villa89 said: 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. That's what I thought. Pathetic excuse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlobalVillan Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Kiwivillan said: FTFY No. They already have gotten away with it. You'll never take those memories off the fans or the club and you'll never get that status off them they have gained around the world. Those titles were won and celebrated by their fans. Even if they lost them, which they won't, those memories are etched in their heads forever. Man City shirts are everywhere these days and that new found status will enable them to grow no matter what. On top of that, they won't be relegated, they won't miss out on CL for more than a season is they DID get a points deduction and none of it is guaranteed to happen at all. Edited January 16 by GlobalVillan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 6 minutes ago, GlobalVillan said: On top of that, they won't be relegated I won't take that bet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedClaretAndBlue Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 Calling Everton and Forest 'small clubs' aside, snakey doesn't answer a single question. It's a fair point. Everton get hit immediately, and they could easily go down and lose millions and millions in revenue, whereas City and Chelsea could have committed 10x worse offenses, and they can continue to win titles that won't be taken off them if they're found guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWARLEY2 Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said: Calling Everton and Forest 'small clubs' aside, snakey doesn't answer a single question. It's a fair point. Everton get hit immediately, and they could easily go down and lose millions and millions in revenue, whereas City and Chelsea could have committed 10x worse offenses, and they can continue to win titles that won't be taken off them if they're found guilty. He's a Villa fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post HanoiVillan Posted January 16 Popular Post Share Posted January 16 1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said: Calling Everton and Forest 'small clubs' aside, snakey doesn't answer a single question. It's a fair point. Everton get hit immediately, and they could easily go down and lose millions and millions in revenue, whereas City and Chelsea could have committed 10x worse offenses, and they can continue to win titles that won't be taken off them if they're found guilty. It's a bit of a silly point tbh, they're just very different cases. The reasons why City's case is taking a lot longer have been aired over and over again, if people aren't getting it at this point it's because they've decided to be outraged rather than think. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villa_Vids Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 4 hours ago, bobzy said: Depends what the purpose of FFP is - is it to stop clubs falling into financial ruin as was originally purported? If so, they could argue they were getting better value for money (and sustaining the club more effectively long term) by agreeing a deal in September, rather than June. They'd also secured another year of Premier League football so their permitted loss will increase by £26m or something for this season. If FFP is just a hard and fast "you just can't spend over loss amount at all" and not really about the long term safety of clubs, then the argument doesn't work at all. Masters made a comment about FFP being here to ensure another Portsmouth doesn't occur. I don't buy that line. It certainly isn't being applied like that. F&P was a huge part of Portsmouth's decline IMO. Nobody really knows what the true reasons were behind FFP. In practice it is also causing more problems too - further infighting between clubs. It is a legal weapon to use if you fail on the pitch. "Financial doping" Will they strip Jack Walker's legacy at Blackburn - which was clearly cheating if we use the same definition and logic. Leicester City were also found guilty of breaching EFL FFP are they going to be stripped of their Premier League title? I don't like the envy part of it. I think historically financial risk is attached and has built the English game. Investment has always been a huge part of individual clubs' growth and the Premier League too. Since the late 1800s, English Football has been a free market sport. The chaos of that has made it attractive. The rise and fall (vice versa) of clubs, inception and emergence of new challenging clubs. The current system isn't perfect and there should be financial controls and accountability, but I worry we will lose sight of what English football has been and is. If they seriously want financial fair play then they should follow the NFL model, the league is larger than any individual football club. Pool resources and distribute cash evenly through each division. Just do it, instead of pretending that there is some balance and fairness to this mess. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 32 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: It's a bit of a silly point tbh, they're just very different cases. The reasons why City's case is taking a lot longer have been aired over and over again, if people aren't getting it at this point it's because they've decided to be outraged rather than think. It's **** obvious as well. Everton and Forest have had 1 charge levelled against them and both gone "yep, let's talk". Everyone reading/watching up on the Man City charges know that there are over 100 charges, in a wide variety of directions and the club have denied any wrongdoing. It's obviously going to take a lot longer. Rocket science it isn't. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villa_Vids Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 46 minutes ago, MWARLEY2 said: He's a Villa fan. Villa fan today. West Ham fan tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osmark86 Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 (edited) 35 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: It's a bit of a silly point tbh, they're just very different cases. The reasons why City's case is taking a lot longer have been aired over and over again, if people aren't getting it at this point it's because they've decided to be outraged rather than think. Of those 115 charges, 35 are for failure to cooperate with the investigation. That should be something that they could start ruling on earlier than the other cases that require more supporting evidence. Slap the bastards on the wrist for not going along with the investigation, that should already be proven to be case. I think people are more outraged because it's already been going on for years and years, and instead of trying to charge them for some wrongdoings they appear to be trying to put every infringing charge on a pile and allow them to continue to operate and inflate markets etc in the mean time. It's just frustrating and not fair, but ofc it's a difficult situation from a legal point of view. Edited January 16 by osmark86 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 Just now, osmark86 said: Of those 115 charges, 35 are for failure to cooperate with the investigation. That should be something that they could start ruling on earlier than the other cases that require more supporting evidence. Slap the bastards on the wrist for not going along with the investigation, that should already be proven to be case. I think people are more outraged, because it's already been going on for years and years and instead of trying to charge them for some wrongdoings, they appear to be trying to put every infringing charge on a pile and allow them to continue to operate and inflate markets etc in the mean time. It's just frustrating and not fair, but ofc it's a difficult situation from a legal point of view. Has it? Didn't they charge them early last year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts