advertisement


All purpose football thread 2023/24 Season

Latest reports are that our injury list is now: De Bruyne, Gomez, Stones, Ake, Ederson, Kovacic, Nunes, and that Kovacic may well be out for the whole season. Fitness is proving to be a significant issue, and last season's exertions are probably a major factor.​

​

 
Chelsea vs Barcelona in 2009, is the most outrageous night of refereeing that i have seen in a long time. Whether VAR would have overturned the UEFA agenda, i don't know, probably not.
 
Everton are easier to 'pick on' because they made a loss that is above the allowed sum. I can't speak for Chelsea, but the accusations against City are very different - inflated income, hidden costs, but not profit related directly. I am listening to the debate on Five Live now and the host and guests have spent more time talking about City than they have Everton; the desperation at equivalence is somewhat ridiculous. Of course, I will defend my club, but the case against City is yet to be proven. In fact, Everton are my '2nd' team, living in Liverpool as I do and supporting the '2nd team' in the city, as Manchester City were for most of my lifetime, so I feel for the fans, who are always the ones who suffer the most from mismanagement in the boardroom.
 
Everton just need to keep playing the way they are and they won't get relegated. As for compensation, that is going to be an interesting situation.... I'm guessing that the PL don't want to see this happen.
 
oldius said:
..,,,, so I feel for the fans, who are always the ones who suffer the most from mismanagement in the boardroom.
Click to expand...
We turned in a profit in our last two Premier League seasons and will no doubt do this. I know it's stupid but I and 30,000 other "winners" at Bramall Lane don't fully appreciate our good fortune.
 
“The Club [Everton] will also monitor with great interest the decisions made in any other cases concerning the Premier League’s profit and sustainability rules.”

They are not alone.
 
oldius said:
Everton are easier to 'pick on' because they made a loss that is above the allowed sum. I can't speak for Chelsea, but the accusations against City are very different - inflated income, hidden costs, but not profit related directly. I am listening to the debate on Five Live now and the host and guests have spent more time talking about City than they have Everton; the desperation at equivalence is somewhat ridiculous. Of course, I will defend my club, but the case against City is yet to be proven. In fact, Everton are my '2nd' team, living in Liverpool as I do and supporting the '2nd team' in the city, as Manchester City were for most of my lifetime, so I feel for the fans, who are always the ones who suffer the most from mismanagement in the boardroom.
Click to expand...
As a 71 year old City fan I would like to know your source for “inflated income, hidden costs” is because as far as Me and Bluemoon are concerned nobody knows what any of the actual charges are.
 
Bob McC said:
As a 71 year old City fan I would like to know your source for “inflated income, hidden costs” is because as far as Me and Bluemoon are concerned nobody knows what any of the actual charges are.
Click to expand...
The original document produced by the PL was released into the public domain many months ago. The 115 charges all relate to 3 key areas. I can't remember the exact details but remember it relates to a payment to Roberto Mancini; inflated sponsorship; and I think the latter was one about cooperation. Fundamentally, it is false accounting. There is a football finance expert who goes by the name of Project River, possibly on Twitter, but he is a serious player in the industry who gave some heavyweight analysis of the accusations back then.

115 charges all have to be proven, and every, single one of them can be defended.

www.premierleague.com

Premier League statement

www.premierleague.com www.premierleague.com

A guy called Prestwich Blue, also went through all of the PL charges, against the PL rulebook.
 
according to Prestwich on the other forum

” there are essentially just three substantive charges, plus the consequent ones deriving from those three (failure to provide accurate accounts, which then impacts PL cost control rules and UEFA's FFP).

The three are:
  1. Mancini's Al Jazira contract. Red herring and UEFA also knew about it in 2018.
  2. Image rights payments. UEFA knew about this by 2015 & it was resolved.
  3. Sponsorship revenue, probably the Etisalat contract that was time-barred. Again, UEFA knew about that and had agreed there was no issue.
If none of those can be proven then the rest automatically fail.

Multiply that by multiple rules and multiple years to get the magic 115 number.”
 
Bob McC said:
according to Prestwich on the other forum

” there are essentially just three substantive charges, plus the consequent ones deriving from those three (failure to provide accurate accounts, which then impacts PL cost control rules and UEFA's FFP).

The three are:
  1. Mancini's Al Jazira contract. Red herring and UEFA also knew about it in 2018.
  2. Image rights payments. UEFA knew about this by 2015 & it was resolved.
  3. Sponsorship revenue, probably the Etisalat contract that was time-barred. Again, UEFA knew about that and had agreed there was no issue.
If none of those can be proven then the rest automatically fail.

Multiply that by multiple rules and multiple years to get the magic 115 number.”
Click to expand...
That is correct - it isn't really 115, but it feeds the masses.
It is said that other clubs in the PL, especially United, Liverpool and Arsenal pushed the PL to take action. With the deadline fast approaching and increasing pressure applied, the PL produced the list of charges, several of which had to then be changed because they related to new rules introduced after the years that the 'offence' took place. To be honest, it looked an absolute 'dog's dinner'. Top lawyers will have a field day.
 
The sooner City and Chelsea are brought to account the better it will be for the Premiership and football in general. Everton were low hanging fruit and are now probably going to get sued by the previous season's relegated teams (all subject to appeal).
 
You can add Spurs to the purge as well now…
Precedent says a 10 point deduction.

Revealed: Spurs and Defoe appeared to break agent rules – but FA did nothing

The Times & The Sunday Times

News and opinion from The Times & The Sunday Times
www.thetimes.co.uk www.thetimes.co.uk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top