FFP

[Louzie0]

Whenever sanctions for FFP are brought up in the news, my first thought is, ‘What about Manchester City?’
With 115 accusations against them, why are other clubs being docked points and fined, while they are sailing along, apparently untroubled by anything related to these allegations?

Whenever the date is, I hope it’s coming up this season.

The answer is simple. Man City, or should I say the extremely wealthy Arabs that own them, have can afford the best legal team on the planet and to quote an intercepted internal email that the German sports paper who investigated them in the first place printed "do whatever you need to do to make us the most successful team in the world, we can buy ourselves out of any situation and our legal team will tie them up in so many knots it will take years to carry out an investigation" Maybe not word for word but that's the gist of it. Printed in De Bilde (?) a few years back. By comparison the likes of Everton and Forest are just sitting ducks.

Thanks, The Edge. I hadn’t heard the statement in De Bilde before, but this helps to confirm what I thought ( i.e. their supercharged team of lawyers holding it up).

[ChicagoLion]

I can understand them having to bring in players after promotion because of the loans etc, we were in the same boat when we came up. They didn't have to sign 30 players or however many it was though. And then bring in another dozen this summer. Pretty sure that outside of Johnson in the same period they were bringing in 40 odd players they sold players for about £10m.

They ended up with all their eggs in one Johnson shaped basket, which was in a window more than other clubs were accounting for, and who knows what their plan was if he'd been crocked.

But he didn't get crocked and they got a far bigger price for Johnson a few weeks later.

You don’t get it do you?
Even Forest are not denying they broke the rules but you seem to think they didn’t.

[Louzie0]

I feel that I link to them so often that it might be suspected that I work for them (I don't), but F365 do tend to be the best place on the interwebs for explaning this sort of stuff. If anyone is interested]

…(NFFC, Everton, Chelsea, then)

Manchester City

Oh, boy…

Unlike Chelsea, City have been charged. With 115 (one-hundred and fifteen) alleged breaches of Premier League financial rules over a nine-year period between 2009 and 2018. In that time, City won the title three times.

As well as being charged with failing to disclose “accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position” and managerial remuneration details around Roberto Mancini’s contract, City are also alleged to have breached Premier League PSR during three seasons from 2015-16 to 2017-18.

City strenuously deny the charges and said they “look forward to this matter being put to rest once and for all”. That was almost a year ago, in February 2023, when the charges were first filed by the Premier League.

So why is the case still dragging on? Simply because of the volume and complexity of the charges.

City have already successfully defended themselves in legal action brought by UEFA after German newspaper Der Spiegel in 2018 first highlighted alleged wrongdoing. The club were initially banned from European competition for two years but that was overturned on appeal by the Court of Arbitration for Sport later in 2020. So the Premier League know they have to make their charges stick.

A hearing date has been set. But it’s a secret.

When questioned about the frustration of Everton and Forest fans over the speed of their processes compared to City’s, Richard Masters said: “I can understand but they are very different charges. If any club, current champions or otherwise, were found in breach of the spending rules in 2022-23 they would be in exactly the same position as Everton or Nottingham Forest. But the volume and character of the charges laid against City, which I obviously cannot talk about at all, are being heard in a completely different environment. There is a date set for that proceeding. Unfortunately, I can’t tell you when that is but that is progressing.”

The Daily Mail reported in November that the date will be in late autumn 2024.

Thanks for this context, Dave.

[tomd2103]

I feel that I link to them so often that it might be suspected that I work for them (I don't), but F365 do tend to be the best place on the interwebs for explaning this sort of stuff. If anyone is interested]

…(NFFC, Everton, Chelsea, then)

Manchester City

Oh, boy…

Unlike Chelsea, City have been charged. With 115 (one-hundred and fifteen) alleged breaches of Premier League financial rules over a nine-year period between 2009 and 2018. In that time, City won the title three times.

As well as being charged with failing to disclose “accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position” and managerial remuneration details around Roberto Mancini’s contract, City are also alleged to have breached Premier League PSR during three seasons from 2015-16 to 2017-18.

City strenuously deny the charges and said they “look forward to this matter being put to rest once and for all”. That was almost a year ago, in February 2023, when the charges were first filed by the Premier League.

So why is the case still dragging on? Simply because of the volume and complexity of the charges.

City have already successfully defended themselves in legal action brought by UEFA after German newspaper Der Spiegel in 2018 first highlighted alleged wrongdoing. The club were initially banned from European competition for two years but that was overturned on appeal by the Court of Arbitration for Sport later in 2020. So the Premier League know they have to make their charges stick.

A hearing date has been set. But it’s a secret.

When questioned about the frustration of Everton and Forest fans over the speed of their processes compared to City’s, Richard Masters said: “I can understand but they are very different charges. If any club, current champions or otherwise, were found in breach of the spending rules in 2022-23 they would be in exactly the same position as Everton or Nottingham Forest. But the volume and character of the charges laid against City, which I obviously cannot talk about at all, are being heard in a completely different environment. There is a date set for that proceeding. Unfortunately, I can’t tell you when that is but that is progressing.”

The Daily Mail reported in November that the date will be in late autumn 2024.

Thanks for this context, Dave.

I will confess to not knowing too much about these issues, but why don't they just start with one of the charges and then go from there if addressing all 115 is so problematic.

[Rory]

Another thing that confuses me is the notion that Man City have some uniquely super-high-power lawyers.

Is any PL football club going with Saul Goodman or Vinny Gambini?

[johnc]

Another thing that confuses me is the notion that Man City have some uniquely super-high-power lawyers.

Is any PL football club going with Saul Goodman or Vinny Gambini?

Probably not but Man City do have the money to pay for the very best of the very best as they do with players and managers (Unai excepted). They would be foolish not to use their super charged wealth to stymie whatever processes are ongoing

[Somniloquism]

I will confess to not knowing too much about these issues, but why don't they just start with one of the charges and then go from there if addressing all 115 is so problematic.

Because they are linked quite considerably and I suspect PL rules are charges made at the same time are judged at the same time. Toney had 220 or so charges and agreed on some and disagreed on others. The PL still didn't ban him until the outcome of the others had been heard.

[lovejoy]

Maybe not word for word but that's the gist of it. Printed in De Bilde (?) a few years back.

Only a Villa fan of a certain vintage could think the German tabloid newspaper Bild is spelt De Bilde. Sounds like your brain works a bit like mine! 

Genuinely I often write withe rather than withe, I mean with.

[lovejoy]

Another thing that confuses me is the notion that Man City have some uniquely super-high-power lawyers.

Is any PL football club going with Saul Goodman or Vinny Gambini?

The UK exports €16bn goods and services to UAE and we have strong defence ties with them. At the current point of economic instability the governemnt are unlikely to want to risk this partnership. I would imagine significant political pressure being exerted here. Which is the whole reason why clubs shouldn't be owned by nation states.

[ChicagoLion]

Another thing that confuses me is the notion that Man City have some uniquely super-high-power lawyers.

Is any PL football club going with Saul Goodman or Vinny Gambini?

The UK exports €16bn goods and services to UAE and we have strong defence ties with them. At the current point of economic instability the governemnt are unlikely to want to risk this partnership. I would imagine significant political pressure being exerted here. Which is the whole reason why clubs shouldn't be owned by nation states.

I wonder what sort of pressure other PL clubs are putting on the Premier League regarding Man Citeh.
I can not believe that Liverpool Manure and Arse are holding back.

[eamonn]

Maybe not word for word but that's the gist of it. Printed in De Bilde (?) a few years back.

Only a Villa fan of a certain vintage could think the German tabloid newspaper Bild is spelt De Bilde. Sounds like your brain works a bit like mine! 

Genuinely I often write withe rather than withe, I mean with.

What about "width"?

[Somniloquism]

Another thing that confuses me is the notion that Man City have some uniquely super-high-power lawyers.

Is any PL football club going with Saul Goodman or Vinny Gambini?

The UK exports €16bn goods and services to UAE and we have strong defence ties with them. At the current point of economic instability the governemnt are unlikely to want to risk this partnership. I would imagine significant political pressure being exerted here. Which is the whole reason why clubs shouldn't be owned by nation states.

Aren't part of the reasons for the PL crackdowns is because the Government want to put their own "independent" panel in? It should be congratulated that it has forced movement, however in areas like the above, how independent will it be?

[john2710]

Any "independant" panel implemented by this government will simply be another opportunity to appoint some mates for favours to be repaid at a later date. 

[pablo_picasso]

Has anybody else noticed since the Manc punishment delay that the media, Sky Sports News in particular, have started to use P&S instead of FFP to describe the whole drawer bridge raising farce?

It was 2 months later, a full transfer window. Why should they have 7 windows for sales while everyone else has 6?

Exactly.

If it's late, it's late.

Thats on nobody other than Forest.

If any purchaser tried to take advantage, then thats unfortunate.

They shouldn't have purchased first & made that sale need so desperate.

They had the benefit of the purchased players, the player they didn't sell & then the extra money they got by delaying 2 months.

How is that fair on everyone else down in the relegation battles?

[Dave]

Another thing that confuses me is the notion that Man City have some uniquely super-high-power lawyers.

Is any PL football club going with Saul Goodman or Vinny Gambini?

The UK exports €16bn goods and services to UAE and we have strong defence ties with them. At the current point of economic instability the governemnt are unlikely to want to risk this partnership. I would imagine significant political pressure being exerted here. Which is the whole reason why clubs shouldn't be owned by nation states.

See also the Johnson Government pressuring the Premier League to approve the Saudi takeover of Newcastle for diplomatic reasons.