Financial Fairplay Investigation - Further 2 points deducted.

[superpull]

I mean, can somebody adequately explain why Leeds are even being mentioned in this comp case of ours?

Unless their argument is the £20m overspend caused us not to take two whole relegation spots, they were down anyway?

[Evertonfc15]

That'll be pretty swift

Burnley/Leeds/Leicester "Give us money"

Everton "No"

Everton “But we can give you £30m Michael Keane, £25m Ben Godfrey and £22m Andre Gomes… who wants which?”

lol

[777Kidnappings]

I mean, can somebody adequately explain why Leeds are even being mentioned in this comp case of ours?

Unless their argument is the £20m overspend caused us not to take two whole relegation spots, they were down anyway?

I would assume they want us in 20th and so the prize money for an extra place rather than 100m

[superpull]

I mean, can somebody adequately explain why Leeds are even being mentioned in this comp case of ours?

Unless their argument is the £20m overspend caused us not to take two whole relegation spots, they were down anyway?

I would assume they want us in 20th and so the prize money for an extra place rather than 100m

Still seems difficult thing to prove.
Suppose they could say the deduction that year may have done that. But that's a beef between them and the league.

To be honest, if the cost of litigation was paying each club the prize money for one position higher (and it wouldn't count against next year's p&s) I'd settle at that in a heartbeat.

It's the Burnley and Leicester suits that make me nervous

[superpull]

You know what else makes me nervous?

The fact the £105m figure only exists whilst "secure funding" is provided to the club each year.

So, if Moshiri has not put anything in this year and the takeover isn't done by April 5th, then this year's allowable losses go from £35m to £5m!

[Shogun]

https://twitter.com/AndyBurnhamGM/status/1730936562253246712

[Shogun]

Still yet to hear anyone in the media say "You can't punish the fans" like they did two years ago

[Cozzie]

Still yet to hear anyone in the media say "You can't punish the fans" like they did two years ago

Clubs outside the scum 6 don't have fans, didn't you know?

[superpull]

Surprised we haven't heard of a class action against the PL for the exact reasons above: can't punish the fans

[Toddacelli]

The more I think about this the more it seems insane.

We have rules there ‘to protect clubs from getting into financial difficulty that could affect the club’
What do you do if someone breaches those rules?
We punish them into financial difficulty that affects the club.

This is a bit like making a kid smoke a whole pack of fags if you catch them smoking or holding someone’s head under water for swimming past the safety marker.


It’s fucking crazy. Surely any independent regulator would say that you can’t claim to be protecting someone from doing something if your intended punishment is as bad or even worse than what you are supposedly protecting them from.

“Sorry, your child went under the rope to stand closer to the bonfire, Mrs Smith, so we had to throw her on it. It’s her own fault, she should have respected the rope, it’s there to prevent people from getting burned.”

[AjaxAndy]

The more I think about this the more it seems insane.

We have rules there ‘to protect clubs from getting into financial difficulty that could affect the club’
What do you do if someone breaches those rules?
We punish them into financial difficulty that affects the club.

This is a bit like making a kid smoke a whole pack of fags if you catch them smoking or holding someone’s head under water for swimming past the safety marker.


It’s fucking crazy. Surely any independent regulator would say that you can’t claim to be protecting someone from doing something if your intended punishment is as bad or even worse than what you are supposedly protecting them from.

“Sorry, your child went under the rope to stand closer to the bonfire, Mrs Smith, so we had to throw her on it. It’s her own fault, she should have respected the rope, it’s there to prevent people from getting burned.”

Yep 100% this

[Escla]

The more I think about this the more it seems insane.

We have rules there ‘to protect clubs from getting into financial difficulty that could affect the club’
What do you do if someone breaches those rules?
We punish them into financial difficulty that affects the club.

This is a bit like making a kid smoke a whole pack of fags if you catch them smoking or holding someone’s head under water for swimming past the safety marker.


It’s fucking crazy. Surely any independent regulator would say that you can’t claim to be protecting someone from doing something if your intended punishment is as bad or even worse than what you are supposedly protecting them from.

“Sorry, your child went under the rope to stand closer to the bonfire, Mrs Smith, so we had to throw her on it. It’s her own fault, she should have respected the rope, it’s there to prevent people from getting burned.”

Am sure an “Independant” regulator would have said something similar to that but how Independant was the panel, appointed by the Premier League and told by the Premier league what penalty they should receive, it’s Corrupt !

[blueToffee]

The more I think about this the more it seems insane.

We have rules there ‘to protect clubs from getting into financial difficulty that could affect the club’
What do you do if someone breaches those rules?
We punish them into financial difficulty that affects the club.

This is a bit like making a kid smoke a whole pack of fags if you catch them smoking or holding someone’s head under water for swimming past the safety marker.


It’s fucking crazy. Surely any independent regulator would say that you can’t claim to be protecting someone from doing something if your intended punishment is as bad or even worse than what you are supposedly protecting them from.

“Sorry, your child went under the rope to stand closer to the bonfire, Mrs Smith, so we had to throw her on it. It’s her own fault, she should have respected the rope, it’s there to prevent people from getting burned.”

If the goal is financial stability, it really doesn't make any sense. It never has. The way it's structured though makes it pretty clear that the goal is not stability but in fact creating a ceiling over most clubs that cements the positions of the biggest clubs at the top of the game.

It's been shown by both Man City and Chelsea that the only way of really competing over any sustained period at the very top when you don't have a huge existing global fan base is to pump money in until the economic playing field is leveled. That's what those teams were forced to do to truly compete because the existing setup was so weighted towards certain teams.

If the system was actually working then Leicester doing the practically impossible would have been set for years on the back of winning the league, not back in the Championship. The bigger teams don't care about Leicester or the likes of Brighton who might do well for a bit, as they're not really taking much other than the scraps from the top table, but they definitely don't want more Chelsea or Man Citys coming into the league.

[4evablu]

Lets face it theirs nothing financial fair about the whole system or process.
The biggest gripe for me is in the actual title. Like i said in an earlier post it's a business and as a business theirs no law in land that says you cant be out of profit or not sustainable. As a business model constant losses in most business' are not sustainable. But in a industry that churns turnover in the 100's of millions lots of clubs will remain "out of profit" and with losses.
The other point being as stated above why punish a club "sportingly" when it's a financial issue at challenge ? Why not just "sanction" the club with a financial punishment such as controlling player transfers for example - you can only buy a player if a) you have to money to purchase him b) If you don't - you can only purchase him if you sell a player of the same or more value?
Controlling the turnover like this would eventually eat away at any profit loss but more importantly sustain the business.

[BlueDoom]

I guess we will find out in a few weeks.

Or months…