[Finance] Man City accused of breaking EPL financial rules

5Ways Gull said:

I wonder if Chelsea's recent behaviour has pushed the PL over the edge?

Click to expand...

Triggaaar said:

Did they say it's taken something like 4 years to get to this point? So a year ago, City were being looked at for breaking FFP, but it wasn't announced until now. That could be the case with others being looked at too, but not yet revealed.

But on the face of it, you wouldn't expect Spurs to be breaking rules as they don't spend much money, rather they end up selling good players to the likes of City. If you look at who's spent the most over the last couple of decades, I'd guess Man U have spent a fair amount, with Chelsea going large when Abramovich took over, and then City doing likewise following their takeover. City and Chelsea didn't have big income streams prior to their takeovers, whereas Man U have had the largest income for decades, suggesting they're more likely to have stayed within the rules.

Is there anyone who thought City weren't breaking the rules?

Click to expand...

5Ways Gull said:

I wonder if Chelsea's recent behaviour has pushed the PL over the edge?

Click to expand...

nicko31 said:

They broke English football in 2003, now another phase after Citeh showed it can be still done and you can still get away with it.

Nothing significant will happen, i hope I'm wrong

Click to expand...

Uh_huh_him said:

I still blame Blackburn Rovers for proving a league title could be bought.

Click to expand...

Uh_huh_him said:

I still blame Blackburn Rovers for proving a league title could be bought.

Click to expand...

Stato said:

You've got the wrong Blackburn. Blackburn Olympic's 1883 Cup Final win over the Old Etonians was won with players who were rumoured to have been paid! Completely unfair on the ex-public school gentlemen amateur teams (who were wealthy enough to be able to play without payment).

Blackburn Rovers' title was bought in the same way as every other team's titles were bought. The crtitique of Blackburn was just old money versus new money. I've little time for friend of Thatcher Jack Walker, but he only wanted to do for his home team what Tony Bloom is trying to do for his. The field was more open back then, so he was able to go all the way. All of the big clubs have a history of being bankrolled too. When it is inherited wealth, like that which allowed Old Etonians their advantage before 1883, it's less questioned, but it's no more sustainable or fair.

Click to expand...

Stato said:

You've got the wrong Blackburn. Blackburn Olympic's 1883 Cup Final win over the Old Etonians was won with players who were rumoured to have been paid! Completely unfair on the ex-public school gentlemen amateur teams (who were wealthy enough to be able to play without payment).

Blackburn Rovers' title was bought in the same way as every other team's titles were bought. The crtitique of Blackburn was just old money versus new money. I've little time for friend of Thatcher Jack Walker, but he only wanted to do for his home team what Tony Bloom is trying to do for his. The field was more open back then, so he was able to go all the way. All of the big clubs have a history of being bankrolled too. When it is inherited wealth, like that which allowed Old Etonians their advantage before 1883, it's less questioned, but it's no more sustainable or fair.

Click to expand...

Mackenzie said:

Frustrating isn't it.

Renders the competition worthless. Can't be a good feeling for Manchester City fans knowing that everything they've achieved is now meaningless.

On a related note, I bet football players hate FFP, its a bit of a handbrake on their wages. Imagine the incentives they'd get if it was a free for all (see Man City players for further details).

Click to expand...

Weststander said:

That wasn’t always true.

The accounts for clubs are now available online going back to the 70’s and 80’s. By May 1984 for example, Liverpool’s accounts reveal no loans from the owners and long standing share capital of just £60,000. The chairman and CEO expertly managed club income, bought a couple of players each summer and moved on players. The club was profitable, player wages (revealed) under control.

Hence great players heading for Italy, Spain and Germany in that era.

It was mentioned at the time that ManU and Spurs did do what you say, I could delve further.

Click to expand...

Stato said:

True but the longer wealth is established the less easy it is to find its origin and the more it is accepted as being a fact of life, rather than an unfair advantage. Liverpool were a team started by a greedy landlord who found himself with an empty stadium after squeezing Everton too hard for rent. Their glory years under Shankly were sparked by a promotion aided by the purchases of Ron Yates and Ian St John, the latter broke the club's transfer record at that time. Success in the game can generally always be traced back to someone making a larger investment than their competitors. The likes of Man Utd and Liverpool just did it longer ago than most.

Click to expand...

Weststander said:

I didn’t know about that bias. I’ve always thought of Martin Samuel as a mouthy tabloids wknr. I think he supports West Ham, so he would be envious of clubs at the top who have far greater support and income.

Whenever he gets mentions on NS, his fanboys defend him as award winning, on a par with Hugh McIlvanney or Ian Wooldridge. He’s not. He’s the sports equivalent of Piers Morgan or Kelvin McKenzie. A cockney rent a gob.

Click to expand...

Taybha said:

Be honest can anyone really see the EPL chucking out Man City ?

If the panel find them guilty I reckon they will start off next season on minus 21 points or something like that,I doubt the Championship clubs would want them relegated this season as that'll be one less automatic promotion spot gone.

Click to expand...

BBassic said:

If the EFL were to let them in. They're separate entities so the PL can expel them but the EFL have no obligation to let them into the league

Click to expand...