I'm sure it was Bill who said that and continued saying we were extremely confident we hadn't breached.
6 + 2 Point Deductions
- Thread starter GrandOldTeam
- Start date
I'm sure it was Bill who said that and continued saying we were extremely confident we hadn't breached.
Tony’s Carp
Player Valuation: £40m
Thing is, saying they're confident they won't breach doesn't say what they'll need to do between now and June 30 to achieve that, it just says they believe they'll do it. It's not the same as saying that as things stand we won't breach.
Possibly the rumours of a deal being close to selling DCL are true, or something's on the table for Onana, and as a result there's confidence we won't breach.
I'd be very surprised though if we'd avoid breaching without a significant sale.
TrailerTrash
Player Valuation: £2.5m
Haven't seen a breakdown of city's charges before, and don't recall it on here.
Found on twitter, so pinch of salt required.
Found on twitter, so pinch of salt required.
Man City 115 charges explained: What is latest on PSR & FFP charges?
A verdict on the 115 Manchester City Premier League charges could still be more than a year away - BBC Sport looks at the latest on the case.
www.bbc.co.uk
TrailerTrash
Player Valuation: £2.5m
Ah cheers, completely missed that.Man City 115 charges explained: What is latest on PSR & FFP charges?
A verdict on the 115 Manchester City Premier League charges could still be more than a year away - BBC Sport looks at the latest on the case.www.bbc.co.uk
Papa Shango
Player Valuation: £70m
Well he wasn't going to go around saying we had breached. That would be madness.
Julius Geezer
Player Valuation: £2.5m
Follow this thread on X
Pretty damning for City , cheated from day one…
Pretty damning for City , cheated from day one…
as long as city are owned by mr monsoor
f all is happening
f all is happening
Yeah so he just lied to us again, second nature.
Gilbert..
Player Valuation: £40m
Fascinating case. Ficticious sponsorship. False salary claims. does that bring in HMRC? The CAS thing aswell almost seems like an admission of guilt.
I mean the 115 charges is dragging it out but i'd presume they only have to be found guilty on one or two say from 2017/18 and they would be stripped of the title.
I think a few palms are going to be greased here but interesting to see how it unfolds.
Even Man City’s charges are (on the whole) a load of codswallop.
Notwithstanding any HMRC irregularities, them being the new rich kids on the block is absolutely no different from when Man U could drop £30m on Ferdinand or Chelsea could put £25m on Drogba (or what’re the fee was back then)
‘*Financial doping’ has always been a feature of top flight football, these rules don’t prevent it so much as lock out anyone not in the club when they were set up.
Football has always found an equilibrium. City or any club will only field a certain number of players over a season, and that for me is where the limits should be applied, both to first team and youth set ups.
*lets not kid ourselves the rules are about profit and sustainability. The fact our points deduction cost us £12m nailed that coffin shut.
Notwithstanding any HMRC irregularities, them being the new rich kids on the block is absolutely no different from when Man U could drop £30m on Ferdinand or Chelsea could put £25m on Drogba (or what’re the fee was back then)
‘*Financial doping’ has always been a feature of top flight football, these rules don’t prevent it so much as lock out anyone not in the club when they were set up.
Football has always found an equilibrium. City or any club will only field a certain number of players over a season, and that for me is where the limits should be applied, both to first team and youth set ups.
*lets not kid ourselves the rules are about profit and sustainability. The fact our points deduction cost us £12m nailed that coffin shut.
Sean Ashley
Player Valuation: £950k
City charges are far from codswallop. They financially doped on a scale that has given them the opportunity to field two teams of superstars in any given match. And now have an advantage to other teams that is unachievable to match without similar levels of financial doping.
When the Premier League adopted the PSR rules in 2013/14 season. Teams instead of buying players and the owners carrying the debts like Abramovic and Jack Walker before him, they now had to use income to support transfers.
City saw this and devised third parties with the guise of being sponsorship deals to make payments to the club with their operational expenditure and transfer budgets in mind, to make the club look like it was making profits.
So in the years before psr being introduced 2011, 2012, and 2013 City made huge losses of £197m, 97m, £52m respectively and suddenly when psr came in effect turnover rose 25% and they only made a small loss of £20m.
The following seasons further significant revenue gains and City became profitable.
Revenues in Millions £
2012 - 231.0
2013 - £271.0
2014 - 346.5
2015 - 351.7
2016 - 391.7
2017 - 473.3
2018 - 500.46
2019 - 535.1
www.google.co.uk
www.telegraph.co.uk
www.google.co.uk
They also while increasing revenue City hid some costs such as payments to Mancini and Pellegrini and players like Tevez outside of the clubs accounts. Again to reflect healthy financial statements.
What Man City have done is kind of what Moshiri and Usmanov wanted to do at Everton with USM. This shows what happens when a club is using third party funding to mask profitability or at least lower levels of losses and imagine if City owners pulled the plug during those early years then City would have certainly been in financial ruins.
The additional charges for not co-operating, I imagine won't get much punishment, but shows to most folks that they want to shove all the dirty dealing they've done under the rug and hope the Premier league simply gives up.
When the Premier League adopted the PSR rules in 2013/14 season. Teams instead of buying players and the owners carrying the debts like Abramovic and Jack Walker before him, they now had to use income to support transfers.
City saw this and devised third parties with the guise of being sponsorship deals to make payments to the club with their operational expenditure and transfer budgets in mind, to make the club look like it was making profits.
So in the years before psr being introduced 2011, 2012, and 2013 City made huge losses of £197m, 97m, £52m respectively and suddenly when psr came in effect turnover rose 25% and they only made a small loss of £20m.
The following seasons further significant revenue gains and City became profitable.
Revenues in Millions £
2012 - 231.0
2013 - £271.0
2014 - 346.5
2015 - 351.7
2016 - 391.7
2017 - 473.3
2018 - 500.46
2019 - 535.1
Manchester City announce biggest ever loss in English football
Manchester City have announced a £197m loss for the most recent financial year – the biggest loss in English football history
Manchester City report losses of £97.9 million in annual report for 2011-2012 season
Premier League champions Manchester City have announced annual losses of £97.9 million.
www.telegraph.co.uk
Manchester City reveal £52m loss for year to May 2013, down from £98m
Manchester City have announced a loss of £52m for the year to 31 May 2013, a reduction on the £98m loss the club made the previous year when winning the Premier League
They also while increasing revenue City hid some costs such as payments to Mancini and Pellegrini and players like Tevez outside of the clubs accounts. Again to reflect healthy financial statements.
What Man City have done is kind of what Moshiri and Usmanov wanted to do at Everton with USM. This shows what happens when a club is using third party funding to mask profitability or at least lower levels of losses and imagine if City owners pulled the plug during those early years then City would have certainly been in financial ruins.
The additional charges for not co-operating, I imagine won't get much punishment, but shows to most folks that they want to shove all the dirty dealing they've done under the rug and hope the Premier league simply gives up.
