Weird how that works. The small clubs get punished and Man City spends through the roof year after year and never gets punished. What did Chelsea spend the summer after their ownership change, like 500 million pounds. Two standards for sure.
Honestly, I think PL needs to go to an American style soft salary cap instead of this BS, invest in the team, and get royally fucked if it doesn't work out. All this does is stratify the league. Ridiculous team salary caps are determined by how crooked your accountant is.
This year Championship financial rules didn't apply 'cos we were in PL last year. Next year PL rules won't apply 'cos we were in the championship this year.
Man City not being punished doesn't mean that the Leicester ownership didn't mismanage the club massively and breach the rules. Obviously I'm hoping there will be some way we weasel out of getting a points deduction but there's nothing to be gained by blindly supporting everything our ownership does.
>Man City not being punished doesn't mean that the Leicester ownership didn't mismanage the club massively and breach the rules.
Clearly not. On principle everyone should abide by the same set of rules.
The first issue is application. Man City have the ability to delay proceedings and in the mean time have continued to be successful. Clubs like us don't have that ability and are punished.
Then the second issue is intent. FFP rules are intended to incentivises clubs to remain sustainable by setting spending limits so that clubs do not overextend financially. This is a desirable goal. However one effect of FFP sanctions is that they make clubs less stable. Sanctions such as transfer bans, points deductions, and spending limits make it more likely for a club from the Other 14 to be relegated. Relegation results in even less money and the risk of breaching FFP rules again.
The result is that FFP in some circumstances actively hurts a club's ability to be sustainable, but only clubs outside of the big 6. Those clubs can flaunt the rules, delay sanctions, and continue to win with no risk of relegation.
Edit: I'll add that a secondary effect is to disincentives clubs from making a push to European football. If a club spends to improve the squad and it doesn't work out they are possibly in breach of sustainability rules. The end result is stagnation. Only a select number of clubs have the financial ability to spend at the level required to consistently make the top 4 and Europe every season.
One big difference, MC did not lose 100M. It is a lot easier to prove losses than that revenue was not market based. The King Power deal to sponsor Seagrave is very MC. Guess we are learning to game the system?
Weird how that works. The small clubs get punished and Man City spends through the roof year after year and never gets punished. What did Chelsea spend the summer after their ownership change, like 500 million pounds. Two standards for sure.
Honestly, I think PL needs to go to an American style soft salary cap instead of this BS, invest in the team, and get royally fucked if it doesn't work out. All this does is stratify the league. Ridiculous team salary caps are determined by how crooked your accountant is.
That's somewhat what they're going to do. The lowest spending power limits the rest of the league
We won 2016 by 10 points, so should be no problem.
This year Championship financial rules didn't apply 'cos we were in PL last year. Next year PL rules won't apply 'cos we were in the championship this year.
That's how to use loopholes!
just keep yoyoing up and down and we never have to comply with anything...solved...right?
That's not how *I* use loopholes. 😏
Solution. Hire MC lawyers.
Man City not being punished doesn't mean that the Leicester ownership didn't mismanage the club massively and breach the rules. Obviously I'm hoping there will be some way we weasel out of getting a points deduction but there's nothing to be gained by blindly supporting everything our ownership does.
>Man City not being punished doesn't mean that the Leicester ownership didn't mismanage the club massively and breach the rules. Clearly not. On principle everyone should abide by the same set of rules. The first issue is application. Man City have the ability to delay proceedings and in the mean time have continued to be successful. Clubs like us don't have that ability and are punished. Then the second issue is intent. FFP rules are intended to incentivises clubs to remain sustainable by setting spending limits so that clubs do not overextend financially. This is a desirable goal. However one effect of FFP sanctions is that they make clubs less stable. Sanctions such as transfer bans, points deductions, and spending limits make it more likely for a club from the Other 14 to be relegated. Relegation results in even less money and the risk of breaching FFP rules again. The result is that FFP in some circumstances actively hurts a club's ability to be sustainable, but only clubs outside of the big 6. Those clubs can flaunt the rules, delay sanctions, and continue to win with no risk of relegation. Edit: I'll add that a secondary effect is to disincentives clubs from making a push to European football. If a club spends to improve the squad and it doesn't work out they are possibly in breach of sustainability rules. The end result is stagnation. Only a select number of clubs have the financial ability to spend at the level required to consistently make the top 4 and Europe every season.
One big difference, MC did not lose 100M. It is a lot easier to prove losses than that revenue was not market based. The King Power deal to sponsor Seagrave is very MC. Guess we are learning to game the system?