Its Going To Get Ugly / Ganging up [MERGED]

[Cocacolajojo1]

Quick question: I have just been told that if a club can't abide by the economic restrictions, any sanctions can be avoided if the owner of the club promises to cover the losses. True or false? This would regard total loss or profits, not the salary cap.

[Beefymcfc]

Quick question: I have just been told that if a club can't abide by the economic restrictions, any sanctions can be avoided if the owner of the club promises to cover the losses. True or false? This would regard total loss or profits, not the salary cap.

Upto a maximum of £105 mil over 3 years.

[Cocacolajojo1]

Quick question: I have just been told that if a club can't abide by the economic restrictions, any sanctions can be avoided if the owner of the club promises to cover the losses. True or false? This would regard total loss or profits, not the salary cap.

Upto a maximum of £105 mil over 3 years.

Yeah but I was told that this would also concern losses bigger than that. Meaning that a owner does not have to cover losses up to 105 million pounds but after that, sanctions can be made unless the owner promises to cover the losses.

True or false?

[Ted Hughes]

Quick question: I have just been told that if a club can't abide by the economic restrictions, any sanctions can be avoided if the owner of the club promises to cover the losses. True or false? This would regard total loss or profits, not the salary cap.

Upto a maximum of £105 mil over 3 years.

Yeah but I was told that this would also concern losses bigger than that. Meaning that a owner does not have to cover losses up to 105 million pounds but after that, sanctions can be made unless the owner promises to cover the losses.

True or false?

Probably false but the details haven't been decided on yet so there could be all kinds of stuff we haven't been told.

[Clowncrete]

So, I hear there is a salary cap. Is it a flat salary cap for the entire club or individual salary cap for players?

[Im_Spartacus]

So, I hear there is a salary cap. Is it a flat salary cap for the entire club or individual salary cap for players?

There isn't a salary cap

[phips]

Of course Mancini comes out in opposition to this.....he liked his position here at a club that could buy virtually any player. that was his advantage. but that appears to be going away and he doesn't like that. he doesn't want a fair, level playing field.

[Cocacolajojo1]

Of course Mancini comes out in opposition to this.....he liked his position here at a club that could buy virtually any player. that was his advantage. but that appears to be going away and he doesn't like that. he doesn't want a fair, level playing field.

Hi Phips

Do you think these regulations will create a level playing field? Would you be as so kind to fetch the yearly salary costs for all the clubs in the PL.

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

A look at the table today tells you what the world will look like should the mis-named Financial Fair Play Regulations work, I reckon. The league over by the end of January/beginning of February, with the same team winning it every year.

[Alex Sapphire]

Quick question: I have just been told that if a club can't abide by the economic restrictions, any sanctions can be avoided if the owner of the club promises to cover the losses. True or false? This would regard total loss or profits, not the salary cap.

Upto a maximum of £105 mil over 3 years.

Yeah but I was told that this would also concern losses bigger than that. Meaning that a owner does not have to cover losses up to 105 million pounds but after that, sanctions can be made unless the owner promises to cover the losses.

True or false?

This is what the PL says:

From the 2013/14 season Premier League clubs cannot make a loss in excess of £105m aggregated across seasons 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16.

Any club that makes a loss up to that limit will be subject to a tighter regulatory regime that includes:

- Secure owner funding for three years ahead
- Increased future financial information over the next three seasons.

Short-Term Cost Control Measure

Premier League clubs are restricted in terms the amount of increased PL Central Funds that can be used to increase current player wage costs to the tune of:

2013/14: £4m
2014/14: £8m
2015/16: £12m

The Short Term Cost Control measure applies only to clubs with a player wage bill in excess of £52m in 2013/14, £56m in 2014/15 and £60m in 2015/16.

[Cocacolajojo1]

Quick question: I have just been told that if a club can't abide by the economic restrictions, any sanctions can be avoided if the owner of the club promises to cover the losses. True or false? This would regard total loss or profits, not the salary cap.

Upto a maximum of £105 mil over 3 years.

Yeah but I was told that this would also concern losses bigger than that. Meaning that a owner does not have to cover losses up to 105 million pounds but after that, sanctions can be made unless the owner promises to cover the losses.

True or false?

This is what the PL says:

From the 2013/14 season Premier League clubs cannot make a loss in excess of £105m aggregated across seasons 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16.

Any club that makes a loss up to that limit will be subject to a tighter regulatory regime that includes:

- Secure owner funding for three years ahead
- Increased future financial information over the next three seasons.

Short-Term Cost Control Measure

Premier League clubs are restricted in terms the amount of increased PL Central Funds that can be used to increase current player wage costs to the tune of:

2013/14: £4m
2014/14: £8m
2015/16: £12m

The Short Term Cost Control measure applies only to clubs with a player wage bill in excess of £52m in 2013/14, £56m in 2014/15 and £60m in 2015/16.

OK thanks for that.

[Original Dub]

Of course Mancini comes out in opposition to this.....he liked his position here at a club that could buy virtually any player. that was his advantage. but that appears to be going away and he doesn't like that. he doesn't want a fair, level playing field.

How very raglike.

[Foreverinbluedreams]

Of course Mancini comes out in opposition to this.....he liked his position here at a club that could buy virtually any player. that was his advantage. but that appears to be going away and he doesn't like that. he doesn't want a fair, level playing field.

How very raglike.

Quite. I guess we should go back to the old way where U*d could buy who they like, dictate the market as well as what the level of salaries should be, it's only right and proper an' all, they've earned it coz of their 'istry.

Btw Phips - Sanchez, Gago, Hazard, Van Persie, Martinez, De Rossi. Any of them names ring any bells?

[Ted Hughes]

Of course Mancini comes out in opposition to this.....he liked his position here at a club that could buy virtually any player. that was his advantage. but that appears to be going away and he doesn't like that. he doesn't want a fair, level playing field.

How very raglike.

You know what; if it was a 'fair & level playing field' I would have no problem with it whatsoever.

If City were just one of 90 odd clubs who each had an equal chance of promotion, relegation, trophies etc, I would be happy enough. Every club makes the best of what it has & all compete.

It's not like that though is it ? And it never really has been, although it used to be a lot closer. Money has always talked & the same bastards who are fixing things to suit themselves now, were doing it 100 years ago.

[john68]

Almost to the year Ted. Even a 100 years ago when City were the big boys, the then established clubs didn't like it....The outcome of that was life bans for the whole of the City staff....management, dirctors and players...the whole shabang.

[Ted Hughes]

Almost to the year Ted. Even a 100 years ago when City were the big boys, the then established clubs didn't like it....The outcome of that was life bans for the whole of the City staff....management, dirctors and players...the whole shabang.

Here's an example: From 1905.

As Gary James pointed out in Manchester City: The Complete Record: "Basically, the entire squad that had finished as FA Cup-winners in 1904 and narrowly missed out on the Championship two years running were banned. This brought a premature end to City's first golden age."
[highlight]Journalists were aware that virtually every club in the Football League was making illegal payments to its players[/highlight]. Football writers based in Manchester argued that the club, being a northern side, were being made an example of, and thousands of people complained to the Football Association, but it refused to reduce the bans and fines.

Manchester City was forced to sell their players in order to raise the money to pay the fines. [highlight]At an auction at the Queen's Hotel in Manchester, the Manchester United manager, Ernest Mangnal signed Billy Meredith for only £500[/highlight]. While at City he scored 145 goals in 338 games. Mangnal also purchased three other talented members of the City side, Herbert Burgess, Sandy Turnbull and Jimmy Bannister. [highlight]In 1906 John Henry Davies, the chairman of Manchester United, provided the funds for Meredith to set up a sports-equipment shop in St Peter's Square, Manchester[/highlight]

[Alex Sapphire]

Almost to the year Ted. Even a 100 years ago when City were the big boys, the then established clubs didn't like it....The outcome of that was life bans for the whole of the City staff....management, dirctors and players...the whole shabang.

I take it you think the bribery charges in 1905 were trumped up?
Mind we must have had some decent commercial income back then:

[john68]

Whether they were trumped up or otherwise is open to conjecture Mark. They were certainly politically motivated and driven. City were a very rich Northern club that was challenging the established "Corinthian Spirit" of the established power brokers of the time.

It was considered that City were doing no different than every other club and that each member of the board that tried and found City guilty were also guilty of the same crime.
It was also known that there were members of that board who inflicted such a heavy sentence on City had already made offers for players who they had yet to ban.

I leave you to draw your own conclusions about the morality or justice of the case Mark.

[Alex Sapphire]

I wasn't so much referring to the overpayment of players that brought about all those bans as the match fixing/bribery that Meredith confessed to before turning on the club.
It was that that triggered the action and while blue glasses may see it as unjust, I think if we had not been guilty of that very non-Corinthian behaviour, they may have continued to turn a blind eye to the wages/payments as it seems they did with most other clubs. This is not a part of our history where a victim culture feels appropriate to me.
Shining a light on this era also doesn't help us at the moment as it suggests that of our 4 great eras (measured by trophy success) 2 were built on mountains of cash, and not on"fair play".
Just my threepenneth

[Blue Since 76]

I take it you think the bribery charges in 1905 were trumped up?
Mind we must have had some decent commercial income back then:

John was furious - you should have seen some of the letters he wrote.