The mancityfans.net football forum

Profitability and sustainability rules scrapped.

Clubs in Europe to be allowed to spend 70% of their revenue on players.

Come on Mr 68 old boy, explain it in simpleton terms for us Yarkshire fuckwits.

Is it good or bad for us?

ruralblue wrote:Profitability and sustainability rules scrapped.

Clubs in Europe to be allowed to spend 70% of their revenue on players.

Come on Mr 68 old boy, explain it in simpleton terms for us Yarkshire fuckwits.

Is it good or bad for us?

No surprise, that CUNT Gill is the treasure of uefa, rags get cash injection and corrupt uefa relax the rules is my take (not read owt about other than what Jim posted).

CTID Hants wrote:

ruralblue wrote:Profitability and sustainability rules scrapped.

Clubs in Europe to be allowed to spend 70% of their revenue on players.

Come on Mr 68 old boy, explain it in simpleton terms for us Yarkshire fuckwits.

Is it good or bad for us?

No surprise, that CUNT Gill is the treasure of uefa, rags get cash injection and corrupt uefa relax the rules is my take (not read owt about other than what Jim posted).

From what I've read about this, it is just the PL following the UEFA model of PSRs. As at least 7 PL clubs play in Europe every year they've had to follow these rules already, as well as making sure they stayed inside the old PL rules. This just means everyone now follows the same single set of rules. Not sure if it's good or bad news, though...

I’ll guarantee it benefits the rags

It doesn’t really make much difference to us given we have made profit most years in the last 7

nottsblue wrote:I’ll guarantee it benefits the rags

It doesn’t really make much difference to us given we have made profit most years in the last 7

As usual, it stops the likes of Villa and Newcastle from pushing the red shite out. Why these moronic just keep voting for shite that is invented by United, Liverpool and Arsenal is totally baffling. They deserve all they get.

Not sure how it would advantage Utd. The money coming in is not revenue - it is investment, the purchase of the 25% of shares will just go to the Glazers. Extra money being put in by Ineos or Radcliffe doesn't seem to be in the form of sponsorship or other income does it? It does simplify the rules if they get rid of all the other nonsense but I have no clue why PL teams would agree to this, it perpetuates the CL cartel. If you have an extra £40-£100m coming in from finishing top 4 with Prem Prixe and TV money plus CL progress and TV income you can far more easily maintain that position and income than a team that is not allowed to invest. Crap business model for owners. If they are genuinely dropping all the unenforceable rules you have to wonder what impliactions for the 115 charges.

blues-clues wrote:Not sure how it would advantage Utd. The money coming in is not revenue - it is investment, the purchase of the 25% of shares will just go to the Glazers. Extra money being put in by Ineos or Radcliffe doesn't seem to be in the form of sponsorship or other income does it? It does simplify the rules if they get rid of all the other nonsense but I have no clue why PL teams would agree to this, it perpetuates the CL cartel. If you have an extra £40-£100m coming in from finishing top 4 with Prem Prixe and TV money plus CL progress and TV income you can far more easily maintain that position and income than a team that is not allowed to invest. Crap business model for owners. If they are genuinely dropping all the unenforceable rules you have to wonder what impliactions for the 115 charges.

If it’s revenue based then the current top 6/7 will be fine as the revenues are in excess of 300m upwards and double for us and the rags and dippers. The London clubs not far behind. If you then assume you can 70% of turnover, then that is a lot more than the current PSR margins. Of course it means increased debt but the American owners don’t seem to mind that

We have to follow the UEFA rules anyway. Sounds positive for City to me. Much simpler to have one set of rules.

Eventually thrown out by the EU for unfair competition

zuricity wrote:Eventually thrown out by the EU for unfair competition

I just wonder why it hasn't yet

patrickblue wrote:

zuricity wrote:Eventually thrown out by the EU for unfair competition

I just wonder why it hasn't yet

Once Bayern hit the rails.....

zuricity wrote:

patrickblue wrote:

zuricity wrote:Eventually thrown out by the EU for unfair competition

I just wonder why it hasn't yet

Once Bayern hit the rails.....

Sounds about right.