Mase wrote:blues2win wrote:https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13099398/leicester-charged-by-premier-league-over-alleged-breach-of-profitability-and-sustainability-rules
Premier League have now charged Leicester City who have fired back.
They all voted for it. They all deserve it
I can't remember if Leicester were part of the league when the rules were dreamed up, but even if they were, again we have a situation voted for by a previous regime of a club over a decade and a half ago that wasn't contemplating their future change of ownership.
The implications here though, added to the Forest one are going to be very interesting.
The notion that a club's fate should be decided on the pitch, is going out of the window here and that's going to really start to piss fans of all clubs off, it's already starting to wear thin and there are enough questions now coming up that FFP is starting to be exposed for the nonsense it is - and the likes of Forest, Leicester, Everton are all just collateral damage in what was essentially established to stop City.
I think we can all agree that 'some' rules which genuinely protect clubs from shit owners are needed, but the punishments of points deductions are just not feasible in reality. We can't have 20% of clubs in the league having points randomly deducted mid-season, nor can we start having questions about the fairness of a specific deduction/tariff, as this will always cause appeals like Everton and Forest have already done. We become an accounting league, not a football league.
I mean lets look at the reality here - lets assume City are found guilty of at least some of what is alleged, lets just speculate for a moment that its a 50 point deduction that in effect relegates us, and causes us not to qualify for the CL......the implications beyond that are really problematic.
It would be impossible within a short timeframe, for Manchester City to divest itself of the contracts it has committed to based on its forecast revenue for the following year. So, if City all of a sudden lose $100m prize money and TV revenue in the year they find themselves outside the Premier league, and 2 they find themselves outside of the CL, how can it be reasonable that the club shed $100m in expenditure on player contracts to address that?
You get a snowball situation that could in itself cause a financial catastrophe if the club tried to comply, because lets say you sell a player to get him off the wage bill, you had to pay out that player's contract AND sell below market value - in fact rather than saving $5m off the wage bill, you've probably just actually caused a loss on the balance sheet of $20m from selling that player.
I think this puts the PL in a very interesting legal area........because essentially the conduct of the PL would now be directly causing the club to make financial losses, which (aside from the very questionable legality of causing a business to crystallise a loss) in turn makes it impossible to comply with their rules, which in turn means we get punished again, and again and again until we've sold all our best players and returned to the middle of the pack.
