Football club finances / FFP

Remove this Banner Ad

Would that payment go against PSR figures?
No idea, maybe covered by insurance.

Not really an issue either way with our transfer business this window.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Would that payment go against PSR figures?
season 5 richard GIF
 
Worth mentioning that the tribunal decision last month was a partial ruling. They haven't looked at costs or compensation and they wanted the two parties to get together to find a resolution on this and changes to the rules.

If the two parties couldn't find that resolution the tribunal would decide for them.

Seems like the league wasn't prepared to participate in that process.
 
16-4 vote pretty comprehensive.

And in the funniest twist of all guess who voted against shareholder loan rule changes


It was comprehensive, but as we saw when the rules were first introduced, that doesn't make a new rule lawful.

We did vote to exclude shareholder loans, and they were one of the reasons why the rules were found to be unlawful. So it's not surprising that we've changed our position.

Maybe including them in the rules but exempting clubs makes the rules lawful, I guess we'll find out in due course.
 
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Any proposals to ban owners that asset strip, put their clubs into debt or rip their fans off?
Yes that's a core tenant of the regulator isn't it? To be able to deregister owners?
 
Yes that's a core tenant of the regulator isn't it? To be able to deregister owners?
If that was the case, the independent regulator (I think it's still the one premier league club that isn't opposed to an independent regulator) should only need only demonstrate that a football club owner was bad for the club, sport or fans.

Otherwise Lord Bassam of Brighton would be proposing amendments stopping the likes of what has happened at Bury, Portsmouth, Coventry and Reading as well as City and Newcastle.
 
If that was the case, the independent regulator (I think it's still the one premier league club that isn't opposed to an independent regulator) should only need only demonstrate that a football club owner was bad for the club, sport or fans.

Otherwise Lord Bassam of Brighton would be proposing amendments stopping the likes of what has happened at Bury, Portsmouth, Coventry and Reading as well as City and Newcastle.
Isn't that the point?
 
They'll just say some sheikh owns it by himself like the Qatari bid for Manchester United

That doesn't fly. That Sheikh is part of the ruling monarchy in Qatar. The proposal is for state controlled ownership to be banned. Qatar was always going to run the show at Utd if the bid was accepted.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Football club finances / FFP

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top