12 Jun 2023 08:49:22
Nice to see their 120 plus charges over financial irregularities haven't done man City any harm. I understand the reasons ffp exist but how can clubs lower down the financial scale ever really compete? Newcastle have done fantastic this season but I don't think they will be able to kick on due to not being able to spend the money they would like this summer.

1.) 12 Jun 2023
12 Jun 2023 11:16:07
I suppose the acid test will be if both City and Everton get sanctioned and to what extent. Basically, a club from either end of the table who have both allegedly breached ffp.

If one or both are found not guilty or guilty but incur weak sanctions, what happens then, how would the other clubs react? City, for example, are now £300M better off after winning the treble, plus the titles while Everton avoided relegation. To pursue these cases presumably the PL must have confidence in their allegations but for me it will be about the sanctions, if proven.

2.) 12 Jun 2023
12 Jun 2023 14:15:35
Nothing will happen to either, football is corrupt from the top

3.) 12 Jun 2023
12 Jun 2023 14:23:48
Long time reader, new poster.

Can’t understand why these teams are being allowed to seemingly get away with it? Are the authorities too relaxed or tied up by lawyers?

Firm but fair and fast action should be the way forward.

Whatever they do let’s hope we all get treated equally and fairly - can only hope!

4.) 12 Jun 2023
12 Jun 2023 14:59:30
In spain we have a saying that is "Poderoso caballero es Don Dinero", that the literal translation is "Mr money is a powerful gentleman".

Here happens the same, money talks and the EPL listens.

5.) 12 Jun 2023
12 Jun 2023 15:13:01
Welcome BoSWolf, in Everton's case I think they are waiting for the independent panels to study the data and rule in the summer. As for City, I assume it will be the same process, either way the delays do seem unfair to the other teams.

Sanctions must be commensurate with the offences, if proven, otherwise what's the point of ffp.

6.) 12 Jun 2023
12 Jun 2023 15:49:39
The Man City charges are from 2010 through to 2019 and relates to them vastly exaggerating sponsorship deals and under valuing player transfers. The example give was that Etihad (owned by Mansour) were allegedly paying £100m for stadium rights but actually paying a fraction of that and a player reportedly signed for £50m actually cost £75m.

7.) 12 Jun 2023
12 Jun 2023 18:15:11
I’m sure the Ed’s will know more. but am I right in thinking Man City have already paid? For some of the fines/ offences they’ve been charged with?

{Ed001's Note - not to the Premier League. They were already found guilty of over 60 of the offences the Prem have charged them with by UEFA. An appeal to CAS simply ensured that most of the charges were time barred, as their lawyers dragged it out so long. So CAS reduced the punishment to a fine but they were found guilty, despite their claims to the contrary, which are outright lies. No idea why they are not being challenged or punished for lying about the findings.

This is now a separate case by the Premier League, but it does seem silly when so many of the charges were already proven to not simply pass punishment on those and move on to the rest!}

8.) 12 Jun 2023
12 Jun 2023 18:44:53
Thank you Ed 001. I knew you’d be able to shed some light on it.

{Ed001's Note - very welcome.}