| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words 08:05 - Jun 13 with 2813 views | Keno |
how Man City can spend £288mill on transfers so far this year this the 'investigation' over their spending is still ongoing? |  |
| |  |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 08:10 - Jun 13 with 2758 views | Metal_Hacker |
Think you’ve answered your own question Keno
Investigation is on going innit
Spend before they perhaps are not allowed to but I really can’t see that happening with the EPL |  |
| |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 08:12 - Jun 13 with 2731 views | bluelagos |
You're not seriously suggesting the fair play rules apply to sports washing petro clubs are you Keno? |  |
| |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 08:17 - Jun 13 with 2652 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
Man still looking at big numbers. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 08:19 - Jun 13 with 2647 views | Keno |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 08:12 - Jun 13 by bluelagos |
You're not seriously suggesting the fair play rules apply to sports washing petro clubs are you Keno? |
silly me!! Rookie mistake really | |
| |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 08:33 - Jun 13 with 2544 views | itfc1108 |
And Pep had a tantrum at the end of the season, about wanting a smaller squad. |  | | |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 08:38 - Jun 13 with 2482 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
Their net transfer spend over the last few years is one of the lowest in the Premier league, so they have plenty of PSR headroom.
They haven't been found guilty of anything, so are free to spend just like any other club. [Post edited 13 Jun 8:39]
|  |
| |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 08:42 - Jun 13 with 2449 views | bsw72 |
The charges allege that the club failed to provide accurate financial information, which is essential for ensuring fair competition within the league.
It is not about spend specifically, it is about financial transparency and accounting practices. |  | | |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 08:42 - Jun 13 with 2420 views | NthQldITFC |
Cat, dog, coin, Penny. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 09:34 - Jun 13 with 2190 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 08:38 - Jun 13 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Their net transfer spend over the last few years is one of the lowest in the Premier league, so they have plenty of PSR headroom.
They haven't been found guilty of anything, so are free to spend just like any other club. [Post edited 13 Jun 8:39]
|
No it isn't.
According to Football365 data (summers 2020–present) Man City rank 6th worst in net spend at –£321.8 million. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 10:00 - Jun 13 with 2104 views | cvillageblue |
Their FFP charges are nothing to do with current finances. | |
| |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 13:22 - Jun 13 with 1852 views | Edmundo |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 10:00 - Jun 13 by cvillageblue |
Their FFP charges are nothing to do with current finances. |
What FFP charges? Weren't they consigned to the memory hole? |  |
| |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 14:15 - Jun 13 with 1694 views | mellowblue |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 09:34 - Jun 13 by The_Flashing_Smile |
No it isn't.
According to Football365 data (summers 2020–present) Man City rank 6th worst in net spend at –£321.8 million. |
Man City get away with it as their revenues have been so high in recent years. 23/24 Man City £719million Aston Villa £320million Bournemouth £160million. It gives them a lot of wiggle room to buy the best on top wages whenever they need to. | | | |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 14:29 - Jun 13 with 1621 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 14:15 - Jun 13 by mellowblue |
Man City get away with it as their revenues have been so high in recent years. 23/24 Man City £719million Aston Villa £320million Bournemouth £160million. It gives them a lot of wiggle room to buy the best on top wages whenever they need to. |
Sure. I was simply challenging Marshall's false assertion that their net transfer spend over the last few years is one of the lowest in the Premier league. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 14:29 - Jun 13 with 1621 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
Why not? They’re not banned from the transfer market within the current rules. Their income is whatever it is now. The investigation covers a different period and is ongoing. |  | | |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 16:42 - Jun 13 with 1427 views | MK1 |
They sell a remarkable amount. Something like £500M of youth talent sold in recent years. They also have a very creative account.
Most of the charges against Man City are not regarding transfers. Most relate to the tapping up and payments to players and managers.
Chelsea are the biggest NET spenders. Man Utd 2nd, Spurs are 3rd and Arsenal are 4th. Newcastle are fifth and Man City sixth. Surprisingly West Ham are 7th, only £10M behind Man City. |  |
| |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 16:51 - Jun 13 with 1394 views | Nutkins_Return |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 14:29 - Jun 13 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Sure. I was simply challenging Marshall's false assertion that their net transfer spend over the last few years is one of the lowest in the Premier league. |
I don't know the figures (to get that out the way) but only the last 3 years would be relevant wouldn't they? Perhaps he was referring to that as it's a rolling 3 years for PSR?
If they are still high for Man City then fair enough. | |
| |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 17:02 - Jun 13 with 1359 views | MK1 |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 16:51 - Jun 13 by Nutkins_Return |
I don't know the figures (to get that out the way) but only the last 3 years would be relevant wouldn't they? Perhaps he was referring to that as it's a rolling 3 years for PSR?
If they are still high for Man City then fair enough. |
Over the last 3 years they are 4th. Man Utd are 1st followed in 2nd by Chelsea and third are Spurs. | |
| |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 17:37 - Jun 13 with 1291 views | Churchman |
I don’t know the rules, why’s or wherefores on this but I think we can safely say that for these important clubs the rules are utterly irrelevant. Talk of investigations, charges is just bilge pumped out to mug the plebs off by making it look is if everything is fair and above board.
Which it isn’t. If they couldn’t do anything with Leicester and their 13 month annual accounts etc they won’t dare touch Man City, Chelsea and co. There’s more chance if Nelson getting his eye back.
I wonder who is doing this ‘investigation’ anyway? The Invisible man, Rab C Nesbitt or the Teletubbies? |  | | |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 20:34 - Jun 13 with 1059 views | Bigalhunter |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 17:02 - Jun 13 by MK1 |
Over the last 3 years they are 4th. Man Utd are 1st followed in 2nd by Chelsea and third are Spurs. |
Man U, Spurs, Chelsea & Man City were somewhere between pretty poor and utterly woeful this season.
Yet three of them still somehow qualified for next seasons’s Champs League cash bonanza and two of them have lucked out twice, due to the ridiculous qualifying criteria for this Club World Cup nonsense.
Whilst there must be some serious questions being asked of their recruitment people, they’ve still managed to reap ridiculous financial reward for spaffing billions stockpiling ill-considered dross.
Meanwhile, we spend more in one summer, than we probably have in our recent history, to dish up the worst home record in our recent history.
Game hasn’t just gone, it’s disappeared into the feckin’ ether, looking back over its shoulder to wiggle its middle finger whilst giggling hysterically. [Post edited 13 Jun 20:50]
|  |
| |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 20:55 - Jun 13 with 1009 views | mellowblue |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 14:29 - Jun 13 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Sure. I was simply challenging Marshall's false assertion that their net transfer spend over the last few years is one of the lowest in the Premier league. |
you are right there, they would probably be right near the top, but they have sold well. For instance £47million for Sterling . | | | |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 22:09 - Jun 13 with 899 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
It's balanced out with the money they made on us selling Delap. |  |
| |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 08:53 - Jun 14 with 543 views | Mark |
Thanks to FIFA they now have a chance it make a further £100M in the Club World Cup competition to make them even more dominant and the Premier League even less competitive. |  | | |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 09:51 - Jun 14 with 433 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Please can someone explain too me using very simple words on 20:55 - Jun 13 by mellowblue |
you are right there, they would probably be right near the top, but they have sold well. For instance £47million for Sterling . |
You know what net means don't you?
They are 6th worst over the last 5 years including sales. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
