Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

Financial Fair Play investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Being respectful Davek what are the charges we are facing in October? I haven’t got a clue myself having never read anything relating to what we are have supposed to have done wrong.
Just a hunch, but the first post on page 1 of this thread may have something to do with it? *Admittedly, it doesn't specify any particular action.
 
I agree, but seeing as ours is related to a stadium issue, a fine if anything seems the most likely at this point
I think a fine would always have been suitable for a single technical breach (as opposed to smashing through dozens of rules over multiple periods as other have been charged with) if found guilty.

But need to be careful saying that because it’s a stadium/tax issue that caused our breach therefore it shouldn’t be a sporting penalty, it can’t work like that. We are committed to the stadium costs, those costs are unavoidable, so if we wanted to not breach the limit we should have reduced player costs (by far the biggest other outlay we have), in which case a sporting penalty would be more appropriate. You can always work it back and just say a club should have spent less on players/wages, regardless of what individual item breaks the camels back. If the rules permit sporting penalties, then it doesn’t matter what you spent your money on, you could always have just spent less on players and ensured compliance.

But as above I don’t think it would ever come to points anyway.
 
Unfortunately it's not really relevant as far as I can see as it refers the the independent regulator being brought in in the future. It won't be deciding our current case.
It would be very strange if the most current instruction and guidance on penalties issued before a penalty was given wasn't considered.

Having said that, given that we should be presumed innocent, we should be expecting zero penalties from this.
 

Unfortunately it's not really relevant as far as I can see as it refers the the independent regulator being brought in in the future. It won't be deciding our current case.
If the old regulator - the PL - is being superseded they're not going to go from that to a weaker regulatory system. That would be ridiculous.
 

And from what I read its also a proposed idea and not been brought in?
Just read the Sky report: I'd say there's an element here of speaking softly and carrying a big stick in terms of them saying "the PL still call the shots on sanctions but if they want our advice we'll give it".

We'll see.
 
This is terrible news for those desperately hoping for a strict punishment of one small tax line breach. The independent commission is even less likely to go out of their way to do something the proposed long term regulator doesnt recommend for even serious cases.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Back
Top