Premier League 2024/25

[The Doctor]

25 minutes ago, FrankieADZ said:

sorry?

couldn't be more blatantly corrupt. Hope we get an outraged forest tweet out of it if they crumble and man city look like catching them

[FrankieADZ]

30 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Well what a surprise that would be...not

 

BTW was Pedro a bit lucky to not be sent off for crashing into the Ipswich keeper or worse that it really was?

think a yellow was fair tbh, ball was there to be won; he didnt go studs up or anything 

[Bert]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

 

There'll almost certainly be some sort of release clause in that. 

 

Mega money apparently 

[AKCJ]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

 

There'll almost certainly be some sort of release clause in that. 

 

The Athletic reporting that there are no clauses in it. Apparently he had a release clause in his last contract but no longer.

[Lionator]

17 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

The Athletic reporting that there are no clauses in it. Apparently he had a release clause in his last contract but no longer.

Say they got thrown out and relegated to league two and he had no clause and wanted to stay. Do you think he could score 100 goals in a 46 game season?

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

Did I completely make up in my head that after Chelsea were dishing out 7 year contracts they were limited to be 5 years?

[filbertway]

Just now, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

Did I completely make up in my head that after Chelsea were dishing out 7 year contracts they were limited to be 5 years?

They can offer contracts as long as they want, but the amortisation period for the transfer fee would be limited to a max of 5 years I think.

 

So if they signed a player for 100 million. Instead of making it 10m a season on the accounts by offering an 10 year contract. They would have to put it down as 20m a season for 5 years. But the player could still have a 10 year contract if they want.

 

That was my understanding anyway, I'm sure someone will correct me very soon if I'm wrong

 

[Leicester_Loyal]

1 hour ago, TheGoldenGod said:

Who honestly believes they are getting found guilty? Thought it was common knowledge at this point, they were always getting away scot-free ha!

I can’t believe people still keep going on about relegation to non league or 60 point deduction. 
 

Man City will not be allowed to drop out the league, they have the financial power to bully the PL and show them up for the idiots they are. Plus not having them in the league is a negative in terms of finance for the PL. 

[Fox92]

2 hours ago, Royston. said:

That Haaland contract stinks of Man City wanting to keep ownership of a player who probably won't play for them ever again if/when they get served.

 

 

Nothing's going to happen to them. Haaland will be on stupid wages, more than what the media or Man City say. They will challenge for the league next season. All will be forgotten. 

[ForestAreMagic]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

couldn't be more blatantly corrupt. Hope we get an outraged forest tweet out of it if they crumble and man city look like catching them

City have suddenly started buying players again and given Haaland a massive contract.  Meanwhile no PSR charges to any club this week.  

 

It does seem that City are very confident.  I’m sure they’ve got nothing to worry about.  They’ll get some mild criticism over their procedures and lack of cooperation, a strongly worded letter and a small fine.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the fine is smaller than Forest got for the tweet.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 17 January by ForestAreMagic

[Finnegan]

3 minutes ago, ForestAreMagic said:

City have suddenly started buying players again and given Haaland a massive contract.  Meanwhile no PSR charges to any club this week.  

 

It does seem that City are very confident.  I’m sure they’ve got nothing to worry about.  They’ll get some mild criticism over their procedures and lack of cooperation, a strongly worded letter and a small fine.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the fine is smaller than Forest got for the tweet.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think one thing we've learned over the last eighteen months is that most of the rules were written by a committee of people who were vastly unqualified and seemed to naively hope they'd never actually need to be enforced. 

 

They're clearly not fit for even the fairly cynical purpose they were intended. 

 

[Corky]

3 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

I think one thing we've learned over the last eighteen months is that most of the rules were written by a committee of people who were vastly unqualified and seemed to naively hope they'd never actually need to be enforced. 

 

They're clearly not fit for even the fairly cynical purpose they were intended. 

 

These rules have been in place for over a decade and suddenly clubs are losing too much money? Just when the threat of the regulator came in?

 

As long as clubs were solvent and no repeat of the Portsmouth situation arose, it was all good. I mean, the brand of the league is based on boasting about how much money it spends and dwarfing every other league in Europe. Then all of a sudden, too much money is lost, apparently.

 

No wonder it isn't viewed seriously.

[FrankieADZ]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

Say they got thrown out and relegated to league two and he had no clause and wanted to stay. Do you think he could score 100 goals in a 46 game season?

the premier league just cant relegate them to league 2, the EPL and EFL are 2 separate organisations 

PL can only give them a massive points deduction to hope they go down

most if not all the high earners would be loaned to the sister clubs 

[The Doctor]

21 minutes ago, FrankieADZ said:

the premier league just cant relegate them to league 2, the EPL and EFL are 2 separate organisations 

PL can only give them a massive points deduction to hope they go down

most if not all the high earners would be loaned to the sister clubs 

yep, hence the non league comments. PL can enforce relegation, EFL can refuse admittance so they'd be kicked to the vanarama, like they threatened to do to QPR if they didn't pay their FFP fine back in 2014: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/29129536

[Muzzy_Izzn’t]

Wouldn’t surprise me if Man City are signing all these players in Jan + the massive contract extension to Haaland, because they’ve been told they will likely be getting a transfer embargo as part of any punishment from the 115 charges…. So just doing all their business now so any embargo would basically have no effect on them 

[Leicester_Loyal]

51 minutes ago, Muzzy_Izzn’t said:

Wouldn’t surprise me if Man City are signing all these players in Jan + the massive contract extension to Haaland, because they’ve been told they will likely be getting a transfer embargo as part of any punishment from the 115 charges…. So just doing all their business now so any embargo would basically have no effect on them 

That’s realistically the worst outcome for them, transfer embargo for 18 months or something, but they’ll be given 6 months to sort out their squad before it starts. They’ll also find a way around it aswell with loans or something aswell, they have the best lawyers in the world. 

[Bert]

Everton have had their 22/23 charge “discontinued”. What a shambles. 
 

 

[AKCJ]

2 minutes ago, Bert said:

Everton have had their 22/23 charge “discontinued”. What a shambles. 
 

 

What does that even mean? I thought they'd already had their punishment?

[Bert]

1 minute ago, AKCJ said:

What does that even mean? I thought they'd already had their punishment?

Don’t really know to be honest. It’s the discontinued bit that bothers me though. 

[UniFox21]

Newcastle Vs Bournemouth being the 12:30 kick off is hilarious. What moron decided that was a good time to schedule it 

[Lambert09]

8 minutes ago, Bert said:

Everton have had their 22/23 charge “discontinued”. What a shambles. 
 

 

Setting the scene to let man city off aren’t they? 
 

So they can use it to say, look nobody was punished. Absolute tarts 

[Alf Bentley]

7 minutes ago, Bert said:

Everton have had their 22/23 charge “discontinued”. What a shambles. 

 

5 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

What does that even mean? I thought they'd already had their punishment?

 

Compensation required. They're going to have a points addition. 31 points. Puts them just ahead of Liverpool. 

 

[sm1]

3 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I can’t believe people still keep going on about relegation to non league or 60 point deduction. 
 

Man City will not be allowed to drop out the league, they have the financial power to bully the PL and show them up for the idiots they are. Plus not having them in the league is a negative in terms of finance for the PL. 

Exactly, if a club run by Top and Rudkin can show the PL up, not once but twice, what can Man City do to them. I think the PL have finally admitted defeat and realised they can't sanction clubs based on current PSR rules.

[JimJams]

Man Citys case isn't like ours.  They won't find a loophole because they're basically being accused of falsifying information, not of falling foul of PSR.  But it's whether the Premier League can back up that claim.

And let's be honest.  They can't  won't.

[Jattdogg]

Read some comments of people saying haalands contract is actually a 9.5 year extension which works out to 115 months. Or 114 or 115 . Either way some are saying it's a troll job. That's some big bollocks if so!