No way a fine of that size would stick. It simply didn't tally with anything. Plus, their owners could still afford it
The fans, players, manager, coaches and even owners have already enjoyed the joys and celebrations from the 'victory'. Taking the titles away won't change that (nor will other clubs want to be handed them). But I do accept that taken them away could have a impact of their future and those titles they did win will always be tainted (already are imo) for them and the receiving club. I don't know about Marseille but Juve aren't the only ones, the entire Serie A suffered meaning the league quality diminished; this happened as the PL was taking over as the top league too so the power shifted.
So? They can also lord it over everyeon shouting the odds about how they got away with it. I'd ratehr they had to do the walk of shame and tear out those trophies form their museuems and hand back the medals etc. we sdhould be bale to stand up and shout them down if they attempt to raise thier much vaunted history of winning but saying you cheated and they were taken away. I would agree wiht you that no other club should be handed them. they should be there as a stain on football for ever as a gap in the records recorded as no champion* "man city cheated"
You're missing the point. Removal of titles should not be the ONLY punishment. That would be way too lenient. And any fine would be pointless, the owners will just pay it off whether it breaks rules again or not, they can afford it. The main punishment MUST be points deduction. Remove the titles by all means but that's just a side bonus. I genuinely don't think their owners will give a **** about titles being removed. They've already got what they wanted from those 'wins'. But it's not about the owners feelings so, as you say, who cares.
Although when you compare what the two separate Independent Commissions have said in their findings on Everton and Forest and there are lots of differences in approach between the two of them, both have said quite categorically that only sporting sanctions will be used for clubs who have very wealthy owners because fines, no matter how big, won't be deemed meaningful or an adequate deterrent. I can't see a third Commission deviating from this because it's also what the PL recommends. Having said that, I do think that there's still scope for a Commission to go around in circles in trying to justify a massive points deduction and come up with something unexpected. What that could be, I don't know.
I suppose they are building precedent but these ruling should be following strict and narrow guideliens not having stuff "made up" as the go along. It shouldn't matter how mig or small a club is the penalty should be points Plus. something like chelsea's antics should be plus trnasfer bans to clam them down.
I think it should be 1pt per £1m overspend. The issue is working out the grey (dodgy) areas of financial accounting. I also think the £130m overspend allowance and the three cycle should both be scrapped. Spend within your means annually or face harsh punishments in the form of the above points deduction. #zerotolerance
I think thats pretty ok. The -105 is there to acknowledge clubs will make a loss, not allow them to spend a shedload on players. Everyone would have started on -100 points the year after covid for example. If a club falls out of europe then they make a loss. We made a 9 mil? loss last year. the 3 years aloows the clu to balance on bad year with 2 good ones. howeve rmy view is this. The threadhold to be a breach is -15mil over 3 years and a serious breahc is -105. All thats required between those two sums is an undertaking by the owers to cover those debts. YOu've small companies up to giant super clubs all being owed money by a football club and all the Premeir legaue require sis a "sure we will pay some day" undertaking. IMO thats wrong. If you breach the -15, well you certainly could in this climate with fees the way they are then there shoudl be some sanction thats real. We are not only allowing but actually setting up a comeptitive imperitive to get as close to -105mil as possible every year just to compete. yet some clubs seem to be able to do it reasonbably well while others seem to think of it as a target to crawl under somehow.
Leicester look like will get a points deduction if they go up next season as well as last seasons account show went over the limit.
seems so.unless they make a big sale. they might not even make it right now even if in the prime seat still
I like that idea a lot but the problem with tying a number of £ to a number of points of course is inflation. That point to pound is going to be really harsh when the average player sells for £150mill and club budgets fluctuate a few hundred mil a season. (We're what, about a decade from that?) I would tie the points to a percentage of budget. Each % over is one point (or something like that)
Interesting article on potential player of the year on sky. Just comparing the front runners for this season. What caught my eye was some of the graphs they showed and where Nunez shows up on them despite not being mentioned in the running. Goal involvements per 90. Expected involvements per 90 - 0.98. actual involvement - 0.97 Only Jota, Olise, Haaland and Salah (who is top) are above him. On Jota - expected us 0.53 per 90, actual is 1.03. Incredible numbers this season. Next was off the ball runs. Foden coming pretty high up but Nunez way out for number of runs into the box and only 2nd to Beto to number of total runs. That constant running causing chaos and stretching teams and giving an outlet.
Making sale now will make no difference. It was their accounts for last year was in prem. they’d be getting a points deduction this year same as forest and Everton if they were in prem
If it's allowed, they will. Some clubs clearly don't care about the limit at all so it obviously doesn't work.
Inflation means the punishment would become more severe. And it should be harsh, that's how rules become effective; simple solution, don't break the regulations. #zerotolerance
they should be charged already and have points deduction in this season not the following one. it makes no sense at all to me.
Punishment should be harsh, but should also be consistent. Imagine if the rule was implemented in 2000 where £100k over would mean one point. Being deducted 10 points for being £1 mill over would seem obscene today... But the trajectory football is taking, unless things flatten, 10 years from now £1 mill over might seem as trivial as £100k is to us. People punished today should be punished at the same severity as those in a decade. Basing the punishment on percent rather than hard currency amount means the punishment scales appropriately and everyone is treated equally no matter which year they fall foul.of the law. In fact, basing it on a set currency amount might lead to law suits and appeals with clubs pointing out what I did above.
