glasshalffull
Well-known member
Reported to have called in insolvency advisers after their potential new owners have hit financial difficulties and look like they might not be able to complete the deal after all.
For all the moaning and groaning about City. This is the real point. City are solvent and can afford to spend the obscene amounts they spend. Other clubs are blatantly not.Reported to have called in insolvency advisers after their potential new owners have hit financial difficulties and look like they might not be able to complete the deal after all.
For all the moaning and groaning about City. This is the real point. City are solvent and can afford to spend the obscene amounts they spend. Other clubs are blatantly not.
If Charlie Adam was a toffee, he’d eat himself.At times it's frustrating being a lifelong Seasider, but I can only imagine what it's like being a toffee
If they have misrepresented the nature of the spend its because they've been 'forced' to do so through rules that would block them from progressing as a business (I know...) The obstructing of the enquiry is - sadly - a classic rich mans tactic. Keep pushing till the other can't afford to carry on etc.I don't think City's ability to afford their spending is really the issue SATW. It's more that they are accused of having misrepresented the nature of that spend and of obstructing the enquiry.
Going back to Everton, there have been red flags raised about 777 by umpteen financial experts and journalists, and yet there seems to have been little attempt by the EPL to intervene. This is an organisation that reckons that football is quite capable of regulating itself, of course.
If they have misrepresented the nature of the spend its because they've been 'forced' to do so through rules that would block them from progressing as a business (I know...) (1) The obstructing of the enquiry is - sadly - a classic rich mans tactic. Keep pushing till the other can't afford to carry on etc. (2)
My original point is around the fact that there's obviously a big difference between the financial stability and health of City and Everton. One is spending 10 times the amount of the other, but can actually afford to do so...(3)
777 have never passed the fit and proper persons test, which is why the takeover hasn't happened. They need to provide more evidence which they clearly haven't been able to do. I'm not supporting the existing regulation of the game but at least it's done this much.I don't think City's ability to afford their spending is really the issue SATW. It's more that they are accused of having misrepresented the nature of that spend and of obstructing the enquiry.
Going back to Everton, there have been red flags raised about 777 by umpteen financial experts and journalists, and yet there seems to have been little attempt by the EPL to intervene. This is an organisation that reckons that football is quite capable of regulating itself, of course.
But City, and others that can afford it, spending the huge and obscene amounts on agents fees and players wages means that every club in professional football is effected.For all the moaning and groaning about City. This is the real point. City are solvent and can afford to spend the obscene amounts they spend. Other clubs are blatantly not.
Totally agree....But City, and others that can afford it, spending the huge and obscene amounts on agents fees and players wages means that every club in professional football is effected.
For example Connolly on £7000 a week!
The wages need reigning in at the top so it is easier all the way through the game for clubs to offer realistic, affordable wages which will also help to keep ticket prices down.