El Mayorbluer than blues
Aye.
The PL vetoed the EFL deal in part cos there are rich EFL club owners who just aren’t running their clubs with financial prudence.
Hard to argue with it tbf.
Certainly. Most clubs are trying to do what Forest did and gamble on the riches of the PL. They wages to turnover ratio in the championship is horrifying. But you could argue Championship clubs are having to be so reckless with their spending because the PL are distributing the money fairly...
bluer than bluesBelgrade BlueRab C NesbittHackneyBlueSpot onboth clubs deserved it
people will always moan when they feel they are being victimised, whether thats actually the case or not
People think "But Citeh" is a defence.
Citeh that have been cleared by UEFA and the Prem haven't been able to make anything stick against a decade later
Man City weren't cleared by UEFA. They were found found guilty but because of the length of time that had passed, could not charge them. The PL has no such time-barring, hence the charges.
You can't be found in breach if a claim is statute-barred.
Me saying cleared is just shorthand for it was determined they did not have any case to answer because any suspected impropriety was outside the statute of limitations for the breach set out in the regulations.
And actually, I would argue the same limitations should apply to domestic leagues. Here I think the UEFA regs are fairer than our domestic rules
Other than under English law limitation does not start running if there is deliberate concealment, as in the Man City case.
bluearmyfactionOther than under English law limitation does not start running if there is deliberate concealment, as in the Man City case.
Not relevant here as the Premier League PS rules aren't time-barred in the same way as the UEFA rules.
Also where is the "concealment" in this context. The UEFA case was ruled on in 2020 and the PL seem to have dragged their heels for years since not because of any "concealment" so if there is a time limit it would apply