The independent panel considering the Premier League’s 115-plus charges against Man City – which the club strongly deny – is yet to reach a verdict, almost 18 months after the hearing.
West Brom were issued a two-point deduction less than 24 hours after their hearing.
Or you could, as a wealthy person, just buy the cake and post it on instagram as well because, you know, you like the cake. Then you could enjoy a delicious cake for your family and help out a business at the same time
New: World Cup ticket buyers accuse FIFA of “misleading” them.
Altered categories, seat maps that failed to disclose hospitality sections — "it's hard not to feel scammed," one fan told me.
Full story free to read @TheAthletic:
https://t.co/b9ptCgKAYo
Czech police have carried out raids and detained dozens of people related to corruption and fraudulent betting on soccer matches as part of a long-term investigation, the soccer association and prosecutors said on Tuesday. https://t.co/Yh2VSRMWpA https://t.co/Yh2VSRMWpA
🌎 Sunderland fan Liam recently went viral after winning the NYC spelling bee in his red and white shirt…
So we called and surprised him with his hero, Dan Ballard ❤️
People have spent forever arguing that they don’t want things ruled out for tight offsides. Now something that is being correctly identified as inside is a problem? We live in a shit era of everyone just moaning about everything. Which is ironic as I’m moaning about that.
@slbsn@j_macgeever They investigated the potential PSR breach as a by product of the investigation, as they rightly should.
They didn’t breach PSR rules, so were therefore not charged with that. Standard slinging of “have you even read it”, I thought we were having a respectful convo on it
🚨In the Forest PSR case, the Premier League submitted: "that the 50% discount suggested by Forest is too high: it gives too much credit for admission and cooperation and would be both disproportionate to the conduct being rewarded"
Yet in Chelsea agreed co-operation as mitigation for NO sporting sanction.
@slbsn Absolutely, and how do you think they encourage clubs to comply with that?
Why would a club self report if it’s not looked upon favourably?
This is why the cases are different, complying with a PSR case is like saying yeah I did, whilst staring at CCTV footage of you doing it.
@j_macgeever@slbsn I never argued for or against a sporting sanction. I think there is valid conversation. My point was, to liken it to a PSR case is a reach, given the circumstances involved.
As mentioned, I think the sentence is light.
@slbsn One case (whether we want to argue that the evidence would have surfaced through other means aside), deals with self reporting. The other case you reference deals with a case in which the club had no choice but to comply. Not even considering the wildly varying topic.
@j_macgeever@slbsn I mean, it is an exact reason for it to be lighter. It happens in many situations, including criminal court cases.
Do I have I think it’s too light? Even given the mitigation? Yes I do. But it still has zero to do with the any of the PSR cases.
@j_macgeever@slbsn Because the cooperation is under completely different circumstances. As is the situation with cases, especially on completely different topics and breaches.
New licensing system for the 116 clubs in Premier League, EFL and National League requires them to hold “sufficient resources” to steer them away from any potential “cliff edge”. Level of risk will be assessed on a club-by-club basis by Independent Football Regulator. From 2027/2028 season, clubs in the top five divisions will require a licence from the IFR in order to compete.
Clubs need to show liquidity to meet their financial commitments and cope with "stress" such as relegation or withdrawal of owner funding. Club liquidity will be monitored on an ongoing basis by the IFR which can also impose measures such as “reducing expenditure or restructuring debt”. (Players not counted as liquid assets as “clubs cannot readily realise their value outside transfer windows”). Clubs must also show evidence of “having meaningfully consulted" with fans.
“It cannot be right that so many clubs exist on a cliff edge where one change could threaten their entire existence – fans should be debating formations not finances,” says IFR CEO Richard Monks. “Our licensing regime will ensure that club risk is managed appropriately, creating a more stable environment for growth and investment.”
Four “key risk factors” that IFR expects clubs to “monitor and mitigate” are...
*Business Model – funding gaps between income and costs.
*Liquidity & Cash flow – the ability to meet short-term financial obligations.
*Solvency and Debt – risks to operating in the medium to long term.
*Governance – adequacy of financial decision-making and risk management.
@slbsn Not at all in my view. Cooperation has, and will always be viewed differently case to case, dependent on multiple factors. Given these cases have significant differences, it’s not surprising.
Sentence in light for Chelsea but still doesn’t make the Forest case relevant.