City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)

[domalino]

Carry on!

Nobody is listening.

Someone asked if there was anything the PL actually won on, I simply relayed the thing they did win on.

If you want to be a twat because I answered another blues question then be my guest.

 

[Luddite_Blue]

Remember how this was reported at the beginning?
‘City suing the premier league’
‘It’s disgraceful’
‘We’re ruining football’
‘How dare they sue the PL just because they don’t agree with a rule’
Well here’s mine and everybody associated with City’s response.
UNLAWFUL!
Cunts.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

That they don’t involve the interest free loans as APTs was part of the 2020 rules too, and I’m not sure they’re going to easily get agreement to just include them from enough clubs.

Think this has a fair bit to run yet.

it's either remove them or come up with a legal solution that's agreeable with the majority. Anything else is asking the PL to be handing cash out in a tribunal again

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Doan Roan is a dithering cock. absolutely useless at presenting anything

He’s also a massive ****.

 

[Pam]

and somebody knowledgeable who can advise on the dangers of cozying up to an illegial and corrupt cabal

Are you joking,? If the Marx Brothers were still alive, that's who they'd recruit. Or Laurel and Hardy.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

The legality of APT as a concept was upheld, just not the 2 most recent additions. City argued the whole thing was unlawful and failed.

It’s not arguable that was a major victory for the PL, if City had succeeded in that there’d be no APT rules right now, and as it stands we’re just back to 2020 rules.

People can argue about whether City thought they’d actually win that argument or not, but the fact is they made the argument and lost and the PL is in a much much better position than they’d be if that claim had been upheld.

We took action because of the 2 additions.
Mere semantics - but definitely a City win.

 

[bridgeno1]

It wasn't arbitrary.

Talk about missing the point.

It was arbitrary. APT transactions were based on historical prices as opposed to taking current market factors into account. Seems pretty arbitrary to me

 

[Pam]

He’s also a massive ****.

 

[John Wayne]

The legality of APT as a concept was upheld, just not the 2 most recent additions. City argued the whole thing was unlawful and failed.

It’s not arguable that was a major victory for the PL, if City had succeeded in that there’d be no APT rules right now, and as it stands we’re just back to 2020 rules.

People can argue about whether City thought they’d actually win that argument or not, but the fact is they made the argument and lost and the PL is in a much much better position than they’d be if that claim had been upheld.

That's exactly right. I would argue, however, that the club most likely knew that the whole concept of APT would not be thrown out. But to win on the two most-recent amendments, ie Nov 21 and Feb 24, represents a substantial victory. The PL is in an invidious position now because I can't see a scenario whereby interest-free shareholder loans, that don't need to be repaid, can co-exist with an FMV assessment of APTs.

 

[bridgeno1]

Aside from the newfound scrutiny and the expense of doing so.

And also other shareholders agreeing to dilute their own holdings as a result.

 

[Pam]

This is true.

 

[John Wayne]

I assume though we had zero expectation of actually winning that anyway, just helped with rest of the case.

That's my assessment, yes.

 

[flb]

The blatant racism about Gulf owners seems to be getting swept under the carpet , that alone shows what an absolute disgrace it is , Newcastle should come out swinging on that one.

 

[Stoned Rose]

it wasn't at all it hadn't been mentioned at all

It was rumoured and secondly it was common sense.

 

[Time will pass me by]

Think the biggest issue will be loan interest and will result in the rules entangling a whole bunch of clubs who will have to make some serious decisions on financing or rule changes. That is where I think this will have huge implications and more so if the rules as they are fall. Spurs have around a £billion in loans although I suspect they are all commercial , Everton were close on £500m of shareholder loans , Brighton £300 million , Arsenal you say £200m , Liverpool had £100m , Bournemouth £60m so should be interesting.

Very interesting. Clearly any change will not be retrospective but that court ruling states that to comply with competition and law standards the rules must now integrate the assessment of shareholder loans. That means by implication that up to now and including the original APT rules, they haven't complied with competition and law standards. Therefore any team fined or disadvantaged under the now acknowledged as non compliant rules, could or should seek redress. I think that makes sense.

 

[Rammy Blue]

I won’t go in to weeds, but one of the issues with converting debt-to-equity is the exposure of the entity funding the swap. I am not sure I share Stefan’s confidence that all of the owner entities of the clubs with low-to-no interest shareholder loans would be willing to assume the inherent risks involved, especially given the general state of football markets at present and the uncertainty surrounding the full implications of this and several other recent consequential rulings.

Thank you, there was obviously a logic involved and you’ve explained it perfectly.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Has anyone checked if John Bishop is still alive?

Who cares ?

 

[Inter Me Nan]

The legality of APT as a concept was upheld, just not the 2 most recent additions. City argued the whole thing was unlawful and failed.

It’s not arguable that was a major victory for the PL, if City had succeeded in that there’d be no APT rules right now, and as it stands we’re just back to 2020 rules.

People can argue about whether City thought they’d actually win that argument or not, but the fact is they made the argument and lost and the PL is in a much much better position than they’d be if that claim had been upheld.

Don't care about any of that when we go for damages.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

That's exactly right. I would argue, however, that the club most likely knew that the whole concept of APT would not be thrown out. But to win on the two most-recent amendments, ie Nov 21 and Feb 24, represents a substantial victory. The PL is in an invidious position now because I can't see a scenario whereby interest-free shareholder loans, that don't need to be repaid, can co-exist with an FMV assessment of APTs.

exactly this, the next meeting is going to kick off massively

 

[SebastianBlue]

And also other shareholders agreeing to dilute their own holdings as a result.

Indeed, that is part of the risk I alluded to in a separate post.