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

johnny crossan said:
"The Premier League, its rulebook and executives are facing a firing squad but are now asking to inspect the guns to ensure they fit professional standards. What a shower they are."
Martin Samuel today
Click to expand...
They will be fine the firing squad will be composed of darwin nunez, joshua zirkzee, anthony and timo werner
 
Will Arsenal and Brighton and Everton vote for revised rules that hit them the hardest?
And the answer is...
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I think upon a little reflection the extent of City’s victory depends on the club’s objectives. If it was to destroy APT (which I highly doubt) then it’s correct to say it’s somewhat limited, although still material. If it was to recalibrate the rules (which I expect it was) then the success would have to be, at the very least, characterised as highly successful.

However, what cannot be open to debate is the extent of the PL’s defeat. A de facto public authority having a finding that its rules were unlawful, as was the way they were applied, is huge. As are the findings of procedural irregularity and unfairness.

To fail to understand this is to fail to appreciate the function of an authority such as this, the laws of natural justice and the burden and standard of proof required to establish such findings.

This following from the Leicester shambles further underlines this organisation is not even close to being fit to oversee a multi-billion pound industry that has attained huge strategic and commercial importance to the UK.

That should be the story, but instead all we have is mental gymnastics from the media about how neither side won - when one of them manifestly lost.
Click to expand...
Deserves a double like
 
mancboy said:
Is it tho, look i like slbsn he is obviously a very intelligent chap but it seems he hasnt learned to not talk before having all the relevant info, his summations have been a little off recently.
Click to expand...
What he is also failing to grasp, is that by converting to equity, they must produce more shares, that then devalue their existing shares! If converting to equity was the best way to do it then they wouldn't do loans in the first instance. Also loans are none commital, equity is effectively purchasing, and who the hell would want to right off millions of pounds of their money by taking a bigger % of a sinking ship?
 
ComfySeats said:
do we have an idea of who the unnamed person was who emailed the PL on behalf of his and 10 other clubs?

I may be being thick here but i don't understand why this person is given anonymity


View attachment 134287
Click to expand...
I was reading the reaction on a Newcastle forum and they were saying, based on the size of the redaction, it was someone with a short name - no more than 10 letters.

Coinicidentally, the Arsenal vice chair who didn't shake Khaldoon's hand is called Tim Lewis.

So my money is on him and Arsenal.
 
bridgeno1 said:
From an Arsenal perspective this isn't great for us. The main ruling I see from this that impacts us is the fact that club owners can't give the club loans without having fair market value interest charged.

At present the Kroenkes loan the club £250m and as football is a risky business I'd say fair market value interest rates are around 8% so that's an extra £20m that needs to be factored into FFP moving forward.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the Arsenal Accountants might have to start pulling some fake hamstrings.

1000006321.jpg
 
CatMan said:
What he is also failing to grasp, is that by converting to equity, they must produce more shares, that then devalue their existing shares! If converting to equity was the best way to do it then they wouldn't do loans in the first instance. Also loans are none commital, equity is effectively purchasing, and who the hell would want to right off millions of pounds of their money by taking a bigger % of a sinking ship?
Click to expand...
By producing more shares you would be diminishing the overall value of the investment
 
Ducado said:
Any new rules they bring in will have to be legally watertight, do clubs have vote in new rules? If so is it a simple majority?

Going to be tricky for some clubs, but if you make rules to benefit yourself and get called out on it,
Click to expand...
Yes, 14 clubs will be required to vote in favour of the proposed changed rules. This puts the PL in an impossible position-they need a minimum of 14 clubs to agree to change the rules so they comply with the law (as ludicrous as that sounds) and most clubs won't want a change because it will mean they fail PSR (equally ludicrous) they are fuked!
 
halfcenturyup said:
Once again, I was trying to answer the question why Chelsea would vote with City going forward when they will be getting hit with interest on their loans as a result of City.

My point was that there will be no new rules on shareholder loans if City, Chelsea and five other clubs vote them down. That will force the PL to either keep rules that have been found to be "illegal" (which they can't do) or scrap them altogether.

When I first read the award my question on the shareholder loans wasn't about going forward, though, it was about the years 21/22, 22/23, 23/24 and 24/25. Surely, the effects have to be applied retrospectively, and there can't be an amnesty because that would be discriminatory, which is what got us here in the first place. I wouldn't be surprised if shareholder loans turns out to be the PL's biggest problem in all this, apart maybe from reputational damage. Again.
Click to expand...
Changes to PSR are dynamic I can’t think of one instance where those changes have been applied retrospectively to in effect punish clubs who made their financial plans based on the rules in place . After all we have only seen Forest and Everton impacted to date and realistically their charges would havent been impacted by this aspect in their favour
irrespective let’s say all those clubs that have submitted their PSR calculations now are charged and found to have breached I would imagine that any IC would in effect mitigate to such a degree as to make the exercise meaningless.
As for Chelsea I would imagine like most clubs they will be looking at all this from what’s best for them and having already had the PL already disallow sponsorship from Paramount + for a warped take on how that would impact broadcasters in the US I would imagine there is associated sponsorships being discussed
 
blueste41 said:
Yes, 14 clubs will be required to vote in favour of the proposed changed rules. This puts the PL in an impossible position-they need a minimum of 14 clubs to agree to change the rules so they comply with the law (as ludicrous as that sounds) and most clubs won't want a change because it will mean they fail PSR (equally ludicrous) they are fuked!
Click to expand...

I like the sound of that !
 
bridgeno1 said:
Where I understand City might have the biggest issues are some allegations around City execs misrepresenting owner funding as sponsorship income. Anyway I'm far from an expert on this and it's only based on some things I've heard which are just as likely to be bollocks as not so please don't take this as my personal opinion, only a response to what I've heard are possibly the toughest of the 115 charges for City to overcome.
Click to expand...
When are Arsenal paying your owner the loan he gave them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top