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

Charlesfarsbar said:
The question I have is that if the tribunal have found certain aspects of the PSR and APT rules to be unlawful, how did this come to pass ?

The PL had sought legal advice before drafting the rules , were they implemented despite the legal advice or was the legal advice simply wrong
Click to expand...
The law isn't simply black and white and can be interpreted differently by different experts. Even this panel of 3 expert ex judges didn't agree on all points. The CAS panel wasn't in total agreement. We often see verdicts in one court overturned in another.
 
Geo72 said:
So, under the current rules 0% shareholder loans are accepted but they are now unlawful.

A few clubs will need to factor in FMA interest rates into their PSR.

We’re told an easy solution to this is to turn those loans into equity - if that shareholder has the appetite to do so (which is a big assumption).

So my question is, are shareholders now allowed to pump equity into a club, regardless of how much and, if so, is there anything stopping our owners from doing the same?

I haven’t a clue and would love some clarity on that if someone on here knows the answer
Click to expand...
In a nutshell yes, that's exactly how Mansour invests in our club.
 
Is there an easy summary of our challenges that were not upheld?

It's a bit like a scattergun. Deadly effective even if most bullets miss.
 
As for rival fans and forums, don't take any notice (I know it's hard) because generally they are absolutely clueless most of this is well above their collective heads, they have the lynch mob mentality they don't understand the concept of justice and legality basically it pains me to say this but they are as numb as a box of spanners, and even if they were sat down and had it all explained to them they would still say the same things because it's part of their belief system

As for the media reports people need to remember the strange parasitic relationship the media have with the PL they need each other, hence the media spin in favour of the PL
 
I see the Premier League have "confirmed" that existing shareholder loans won't be included in modified ATP rules - but existing sponsorship deals will be included.
The chances of another court case not happening are thus vanishingly small I would imagine.
The chances of this additional court case being sucessful would also be near 100%
 
Last edited:
Roachy said:
It is a whopper as you say, just like him. I'm sure we'll see plenty more articles like this over the next few days as the ant City PR bandwagon revs up. It's a tad frustrating that the masses fall for it, but Harris and co know their audience. They can spin it how they want, but ultimately the victory is ours.
Click to expand...
Another reporter who didn’t report any details of the actual Judgement. How strange that he has not included any comments from the Judges!
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
In respect of one of the rules, the PL was given specific advice and went against it, thus rendering that particular rule to be unlawful.

In any normal sphere this would be the story, but it’s not.
Click to expand...
Exactly , the PL implemented unlawful rules, knowingly to suit a vocal minority of clubs

How is this not the headline
 
Not clued up on all the financial bits of this tbh. Does this means that the clubs that are negatively impacted by this decision will have to start sorting their financial shit out pronto? Will it have to be in order for this accounting period regardless, or will there be some leeway for them to utilise?
 
blueste41 said:
The law isn't simply black and white and can be interpreted differently by different experts. Even this panel of 3 expert ex judges didn't agree on all points. The CAS panel wasn't in total agreement. We often see verdicts in one court overturned in another.
Click to expand...
Wasn't one of the CAS panel selected by the Premier League? If so it's pretty much nailed on there was not going to be a unanimous decision.
 
Academica said:
Slightly (greatly)confused on shareholder loans. Am I right in thinking that a shareholder loan doesn't affect PSR, in so much as an owner can't just give a loan that would allow a club to pass PSR. As an example if club had an £80m shortfall for PSR, an owner can't just inject £80m as a loan to allow a club to pass PSR. Is it only that clubs should be paying interest on such loans that is the problem. Then It as been said that the loan will be converted into equity. So if the loan becomes equity can that money be used for anything and does it help with PSR.
Click to expand...
Correct, shareholder loans cannot be counted as revenue to meet with PSR and neither can equity investment. The ruling now means that the interest that would be due on that loan must be taken into account when deciding if a club meets PSR. So converting the loan to equity would only make the interest go away, if shareholders would be willing to convert loan to equity is (in most cases) unlikely.
 
Geo72 said:
So, under the current rules 0% shareholder loans are accepted but they are now unlawful.

A few clubs will need to factor in FMA interest rates into their PSR.

We’re told an easy solution to this is to turn those loans into equity - if that shareholder has the appetite to do so (which is a big assumption).

So my question is, are shareholders now allowed to pump equity into a club, regardless of how much and, if so, is there anything stopping our owners from doing the same?

I haven’t a clue and would love some clarity on that if someone on here knows the answer
Click to expand...

Equity doesn't impact P&L. So a shareholder cant put as much money in to buy limitless players, because revenue would need to cover expenditure.

Where it could help is that where you have a club that is paying huge interest on a loan that was used to pay upfront for a long term asset. In this case an owner could pay off the loan to mitigate the ongoing interest costs and convert it to equity. But obviously that requires agreement of other shareholders who would see their stake diluted
 
hammocity said:
Wasn't one of the CAS panel selected by the Premier League? If so it's pretty much nailed on there was not going to be a unanimous decision.
Click to expand...
As has been said many times before distinguished judges that have spent their lives getting to the absolute peak of their profession and are regarded to have an impeccable reputation cannot be "bought". Remember, people against City say that we will simply "buy a verdict" because we have so much money-it's nonsense but it works both ways.
 
blueste41 said:
Correct, shareholder loans cannot be counted as revenue to meet with PSR and neither can equity investment. The ruling now means that the interest that would be due on that loan must be taken into account when deciding if a club meets PSR. So converting the loan to equity would only make the interest go away, if shareholders would be willing to convert loan to equity is (in most cases) unlikely.
Click to expand...
Thanks for reply, that makes things a lot clearer.
 
BlueAnorak said:
I see the Premier League have "confirmed" that existing shareholder loans won't be included in modified ATP rules - but existing sponsorship deals will be included.
The chances of another court case not happening are thus vanishingly small I woukd imagine.
Click to expand...
You can see how this can quite quickly snowball. It goes from City fighting legal battles to half the Prem doing it. Questions start being asked about the point of it all and all of a sudden the days of over-regulation to appease certain clubs are no more.
 
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