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

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...
I think it’s a case of yes and no. Owners can introduce equity for infrastructure projects and the like, and also cover losses, but only up to allowable levels under FFP/PSR.
I think this is how it works, but I’m no expert.
 
Coatigan said:
On the last paragraph, being perfectly honest, I'm not sure I would want it any other way! Their feeble and obvious attempts here make it somewhat all that little bit more enjoyable.
Click to expand...
Think you're right. Since the news broke yesterday afternoon, so many journalists have exposed themselves as being the complete numbskulls that we all knew they were. Wankers the lot of them

 
Ste68 said:
This all day long - although in my experience the advice is often describing the degree of risk involved in a course of action and not always definitive. The advice the PL got and the wording I think is clearer and to ignore it after we had indicated we would take action quite mad.
Click to expand...
I would think this surely has to be a resignation issue for the PL chief?
 
St Helens Blue (Exiled) said:
Had a few interactions with this senile old **** on Twitter. Guy is a delusional twat.
Pompey are his club but is a scouse loving goon.
Click to expand...
Me too all I can say in his favour (along with Sam Lee) is they do actually reply a couple of times until they are shown to be full of shit & then the block comes out rather than the Harris/Delooney types who just ignore & block.
 
BringBackSwales said:
Given the bbc and various newspapers are saying we lost a lot more than we won, can anyone who understands this stuff advise what did we lose in yesterday’s verdict that was materially significant to us?
Click to expand...
What we lost and won is clear from the judgement (page 161-163 headed "Overall conclusions"). In terms of numbers alone it's true to say we lost more than we won. I suspect proof of if we won overall will be judged by how the rules are changed and the impact those changes have on clubs.

 
The money we are spending and all these legal cases, who pays it. If it comes from the club is it written off in PSR calculations?
 
The bottom line on this for me is the PL need to sit down and agree new rules but on much fairer terms. If they maintain the stated objective of the rules and ensure some form of FMV is applied to sponsorships and now financing packages then the burden and standard of proof that any deal is outside FMV becomes much harder to do , it has to be very obviously above FMV - and if they call a deal out may be much easier to challenge with the potential of huge legal costs and compensation. The financial packages much easier to give a value at FMV would think. Just think the PL will tread more carefully in future. An obvious advantage from going down the commercial sponsorship route rather than shareholder loans for us being we get to spend it on the squad and wages even within the new rules around squad costs. We are in a stronger position today than we were pre judgement. In effect we may not have beaten the school bully to a pulp but we have bloodied his nose.
 
The press reporting on the outcome reminds me of the 18/19 season when us and the tramps was toe to toe. We was on a run of 12 or 13 straight wins, them lot 6 or 7 but it was reported that we was both on a run of 20 games unbeaten.
Or when they used to say City and Liverpool have shared the title between them over the years when in reality we'd won the most and they won just the one.
I half expected this outcome to involve them mentioning Arsenal or Liverpool had claimed some kind of victory but having said that they are both indirectly involved with these interest free loans uncannily.
 
ManCitizens. said:
The Premier League have been called unlawful, unreasonable and unfair.

City can sue for damages.

The PL have called an emergency meeting (why if they’ve won?).

The current APT rules need to be changed.

How this is being spun so both sides won is completely laughable. The press are completely ignoring the fact we have previously voted in favour of APT rules, just not in the current format. I highly suspect us trying to get them thrown out completely was a legal tactic advised by our legal team, you go big not expecting to win big.
Click to expand...
Nailed it! The usual media puppets being utilised by the cartel to limit damage to the PL’s integrity & their reputations
 
Fight GIFs | Tenor
 
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