PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

This has been a good run through for what the scribblers will say when City defeat the P.L.suits in their next attempt at destroying us.
It is obvious ,on my understanding with even a cursory look at this last case ,that City won on the points at issue.All that is left for the P.L. is to state the obvious, that some regulation is required, as does every " market". and the tribunal agrees,so they claim a win.
 
bridgeno1 said:
I don't think of BM as a 'rivals website' more of a 'football forum' where there's actually a lot more interesting chat going on than on other sites. Yes I know City are a rival but that's not why I'm here.

Re being mentally unwell - well most men have mental health challenges at some stage in their lives, I'm sure I'm just as likely to as the next guy and if I did it wouldnt be anything to be ashamed of.

I will say though that on forums where people display overt hostility to complete strangers that's often a sign that all's not always well with them on an emotional level - I'm not having a go as honestly it genuinely doesn't bother me getting flak as I'm getting it from people who've never met me and therefore don't know me - they might just as well be shouting at a cow in a field. But I'd question why hostility seems to be the first port of call for some folk anyway and what's behind that. Because being unpleasant to someone often makes the recipient feel bad, but just as likely makes the giver feel uptight as well. It's easier just to chill IMHO - it just feels better.
Click to expand...
Good luck with your mental health mate. Hope you can keep it uncontrol.
 
Keeper! said:
Maybe the Arsenal (and other owner loans) owners loans should be paying the other 50%, seeing they are/were illegal?
Click to expand...
I think this is one of the fundamental misunderstandings that's happening. Arsenal, Everton, Brighton etc haven't done anything wrong re shareholder loans as the current rules (that City voted for btw) state that shareholder loans don't bear interest.

City have subsequently challenged this (and had this challenge upheld) meaning that moving forward this rule is likely to be amended. At that points clubs will need to comply with it but that's only after an amendment is made. At the present moment it's perfectly legal - I suspect it won't be after the rules get amended (assuming 60% of PL clubs vote for it - they may also decide not to of course).
 
bridgeno1 said:
I think this is one of the fundamental misunderstandings that's happening. Arsenal, Everton, Brighton etc haven't done anything wrong re shareholder loans as the current rules (that City voted for btw) state that shareholder loans don't bear interest.

City have subsequently challenged this (and had this challenge upheld) meaning that moving forward this rule is likely to be amended. At that points clubs will need to comply with it but that's only after an amendment is made. At the present moment it's perfectly legal - I suspect it won't be after the rules get amended (assuming 60% of PL clubs vote for it - they may also decide not to of course).
Click to expand...
If it helps you being on here great but in all seriousness you probably do need professional help. We are not trained to help you.
 
bridgeno1 said:
I think this is one of the fundamental misunderstandings that's happening. Arsenal, Everton, Brighton etc haven't done anything wrong re shareholder loans as the current rules (that City voted for btw) state that shareholder loans don't bear interest.

City have subsequently challenged this (and had this challenge upheld) meaning that moving forward this rule is likely to be amended. At that points clubs will need to comply with it but that's only after an amendment is made. At the present moment it's perfectly legal - I suspect it won't be after the rules get amended (assuming 60% of PL clubs vote for it - they may also decide not to of course).
Click to expand...
No that's wrong. City have challenged the idea that 'soft' shareholder loans (be they zero or low interest or market rate interest) are not currently considered an APT when they clearly are.

What this means is that clubs like Arsenal will have to have the value of those soft loans assessed (and that's a separate thing to what level of interest they are paying) and that value will then be included in the PSR calculation.

Another interesting thing is people saying 'oh they'll just convert to equity' - well apparently equity can't be directly injected by owners otherwise City & Newcastle would just blow everyone else out of the water anyway.

PSR is only calculated on earnings generated, its going to take some financial gymnastics by the cartel clubs to get rid of those loans from a PSR perspective.

Also, bear in mind that the only reason Arsenals soft loans are done at interest level they are is to satisfy UEFA's PSR rules which don't allow zero interest loans.
 
ShedDweller said:
No that's wrong. City have challenged the idea that 'soft' shareholder loans (be they zero or low interest or market rate interest) are not currently considered an APT when they clearly are.

What this means is that clubs like Arsenal will have to have the value of those soft loans assessed (and that's a separate thing to what level of interest they are paying) and that value will then be included in the PSR calculation.

Another interesting thing is people saying 'oh they'll just convert to equity' - well apparently equity can't be directly injected by owners otherwise City & Newcastle would just blow everyone else out of the water anyway.

PSR is only calculated on earnings generated, its going to take some financial gymnastics by the cartel clubs to get rid of those loans from a PSR perspective.

Also, bear in mind that the only reason Arsenals soft loans are done at interest level they are is to satisfy UEFA's PSR rules which don't allow zero interest loans.
Click to expand...


They are still arguing that they didn't break the rules instead of apologising for making rules that were put in place for them to abuse and accrue debt whilst doing so.
 
I understand it's a very private affair so I am more than sure I already know the answer to this, but has anyone heard anything credible from the ongoing hearing at all now that we're almost 4 weeks through? And if so, would the credible information be classed (for us) as positive, negative or neutral?

There's always one or two people who have connections and hear something or other, might not be possible at all for this but worth asking...right?
 
Colin Bells Boots said:
The " Visit Rwanda " sponsorship logo seems to have been more successful than the Tories attempts top promote It.

( anybody know how much it is worth ? )
Click to expand...
The legal/financial genius, "Magic Twat", did a hairy arms length Fair Market Value (FMV) analysis on this. 'Visit Rwanda' (£68m/year) was just ahead of 'Visit North Korea' (£66m/year) but worth a bit less than 'Visit Afghanistan' (£82m/year). However the Rwandan PR is considered to be a more ethical choice and in keeping with the traditional classy values of the tarqunts.
 
Last edited:
bridgeno1 said:
I think this is one of the fundamental misunderstandings that's happening. Arsenal, Everton, Brighton etc haven't done anything wrong re shareholder loans as the current rules (that City voted for btw) state that shareholder loans don't bear interest.

City have subsequently challenged this (and had this challenge upheld) meaning that moving forward this rule is likely to be amended. At that points clubs will need to comply with it but that's only after an amendment is made. At the present moment it's perfectly legal - I suspect it won't be after the rules get amended (assuming 60% of PL clubs vote for it - they may also decide not to of course).
Click to expand...
"Haven't done anything wrong".

The problem is Arsenal, Liverpool, United, Spurs and all the other jealous bastards have for the last 10 years done everything in your power to stop City off the pitch but it's on the pitch which matters.

You've done plenty things wrong in City's eyes
 
ayrshire_blue said:
I understand it's a very private affair so I am more than sure I already know the answer to this, but has anyone heard anything credible from the ongoing hearing at all now that we're almost 4 weeks through? And if so, would the credible information be classed (for us) as positive, negative or neutral?

There's always one or two people who have connections and hear something or other, might not be possible at all for this but worth asking...right?
Click to expand...
It's not looking good for us so don't build your hopes up.

 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
It's not looking good for us so don't build your hopes up.

Click to expand...

All I'd say in response to this (and I'm saying this as an Arsenal fan) is that any commentary from a Twitter handle called 'Arteta's Red Army' should be treated with about ten million pinches of salt regarding the ongoing hearing.
 
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