Sounds like you areHey I am not disagreeing that it can’t be applied but a court of law hasn’t ruled
by this logic, every single rule up to and including our 115 charges means absolutely sod all.Hey I am not disagreeing that it can’t be applied but a court of law hasn’t ruled
Didn't the panel rule that although Everton said the loans were for the new stadium it wasn't the case?Everton loans are probably for the new stadium, no?
I'm sure if was one of the red cartel said that amendments were illegal the PL would have asked their legal team for advice. Now that City have won the case the PL are going to have to sit up & take notice.In February 2024 at a meeting of all the Premier League clubs took place to vote on the amendments. At that meeting City stated they believed the amendments were illegal.
A sensible, financially competent organisation would have sat down with City and asked them why they believed that. Then, instead of taking a vote, would have asked their legal team for advice.
The Premier League didn't. Instead they voted on the amendments sending it on a very toxic and expensive collision course with one of its members. In doing so it risked damaging the PL brand around the world.
Me and you know why they took that course of action but none of the lick spittle press will ask them why did they do that and questioning if they, Masters et al are fit to run the PL.
I didn't pay much attention tbh :)Didn't the panel rule that although Everton said the loans were for the new stadium it wasn't the case?
I appreciate that, I'm just saying that decisions were made based on a flawed system. So that needs to be corrected.In the case of Everton they significantly benefited from the non inclusion of interest free loans from their owner ( not sure about Nottingham Forest)
Got to be careful with ‘em. Very habit forming I believe. Works a treat though!I too take Zopiclone but my GP will only allow me 56 tablets per year, so I cut them in two and half a one knocks me out within half an hour and lasts up to 6/7 hours.
I was. We were meant to be flying to LAI hope you weren't the pilot!
Given the seniority and eminence of this panel, (former Supreme Court etc) I’d say it’s findings would not be challenged/changed by a court of law.Hey I am not disagreeing that it can’t be applied but a court of law hasn’t ruled
by this logic, every single rule up to and including our 115 charges means absolutely sod all.
riveting lolIt's going to be an interesting couple of weeks, isnt it?
I think director loans can be seen as financial doping if they are interest-free or at a very low interest rate.I don't know if you agree, but to me director loans are a prime example of 'financial doping' ( that term is ridiculous in itself). Exactly what we have been accused of continually.
Ha ha . True!I see the arsenal fan has given you a like, that in itself should make you question what you've just written.
I think director loans can be seen as financial doping if they are interest-free or at a very low interest rate.
A loan of £200 million would cost £10 million a year at 5%, so the club is effectively gaining that £10 million without earning it. In reality it's no different to getting a sponsorship deal that is over-valued by £10 million.
The difference in the long term is that the £10 million from sponsorship might stay in the game, but the loan goes back to the director, unless it's written off.
I watched Martin Samuel piece and he said directors loans were what brought Pompey down, the directors hit hard times and requested the money back.I think director loans can be seen as financial doping if they are interest-free or at a very low interest rate.
A loan of £200 million would cost £10 million a year at 5%, so the club is effectively gaining that £10 million without earning it. In reality it's no different to getting a sponsorship deal that is over-valued by £10 million.
The difference in the long term is that the £10 million from sponsorship might stay in the game, but the loan goes back to the director, unless it's written off.
I watched Martin Samuel piece and he said directors loans were what brought Pompey down, the directors hit hard times and requested the money back.
I am sure the PL must have forgotten how toxic loans could be.
Its madness the way they view debt vs investment, debt is fine, investment is bad, the reality is if you cant pay your mortgage the bank takes your house, if someone else pays it for you the bank couldnt care less.I watched Martin Samuel piece and he said directors loans were what brought Pompey down, the directors hit hard times and requested the money back.
I am sure the PL must have forgotten how toxic loans could be.
Plus, there's no way a football club could borrow at 5%, because they just don't offer a sufficiently secure investment.
Take the CFG as an example. This is arguably the most secure investment in the game. It is headed up by one of the world's leading clubs, has diverse global investments, is profitable at MCFC level and is ultimately owned by a multi-billionaire. Plus, the CFG money is used to invest in infrastructure, rather than make punts on footballing potential.
However, its borrowings bear an interest rate of LIBOR plus 3-3.5%. That's 8-8.5% overall.
I doubt an upper mid-table football club could borrow at less than 10%.