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

Plain and simple.

Here’s why the 3 Red Cartel Clubs wanted to stop and destroy City, with the help of UEFA, let’s not forget, and Masters and the PL, as well as other European cartel clubs, and other PL clubs, Spurs, etc. Only the Saudis and Newcastle (and PSG) could have competed with City financially.

They wouldn’t be able to compete if owner (and family) investment was allowed.

Sheikh Mansour.

individual net worth of at least £17 billion and a family fortune of about $1 trillion.
 
Tbilisi said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's exactly right, re Portsmouth. As to the rate on loans, if a football club is effectivey bankrupt, but for having had loans, it has little in the way of creditworthiness. So, to say that the rate on a £200M loan might be 5% p.a. is pure guesswork. The funder - a bank or whatever institution - would charge a high rate of return, or would never give the loan, because of the risk of a default.
A club might think it has £300/400M of players and a ground to sell, but if it comes to a fire-sale, that valuation comes tumbling down. So, if you are guessing the likely rate of return on a big loan to a borderline-bankrupt club, I submit you have to pitch in a figure much higher than the present bank base rate of 5%.
"Mates rates" can't be applied. In the Premier League, most of the teams appear stable enough, but they still wouldn't get a cheap rate of loan - and 5% is the base rate. How stable would they appear but for the interest free shareholder loans?
 
jrb said:
Plain and simple.

Here’s why the 3 Red Cartel Clubs wanted to stop and destroy City, with the help of UEFA, let’s not forget, and Masters and the PL, as well as other European cartel clubs, and other PL clubs, Spurs, etc. Only the Saudis and Newcastle (and PSG) could have competed with City financially.

They wouldn’t be able to compete if owner (and family) investment was allowed.

Sheikh Mansour.

individual net worth of at least £17 billion and a family fortune of about $1 trillion.
Click to expand...
Partially true but after a considerable initial investment , will our club and later in time the CFG be 100% self funding?

Do you think the likes of scruffy Jim and J.W.Henry are spending their own cash? Because I am certain they are not.
 
Last edited:
Stoned Rose said:
Can’t be.

As we all know, these rules were brought in to “prevent another Portsmouth”.
Click to expand...
It went from preventing another Portsmouth to stopping another man united from happening.

City’s dominance and world wide commercial growth shows they have failed.
 
Keeper! said:
Partially true but after a considerable initial investment , will our club and later in time the CFG be 100% self funding.

Do you think the likes of scruffy Jim and J.W.Henry are spending their own cash? Because I am certain they are not.
Click to expand...
This is always what i think is funny when it comes to people talking about owner investment etc and how much they are worth, these people dont become billionaires and continually increase their net worth by just pissing money away, most outlay is viewed in terms of investment and what they are likely to receive back on it.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
The APT case has confirmed what the Commons Select Committee told Masters last year:”That he doesn’t know what he is doing.” How long is this farce going to continue?
Click to expand...
I watched some of the Commons Select Committee questioning Masters, the MP's seemed to be pretty clueless, there's a lot more football savvy people on this forum that would have interrogated Masters and blown his cover.

I'm just not confident at all that an Independent Regulator will be anything other than influenced by the media and other members of the House of Parliament
 
the blue panther said:
That's exactly right, re Portsmouth. As to the rate on loans, if a football club is effectivey bankrupt, but for having had loans, it has little in the way of creditworthiness. So, to say that the rate on a £200M loan might be 5% p.a. is pure guesswork. The funder - a bank or whatever institution - would charge a high rate of return, or would never give the loan, because of the risk of a default.
A club might think it has £300/400M of players and a ground to sell, but if it comes to a fire-sale, that valuation comes tumbling down. So, if you are guessing the likely rate of return on a big loan to a borderline-bankrupt club, I submit you have to pitch in a figure much higher than the present bank base rate of 5%.
"Mates rates" can't be applied. In the Premier League, most of the teams appear stable enough, but they still wouldn't get a cheap rate of loan - and 5% is the base rate. How stable would they appear but for the interest free shareholder loans?
Click to expand...
Yep, business rate loans for high risk would be well in excess of a BOE base rate of 5%.
 
Bluewonder said:
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%.
Click to expand...
I assume you're talking about the rags where you quote "mid-table football club"?
 
hammocity said:
I watched some of the Commons Select Committee questioning Masters, the MP's seemed to be pretty clueless, there's a lot more football savvy people on this forum that would have interrogated Masters and blown his cover.

I'm just not confident at all that an Independent Regulator will be anything other than influenced by the media and other members of the House of Parliament
Click to expand...
Independent regulation has failed in plenty of other sectors but something has to be done to change the current situation. The PL cant regulate the game because it is not impartial and has been corrupted by a small group of clubs. We have no choice at present. I fully understand your concerns about political interference though.
 
Further to my earlier post about why didn't the PL seek legal advice when City said the amendments were illegal;
Why were we left to stand alone ?
I'm looking at you Newcastle in particular but other clubs also voted against the amendments.
Why wasn't there a joint action by those clubs ?
Why were we left to be the bad guys ?
 
Blue Mist said:
Further to my earlier post about why didn't the PL seek legal advice when City said the amendments were illegal;
Why were we left to stand alone ?
I'm looking at you Newcastle in particular but other clubs also voted against the amendments.
Why wasn't there a joint action by those clubs ?
Why were we left to be the bad guys ?
Click to expand...
Because so many clubs know they'd generate bugger all TV revenue if they weren't hanging on to the coat-tails of the rags, dippers and other clubs with huge TV followings. Though I admit that doesn't explain Newcastle's silence.
 
hammocity said:
I watched some of the Commons Select Committee questioning Masters, the MP's seemed to be pretty clueless, there's a lot more football savvy people on this forum that would have interrogated Masters and blown his cover.

I'm just not confident at all that an Independent Regulator will be anything other than influenced by the media and other members of the House of Parliament
Click to expand...
It's natural to be sceptical with the way things are at the moment. In relation to an IR, it would come down to their remit coupled with what powers they would have. It would be refreshing though to have a body that acts for the benefit of the game as a whole and not the select few. The PL has tied itself in knots at the behest of the red cartel in attempting to thwart City, and only has itself to blame.
 
Blue Mist said:
Further to my earlier post about why didn't the PL seek legal advice when City said the amendments were illegal;
Why were we left to stand alone ?
I'm looking at you Newcastle in particular but other clubs also voted against the amendments.
Why wasn't there a joint action by those clubs ?
Why were we left to be the bad guys ?
Click to expand...
They knew that excluding shareholder loans was unlawful but chose to ignore it after a club owner who has lent his club a substantial amount of money, interest free, asked them to exclude it. So they did.

Never mind Masters resigning, the NEDs who constitute the rest of the board should also resign over that as they're supposed to provide oversight.
 
Blue Mist said:
Further to my earlier post about why didn't the PL seek legal advice when City said the amendments were illegal;
Why were we left to stand alone ?
I'm looking at you Newcastle in particular but other clubs also voted against the amendments.
Why wasn't there a joint action by those clubs ?
Why were we left to be the bad guys ?
Click to expand...
because i guess they want rid of us too
 
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