You could equally argue that conversion of debt into equity or creation of equity in the first place enables in effect free cash to be injectedI 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.
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.
This ‘small victory’ gets bigger every day huh?
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 ?
Interest free loans are effectively disguised equity funding. Of course they should all be charged retrospectively.
I don’t disagree but the point I am trying to make the panel is just that an arbitration panel can be appealed by the PL (which is highly unlikely) but irrespective process has to be followed to remove rules that a panel has given a ruling on
It will be interesting to see if the powers of the regulator are in line with the White Paper if they are going to be a lot of disappointed fans and the majority of them are those that are hoping a regulator will have input into matters like thisI don't think a regulator would be an MP and he certainly wouldn't be Gary Neville. I suspect it would be a committee of lawyers who could call upon expert assistance if/when necessary. And I think the experience of the last few months shows the robust independence of the upper echelons of the legal profession.
Interestingly didn’t City challenge the commence of an PL arbitration panel in the HC?
The more you read into this matter the more you realise that the panel despite its seniority and eminence didn’t actually fully close the case to a degree that’s manifested itself by the fact the two parties don’t even agree the current position of APT.
If you look yes they made comment about the need to include calculated interest in APT calculations linked to PSR but their authority included the option to actually just say APT rules are this or that but they didn’t their focus seems to have been purely dealing with challenges detailed and not the overarching question
For the avoidance of doubtI don’t disagree but the point I am trying to make the panel is just that an arbitration panel can be appealed by the PL (which is highly unlikely) but irrespective process has to be followed to remove rules that a panel has given a ruling on
As I said highly unlikely but the panel , as I said in an earlier post, hasn’t save points around how fair value is processed or the impact of owners loans actually said that APT isn’t valid they have left matters hanging thereThere was always zero chance of any appeal, unless the arbitrators were all pissed on sherry on judgement day and flipped a coin.
I thought the ffp rules were designed to stop clubs going to the wall? Instead they are used to push certain clubs into extinction. The ‘good’ intention went badly wrong somewhere along the line.You would think if we were getting relegated due to the 115 charges the Premier league would try and delay any rules changes leaving City without a vote and without a legal challenge.
Interestingly didn’t City challenge the commence of an PL arbitration panel in the HC?
The more you read into this matter the more you realise that the panel despite its seniority and eminence didn’t actually fully close the case to a degree that’s manifested itself by the fact the two parties don’t even agree the current position of APT.
If you look yes they made comment about the need to include calculated interest in APT calculations linked to PSR but their authority included the option to actually just say APT rules are this or that but they didn’t their focus seems to have been purely dealing with challenges detailed and not the overarching question
Maybe but the fact that there was a challenge on jurisdiction by its very definition you are challenging any judgementOn jurisdiction iirc, not judgment.
As I said highly unlikely but the panel , as I said in an earlier post, hasn’t save points around how fair value is processed or the impact of owners loans actually said that APT isn’t valid they have left matters hanging there
I share your crocodile tears.
Technically you may be correct. However, if I were them I would argue that they would have made different business decisions, therefore revised APT requires revised PSR.
Rather than get into a new wrangle, I’d imagine a compromise would be struck here in the interests of everyone moving forward.
Maybe but the fact that there was a challenge on jurisdiction by its very definition you are challenging any judgement
PB. Enjoying your posts. Memory going a bit. The Feb 24 ammends included (I recall) club owners/ shareholders personal immunity from prosecution should rules be challenged.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.
There is a second part of the panel's award to be published.As I said highly unlikely but the panel , as I said in an earlier post, hasn’t save points around how fair value is processed or the impact of owners loans actually said that APT isn’t valid they have left matters hanging there