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

[manimanc]

Our lawyers on the phone to masters and the other shithouses at the Premier League.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

which chairman??

It has to be one of the clubs where shareholder loans are a major factor, so Everton, Brighton or possibly Arsenal. My guess would be Bloom at Brighton, although given Everton's parlous financial state you could also look at them.

 

[Cobwebcat]

To discuss what? I’m a numbskull because I didn’t realise either :-) :-)

I think it is to give more clarification of what needs to be done and, if City and the PL can’t decide costs and or compensation, to rule on that too.

It would also be sensible to check that any new rules were passed by the panel before implementation to prevent further challenges.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Rumoured Brighton, allegedly

That was the exec who started the whole ATP ball rolling five days after the Newcastle takeover with his "stop the Gulf states" email.

The name of the exec who wanted shareholder loans out of APT is redacted, but he was part of the FCAG, so that narrows it down to the usual suspects.

 

[Albeeeert]

Free advertising? Sounds like a breach of APT or FFP or whatever. Cue a 15 year retrospective investigation (or retroactive if you're in Thailand).

The PL's rules have never prevented owners taking money out of clubs with below market value deals, which shows that the rules were never about protecting the profit and sustainability of any club outside of the cartel.

 

[Vester]

We are only deemed evil for two reasons.
* Having a vastly superior business model I.e. not American
* Being hugely successful as a result

The average PL fan has been brainwashed into thinking an owner that wants to invest money in his club is "bad", and billionaire owners with no sporting ambition whatsoever only using a club as a way to make themselves even richer (usually at the clubs expense) is "good". It's just jealousy combined with some xenophobia.

I could somewhat understand rival fans arguments if we every year had spent 5 times as much as everyone else on signings and they aren't even close to be able to compete (financially). But right now their argument is "you are almost spending as much as us on transfers, thats unfair. Fair would be you only being allowed to spend a third of what we are spending because history", which makes their entire point just completely idiotic.

 

[Albeeeert]

This gets more complicated- I thought the panel had issued their full judgment

What is the second part related to? Compensation for City? Or an appeals process- or something else?

Injunctive relief, damages and costs.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I think it is to give more clarification of what needs to be done and, if City and the PL can’t decide costs and or compensation, to rule on that too.

 

[KS55]

To discuss what? I’m a numbskull because I didn’t realise either :-) :-)

First, to listen to the parties’ solution to rules found to be unlawful or to give guidance on how to action the findings. Second, to decide the level of damages City can obtain. Third, to decide costs liability.
Fourth, to increase the earnings of Pannick, who is a bit short at the mo.
PS I see that has been posted above while I was typing.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

Not really the same, and regardless Leicester successfully appealed the PL decision.

Maybe so mate but, to my admittedly layman’s view, if the rules were unlawful then they need to be redrafted retrospectively to make them historically legal.
Otherwise you’d have clubs taking legal action left right and centre “we’ve been punished under rules they were unlawful, but that club hasn’t because the rules were written incorrectly” etc.

If we win the 115 case on top of this, the whole landscape of English football will change forever. And I’m here for it.

 

[terraloon]

The quid pro quo for equity funding is the transfer of ownership. It is just selling all or part of the club, so it is fine.

Sorry when the owner converts his loan to equity it’s hardly the same as selling say 25% of the existing equity

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

How did these rules get signed of by the pl legal team ?

I don't believe there is anything in law which prevents anyone providing anyone else with an interest free loan. But what the regulations did was to accept that sponsorship deals with related or "associated" parties were revenue which had to be proven to be at FMV whereas loans from shareholders were not APTs and no FMV tests needed to be carried out on the interest rate on these loans. This made the APT regulations breach competition law. Furthermore this special treatment of shareholder loans was at the request of a PL chairman/executive who had made a sizeable loan to his club, .and was thus a knowing and wilful breach of the rules and it made the APT regulations unlawful.

Martin Samuel believes that the PL seems to think there is an "air of criminality" around clubs which try to attract money and this seems to explain their attitude quite nicely. It is scared that some clubs might buy the title year after year and these are clubs with no experience of buying the title year after year, and so every penny these new clubs make is undeserved and must be carefully regulated. Some other clubs can be trusted to regulate themselves.

And now it's all come crashing down, leaving one hell of a shambles but of course we all trust the PL to clear it up. After all they know now what's lawful and what isn't. Or they should. Or ....

 

[KS55]

Sorry when the owner converts his loan to equity it’s hardly the same as selling say 25% of the existing equity

It may be new shares issued but that is still part sale of the company, ie it dilutes the ownership of existing shareholders.

 

[BringBackSwales]

It’s about time there were 3 PL rule books:-

1. The rules that apply to red clubs
2. The rules that apply to City
3. The rules that apply to the other clubs

It really is that blatant in practice so make it that blatant in the rules

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

Rumoured Brighton, allegedly

thanks..

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

It has to be one of the clubs where shareholder loans are a major factor, so Everton, Brighton or possibly Arsenal. My guess would be Bloom at Brighton, although given Everton's parlous financial state you could also look at them.

Thanks PB

 

[KS55]

It’s about time there were 3 PL rule books:-

1. The rules that apply to red clubs
2. The rules that apply to City
3. The rules that apply to the other clubs

It really is that blatant in practice so make it that blatant in the rules

4. The rules that apply to Newcastle, to take care of the fiction that they are not state owned.
I have no objection to state ownership, but I think it is against PL rules.

 

[terraloon]

It may be new shares issued but that is still part sale of the company, ie it dilutes the ownership of existing shareholders.

Many, but not all of the PL clubs are majority owners who can easily pass any special resolution to increase equity . If it’s those same owners or majority owners turn their loans into newly created equity then it does the exact reverse of dilution of their owners ship it actually strengthens their position . If however loans from non majority shareholders are converted then yes it does dilute

 

[stirlingblue]

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.

This is precisely the point. Many both inside and outside the media, either by choice or through ignorance, do not grasp the reality. I'm fairly sure it does not matter whether the interest is actually charged and paid however and shown in the annual accounts. What is important is that to level the playing field in terms of PSR then a notional commercial interest rate must be applied for PSR calculations at FMV as if the borrowing by the club from owner investors, directors et al (aka related parties) had been obtained at arms length on the open market. In effect this would mean that say Arsenal's loans of around £250 million would have a charge of say 8-10% per year applied for PSR calculations. That's in excess of £20 million a year added to their costs for PSR purposes. This to me is as close and clear to a definition of 'financial doping' as we can get
This has been made crystal clear by the tribunal in their rulings.
Liverpool and Brighton face a similar challenge.

 

[cheekybids]

The average PL fan has been brainwashed into thinking an owner that wants to invest money in his club is "bad", and billionaire owners with no sporting ambition whatsoever only using a club as a way to make themselves even richer (usually at the clubs expense) is "good". It's just jealousy combined with some xenophobia.

I could somewhat understand rival fans arguments if we every year had spent 5 times as much as everyone else on signings and they aren't even close to be able to compete (financially). But right now their argument is "you are almost spending as much as us on transfers, thats unfair. Fair would be you only being allowed to spend a third of what we are spending because history", which makes their entire point just completely idiotic.

5 times, that’s only good enough to get you to 14th.