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

stirlingblue said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually is does matter whether interest is charged and applied to the profit and loss account which affects the bottom line. It also matters that any loans need to be disclosed in the balance sheet as a creditor thus affecting the financial strength of a business/organisation. However I do agree with your main point on financial doping
 
The perfect fumble said:
And that is the point.

The new rules that Masters was spluttering about last week, could well be painstakingly re-constructed over a sufficient period of time, and they could, though it's unlikely, produce a robust masterpiece of meticulous exactitude, compliant with UK commercial law in every aspect, or maybe not, but even if they pull off this masterpiece of in-house corporate legislation, it'd still be a crock of shit.

Because it's not the slap dash, make it up on the hoof, nature of these rules that's the real problem, though that was one of the reasons we scored such a significant victory, it's their purpose.

And their purpose cannot be addressed without stating what it is, as opposed to what is spun, and the biggest clue to what it is, is to ask who is best served by these rules? And to get there you follow the money, in this case "old" money, and when you do that you'll find where the real power lies in the Premier League, and what really motivates these powers behind the throne.

Everyone in here knows who the real power brokers in the Premier League are, what drives them and so on, and that Masters is simply their puppet. It is no coincidence that City were happy to take our UEFA case to CAS, happy to take this APT nonsense to arbitration and likewise the 115, because each time we do we're taking these trumped up charges away from the festering shit pits of self interest that spawned them, away from the power brokers and their puppets, and into the light of arbitration, governed by law and facts and reality.

That's why we're confident we'll smash the 115, because we know that nothing these self interested fuckers cook up can stand scrutiny when exposed to impartial legal professionals.
Click to expand...
Great post.
 
If I die in the Kippax St said:
Actually is does matter whether interest is charged and applied to the profit and loss account which affects the bottom line. It also matters that any loans need to be disclosed in the balance sheet as a creditor thus affecting the financial strength of a business/organisation. However I do agree with your main point on financial doping
Click to expand...
OOH! Is there a possibility of false accounting? Of not giving a true and fair (OH! and complete) picture of the club's finances? Could be embarrassing if the cartel are well and truly nailed for something City are shown not to have done!
 
DenisLawBackHeel74 said:
I think it’s more about obtaining an unfair advantage through loans that are significantly below the market rate, not shareholder loans per se……simple solution is to revalue those loans at the appropriate market rate and apply them retroactively…….but you would quickly see a number of clubs fail FFP …ooops.

And in some cases like Everton’s, they would never have got a loan on anywhere like favourable terms due to their financial situation….so what do you do in that/those type of cases….a proper premier league pickle….lol
Click to expand...
, I would suggest the PL do whatever they have to get City back in the fold. However not sure club would now
 
the blue panther said:
Looking at the current "115" hearing, as it has now come to the attention of the P.L. via the first tribunal decision, that City didn't have a flat pitch to play on, due to the unlawfulness of the P.L.'s own rules, I don't see how the present tribunal can ignore submissions by City trying to refer to that decision. Last week it was reported that City's attempts to reference the recent decision were being ignored by the current panel.
If the current panel are standing on ceremony and saying that City can't amend ANY argument they hadn't previously given notice of prior to the hearing, that's a very dangerous course for this panel to follow, bearing in mind the "unlawfulness" which has already been found within the rules.
That to me is contrary to natural justice, and a recipe for further litigation, especially when taking account of the strength of that 1st tribunal panel, who came down very strongly in City's favour - irrespective of the subsequent misleading narrative of the P.L. and the media generally.
Of course, the P.L. lawyers could accept and recognise that finding of unlawfulness if they wished - and allow City to use that finding - if they were reasonable, but they can't (yet!) risk all the 115 charges falling apart and being thrown out, I guess, so the argument will continue.... for a while - but I wonder if it's going to dawn on the P.L. soon that they need to close this all off very quickly now; settle with City; then redefine ALL the relevant rules?
What a can of worms we've opened.
Click to expand...

Do you not have a “return” button on your phone mate?
 
SalfordCityBlue said:
I'll say this again - if you are the governing body, and in a legal proceeding, the laws you enacted are judged to have been unlawful, unreasonable and unfair it impossible to claim that you won. It is unreasonable to claim a score draw even.

And it is bizarre for anyone to defend you. Clubs, pundits, fans attempting to be magnanimous. This was the thrust of Martin Samuel's article - for that to be described as nonsense just makes no sense to me.

Everyone, from every club, should be outraged by the behavior and, being kind, incompetence of the people we trust to be in charge.
Click to expand...
The problem is other clubs know they cannot beat us on the field so they going to any lengths to try other non football related methods and so far they losing. In particular the trio red cartel that are determined to undermine us in any way possible.
 
Vic said:
Very comprehensive. A couple of observations, if I may.

"City's objective is stated in the decision at paragraph 4. City sought a declaration that the rules concerning APTs were unlawful and an order that two decisions of the PL board concerning APTs in which MCFC have tried to participate were unlawful and should be set aside - that is rescinded."

"That is rescinded" is unclear. (It confused me!) Did you mean "i.e. rescinded"? (Defining "set aside")

For the next but one paragraph, "Then you can look at the final summary paragraph to see how each party did. Paragraph (i) says the APT rules breach sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998. So the APT rules are unlawful. Paragraphs (ii) and (iii) say much the same thing, in relation to different aspects of the rules", I'd add

"The APT rules are unlawful, therefore prohibited, and the decisions to introduce the rules and the amended rules are void under s.2(4) of the Competition Act 1988" (cited by the Tribunal). There are currently no APT rules."

What would also be helpful would be to explain that "deliberately and knowingly" favouring other clubs with shareholders' interest-free loans derives from the term "by object" (thanks to @Norbiton for highlighting that) and a bit on "We give declaratory relief", which I understand is effectively legalese for "City have won".

I don't like the cancer analogy. Others have suggested instead the murder trial with 15 counts of murder, but you're only convicted of 5. You're still a serial killer
Click to expand...

thanks for that.

A few posters seemed to be unsure what “set aside” actually means so it’s just a word to explain that.

I don’t think you can say there are no APT rules. The rules exist because they were voted on by the requisite majority of PL clubs. The rules are unenforceable because they are unlawful, but that is not to say they don’t exist. A fine distinction perhaps but quite an important one.

As you say “declaratory relief” just means a declaration the the APT rules are unlawful. That declaration is binding on the PL and any other club can rely on it. The two APT decisions affect only City and the PL but the declaration affects all 20 PL members.

I don’t like the murder analogy. 15 counts of murder is 15 different offences. So on some you do win. A better analogy would be a charge that the victim was poisoned, then stabbed, then electrocuted then suffocated and the prosecution only land the stabbing. It’s enough in itself even if some of the other allegations don’t succeed.

Finally I’m going to do a longer post about why the rules were drafted as they were. There’s quite a lot to unpack there…
 
Martin Samuel has it right where he says “Profit and Sustainability” should just be “Sustainability” because the profit, of individual clubs, is nothing to do with them. As long as the club isn’t going bust it could be that the owner wanted the club to be a non profit organisation and, as such, would be free to keep ticket prices down.
 
Dribble said:
The only reason FFP/PSR/APT are still a thing 15 years after their introduction is because UEFA & the PL are judge, jury & executioner where football is concerned. The two times external arbiters have ruled on their judgements, they've found against them, but as long as UEFA & the PL are allowed to self regulate, they'll continue to concoct further cunning plans to stymie Manchester City.
Click to expand...
Great post overall but this bit is spot on. The reason the APT rules were introduced is laid bare in the tribunal's report.

The cartel felt that City were playing fast and loose with the related party rules, and weren't declaring companies like Etihad as related parties. The fact our auditors plainly agreed they weren't was of no consequence to them. There is no possible interpretation of IAS 24 whereby City & Etihad are related parties (apart from in the cartel's imagination).

So they persuaded the PL to come up with the rules about associated parties, where the PL can basically ignore long-established and agreed accounting standards and decide for themselves. There's even something in those rules that says the PL itself can decide who is a related party. It's also clear (and it's disappointing that the tribunal were clearly very naive over this) that Gulf States are the clear target.

I pointed out to Jonathan Wilson on X that this is the reason these cases are happening, not because wealthy clubs are capriciously seeking to undermine the PL or its rules.
 
Last edited:
Cobwebcat said:
Martin Samuel has it right where he says “Profit and Sustainability” should just be “Sustainability” because the profit, of individual clubs, is nothing to do with them. As long as the club isn’t going bust it could be that the owner wanted the club to be a non profit organisation and, as such, would be free to keep ticket prices down.
Click to expand...
PSR is not even about financial sustainability, as I've pointed out on here a number of times.
 
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