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

gordondaviesmoustache said:
Not even sure if the fourth one is a lawyer. I’d say he’s almost certainly not a practising one. I’m always wary of academics talking about the implications of determinations because they don’t have a feel for things like those at the coal face do. Only a lived experience can give you that instinct.
Click to expand...
The old adage of “those who cannot do, teach” is often true, particularly where commercial and legal matters are concerned.
 
terraloon said:
I think the point you make has been missed by so many commentators .

Namely that these loans are sums that for the vast majority of owners have chosen to leave on the books because of advantages be it to them or indeed the club and if their is a PSR advantage that’s great
I very much doubt that any PL club owner sees their cash input into a club as a sort term investment so when putting the money in converting into equity won’t be that much of an issue and way above my pay grade I believe it is possible for a company to buy back shares from shareholders at cost without any significant tax issues
My point is that the author of that Athletic article is making the assumption that these loans will remain in the accounts as loans when I am pretty sure that that will not be the case
Click to expand...

You reduce shareholder's equity most easily by paying dividends. Reducing share capital is a bind. But your point stands.

Here is a question. How to apply loan interest to these soft loans in the 24/25 assessment? Is applying interest to years T-1 and T-2 in a future assessment, applying it retrospectively? I think what we can say, is that it's a mess.
 
fulabeer said:
The problem with analogies is that they can over simplify. Real life isn't like that.

What if i visit your house on business. Ie i'm here to fix your boiler.
You ask me to remove my shoes/safety boots. I refuse on the grounds of health and safety.
You then refuse me entry and prevent me from earning my money. You don't get your boiler fixed.

Who's at fault?

The PL seem to think you should remove your shoes regardless if it is lawful or safe, because that is what suits them.
They are in a dominant position as you need to earn money. They know you know, that they will just get somebody else. So they are said to be "abusing" their position.

In practice, what you have to agree is a lawful solution that suits us both. That may be i wear "over protectors" on my shoes/boots. Or i lay down carpet protectors.
I can then lawfully go about my business, you get your boiler fixed!
Click to expand...
Brilliant analogy!
 
halfcenturyup said:
Loans are just part of the funding strategy of a club by the owner. Mansour put funding in as 100% but he has mucho dineiro. Some owners may prefer to loan money so it can be repaid easily if the club is in a position to do so. Some owners may prefer loans for tax reasons - favourable tax treatment for interest income compared to dividends, for example.

If an owner considers he can increase equity and reduce loans, he can convert some of the loans to equity (new shares) without putting more cash in (the cash was received when the loan was made). It is just a book-keeping entry, apart from some documentation and some minor associated costs.
Click to expand...
dont really understand but if turned to equity that weaks other share holders % of company and what if i dont know but any investment must be matched by other share holders will this cause issues ( im thinking out loud )
 
dadnlad said:
dont really understand but if turned to equity that weaks other share holders % of company and what if i dont know but any investment must be matched by other share holders will this cause issues ( im thinking out loud )
Click to expand...

It's mostly sole owners in the PL, I think. But yes, it's more difficult if there are multiple shareholders.
 
Interesting discussion. Fast-moving and unfortunately workload precludes any real active input on my behalf, no doubt to the relief of many and no doubt especially of those who dislike lawyers showing off by using words such as sesquipedalian.

But my main purpose in posting here is just to note that, in any assessment of how things move forward and whether City at present have a strong position, we shouldn't underestimate the political aspect. If the PL and cartel can still call on 14 votes to support ideas they put forward in the field of financial control, the 'victory' on APT won't be especially consequential. If, onm the other hand, we've been able to work behind the scenes to put together a blocking constituency of seven votes, then things are much more, ahem, interesting for us.

If I'm not mistaken, I think @tolmie's hairdoo has suggested that this has indeed happened. Maybe ourselves, plus Newcastle, Villa, Chelsea, Everton, Forest and Leicester?
 
1: PL 'won' with minor changes to be made to APT regs
2: Meeting next week to propose rules that are *legal* to be agreed upon
3: City want to sue until they win, why don't they just leave the league if they don't like the *unlawful* rules (lol)
4: Meeting cancelled
 
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