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

waspish said:
It's why the meetings been cancelled they know they won't get the votes! Funny if the other have the votes not to push anything they want through they have someone at the top to just cancel a scheduled meeting! All ifs on buts on my part though
Click to expand...
I reckon you are correct mate. I think the respective clubs’ positions will have been made clear to the PL since last week, or at least enough to act as an effective veto.

I wonder how Ipswich would vote?
 
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...
Or some not so minor costs if you play in red and need a fucking huge exception to make the threshold you deemed was acceptable when writing the rules on a napkin.
 
slbsn said:
They don’t understand that such loans are basically equity anyway. Everton’s shareholder loans are actually treated as equity in their accounts under FRS102.22. The owners can achieve most of the aims of shareholder loans (like added security) with slithers of loans. And this was the explanation from one lawyer in the Athletic. He doesn’t get it because even his number is highly misleading.View attachment 134985
Click to expand...
So you think the PL won't have to rewrite the APT rules (back to say 2021) and factor in the loans and interest into the PSR calculations for those clubs with interest free loans? Also the new anchoring proposals won't need to include them either - assuming they are not converted into equity?
 
Wouldn't be surprised if most clubs want to drop the APT stuff now that shareholder loans have to be included.

Meetings probably been cancelled because they won't be able to vote through the actual changes required to make APT work.

The red shirts wanted a version of APT that blocked others from doing what they wanted but allowed them to do as they pleased. Now that's been rumbled as illegal, the league is at a sticking point.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I reckon you are correct mate. I think the respective clubs’ positions will have been made clear to the PL since last week, or at least enough to act as an effective veto.

I wonder how Ipswich would vote?
Click to expand...
US owned so they'll probably vote with the redshirt cartel etc and their catamites - Spurs, Brentford & Brighton. There's a chance though that they'll join a US owned splinter group with Everton, Villa & Chelsea.
 
Last edited:
argyle said:
Someone should tell Sam Wallace....
Click to expand...
Good post . I just listened to The Athletic podcast and one of the journalists , who has been doing a deep dive into the judgement, says it's been hard to get any lawyers to go on record at this stage as so many of them are advising PL teams as to their individual positions ....and don't want to declare for one side of the other . Suggests to me that this will take some time to sort out .
 
johnny crossan said:
US owned so they'll probably vote with the redshirt cartel and their catamites - Spurs, Brentford & Bournemouth. There's a chance though that they'll join a US owned splinter group with Everton, Villa & Chelsea.
Click to expand...
It’s all about self interest at the end of the day.
 
meltonblue said:
The Portsmouth reference was around the implementation of PSR in the first place wasn’t it, rather than around APTs? Or are you saying that in terms of how much the underlying motivations behind some of the PSR rules had changed?

Or is it they’re referring to Portsmouth when they talk about “misplaced references to one administrative procedure of one PL club 14 years ago”?
Click to expand...

Yes. The matters relied on by the PL are outlined at paras 17-18 and explained in more detail at paras 180-185. I don’t read the “misplaced” issue as referring to anything other than Portsmouth
 
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...
Except that calling in shareholders loans was precisely what fucked Portsmouth. Which according to the PL was what motivated the changes in the first place.

So is it not that much of an issue after all?

And if you’re right that it’s not that much of an issue have you applied your mind to (a) why they bothered changing the rules in the first place and (b) why they tried to exempt shareholder loans from the regulations?
 
johnny crossan said:
So you think the PL won't have to rewrite the APT rules (back to say 2021) and factor in the loans and interest into the PSR calculations for those clubs with interest free loans? Also the new anchoring proposals won't need to include them either - assuming they are not converted into equity?
Click to expand...

Tbf, I don't think anyone knows what is going on in the background. Without knowing that, it's difficult to make educated guesses.

And there are very few people in the country with their competition law experience to understand it, so we just have to wait for more news then try to make sense of it later.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
I suspect Masters doesn't want to face the clubs until he has an idea of how much compensation they have to pay City which will hit them all in the pockets.
Click to expand...
Didn't he blow of some big event with the yank broadcasters to attend this emergency meeting? So he potentially fucks up the biggest overseas TV deal by blowing off their execs to chair a meeting and then cancels it? We knew he was an incompetent corrupt clown but he's taking ineptitude to new levels.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It’s all about self interest at the end of the day.
Click to expand...

And that is exactly what is wrong with the structure of the PL. The PL should be proposing rules that are for the benefit of the league as a whole, not just any old rule stupid rule that 14 myopic clubs will vote for.

You can be sure Masters is talking to the legal people from Liverpool, Arsenal and United to decide what to do next. The ****.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It’s all about self interest at the end of the day.
Click to expand...
Yes, but a shifty redesign of the rules in favour of the tyrannical majority is now impossible after what's happened in the last week.

Golf; cancelled. Tweaking; cancelled. Early meetings; cancelled. More legal advice; needed.

Some may think City didn't score much of a victory last week, but it's very clear that, after more than a week - avoiding any sesquipidalian new-speak - a great deal of piss is still boiling.
 
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