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

halfcenturyup said:
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.
Click to expand...
Personally I suspect that dividends will be the long term aim of many of the US owned clubs at some point .
Clubs will now have the best part of 6 months to sort T(24/25) if they leave owners loans on the books going forward I would be surprised that is unless there PSR numbers are ok even with a nominal charge to interest.
I genuinely don’t think they will re open T-1 or -2
 
arbabarshad said:
Reading the thread, I have seen some posters say shareholder loans or equity can be used to spend money on players etc. But shareholder loans are not money earned (turnover) which is what the PSR is based on.

Whilst the shareholder loans can help with cashflow or reduce some interest costs due to low interest rates (might not be allowed going forward if these are tested for arms length principle), these loans or even if converted to equity will not equate to turnover and therefore be not much help towards PSR.
Click to expand...
You're right, but the point is that there are cashflow items that don't appear in the P&L, which could include capital repayments on loans, outlay on transfers or spending on infrastructure. Similarly there are items in the P&L that don't specifically appear in the cashflow statement, including player amortisation.

Companies can report profits, based on their T/O and expenses in the P&L account, but could also have huge cash outflows. That will apply to us, with the construction of the CFA and the South and North stand extensions. The ownership group puts the cash in as equity, rather than loans. You could argue that whether it's loans or equity used to fund these sorts of building works, there's a distinct advantage in not having to fund capital outflows commercially.

If we had to fund the North Stand and hotel construction via commercial loans, we wouldn't have that money to spend on players, so does this give us an advantage over, say, Spurs, who funded the new WHL via their own cash and commercial debt?
 
slbsn said:
I think you are asking too much of the Tribunal. If City only challenged half heartedly (I think the lack of discussion suggests this is the case) the Tribunal had no grounds to reject Herbert’s evidence. This is especially so when the counter argument is one of bad faith - that’s bound to need cogent evidence and forceful submission that just wasn’t there or available.
Click to expand...
i guess that, given the tribunal costs cold hard cash, they are only going to devote time to the specifics raised in the dispute. if city didn't ask for something to be specifically looked at, then the tribunal won't have delved deeply unless clearly relevant?
 
Chris in London said:
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?
Click to expand...
From what I understand just about every one of the current loans can be called in ( nothings changed) most I believe not immediately but on notice of between 12 mths to 2 years is common place.
In stability terms it is an issue but for me most of the owners they have used the loan vehicle because it ticks so many boxes for them . As for why they changed the rules well I suspect it was a great result for them and if you don’t ask and all that!
 
Lord Blue said:
i guess that, given the tribunal costs cold hard cash, they are only going to devote time to the specifics raised in the dispute. if city didn't ask for something to be specifically looked at, then the tribunal won't have delved deeply unless clearly relevant?
Click to expand...
The Everton IC was specifically criticised in the Appeal for delving more deeply than it was asked into some of Everton's dealings - they found a breach of good faith but then the Appeal said that this was wrong because the PL didn't charge Everton with that or plead it in the case. So yes, they will try and focus on the parties' respective cases albeit with asking questions and probing those positions.
 
halfcenturyup said:
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 ****.
Click to expand...

And on a whim a threat they email usual few clubs to have a meeting to vote on a new rule to stop Newcastle in 2021 then in 2024! They've done this for so long they think it's fine! Gill must of changed the ffp rules 3/4 times in the first 6 years of ffp all to negate us and in some cases to help his team.
 
Rory Bluelow said:
The old adage of “those who cannot do, teach” is often true, particularly where commercial and legal matters are concerned.
Click to expand...
If the law was that easy, the PL wouldn't have got it wrong. And their "practising" lawyers would have told them to save their money and give in.
 
manimanc said:
As if this bellend or anyone at the Premier League is going to get the 115 on us. Not a fuckin chance.

The way they've handled this shitshow goes to show you they haven't got a scoobies what they are doing.

Masters has committed professional suicide.
Click to expand...
Ole Mr 4th choice as I call him.
 
Chris in London said:
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?
Click to expand...
Nobody is proposing outlawing loans so I don't think the Portsmouth example is key. And whether the loans would have been called in or not, Portsmouth would've been bust very quickly without shareholder support regardless of the loans. The action of calling the loan may have triggered it (to be honest not sure if that is the case or not without checking but I'd guess HMRC really triggered the collapse) but it will always be a matter of time if the owners stop funding a club like Portsmouth.

And I would say they resisted including loans because it wasn't a meaningful advantage and helped with admin so nobody was particularly bothered Inc City. But when City needed the argument, they dusted it down and successfully ran it at the Tribunal.
 
Chris in London said:
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?
Click to expand...
Portsmouth went into administration in early 2012. And we still don't have any rules about debt or shareholder loans in PSR. It's really hard to buy the argument that the amended rules had anything to do with Portsmouth therefore.

The PL seem to have had quite an easy ride over the issue of why they introduced the original APT rules when they did, so soon after the Newcastle takeover, while simultaneously claiming this was a reaction to something that happened nearly 10 years earlier. It's disappointing that neither our legal team, nor the tribunal members raised this.

Also why they seem to have prima facie accepted the explanation of the email sent from (let's hazard a guess) Daniel Levy referring to 'Gulf states' but where verbal evidence was given that this was effectively not specifically aimed at Gulf states but was just an example.
 
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