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

[The Stockport Iniesta]

It's a bit more complex than that. To make APT lawful they'll have to include director loans & apply the amended rules retrospectively. Obviously, this has several serious implications.

If they throw the whole lot out, it has serious implications for clubs affected by the unlawful APT rule.

From what I can see, the PL are fucked if they do, & fucked if they don't. They've only got themselves to blame...

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

Fuck em!!

 

[halfcenturyup]

The PL could try to show Etihad is caught by IAS 24. That presumably would have to be decided by the tribunal in the 115 Case or by a specific action. Good luck with that.
UEFA tried this but it never went anywhere due to the settlement of our first case.

That is what is happening, I think. The PL are re-opening the question of RPT and fair value on the AD sponsorships in the 115 case That seems to me to be the only reason why that redacted paragraph in the APT reasoning makes any sense.

As you say, good luck with that.

 

[cheekybids]

The PL could try to show Etihad is caught by IAS 24. That presumably would have to be decided by the tribunal in the 115 Case or by a specific action. Good luck with that.
UEFA tried this but it never went anywhere due to the settlement of our first case.

I believe that’s called getting off on a technicality……

 

[WRicko]

The Telegraph artticle is so biast it's untrue.
The point that scrutinisation of Arsenal and Liverpool occurs under UEFA rules are irrelevant. As has been proven with City.

The PL legal advisors probably told them they were in trouble on a number of counts.
Probadly as follows:

1. Loans are either included or they're not.
- If they're not then sponsorships prior to the new improved rules must also be excluded.
if theyre not then City will go back to the tribuneral and win again as sure as night follows day.

2. To comply with the ruling the final decision on sponsorships will have to be arbitured by an independent body and NOT by the PL.

3. Information will have to be shared with City as to the reasons why the PL want to block the sponsorships at various stages in the process. Including information about comparable sponsorship amounts by other clubs.
- As the sponsorships that were rejected were not much bigger than other clubs recent clubs recent sponsorships then the PL clearly wants to pay City even more money.

4. The PL will have to agree compensation with City for:
- Loss of two sponsorships.
AND
- The fact that the rules were declared ILLEGAL, UNFAIR and UNREASONABLE.

What a bunch of clowns.

I think you mean sponsorship must be included

 

[BlueAnorak]

The PL could try to show Etihad is caught by IAS 24. That presumably would have to be decided by the tribunal in the 115 Case or by a specific action. Good luck with that.
UEFA tried this but it never went anywhere due to the settlement of our first case.

Good luck with that - i know IAS has tightened the "Related Party" rules over the last 10 years, but Sheikh Mansour is still not a related party by the current rules.
The PL trying to change that interpretation will probably get our auditors suing them for implying they don't work with due diligence.
Extraordinary.
What a bunch of clowns.

 

[BlueAnorak]

I think you mean sponsorship must be included

The second "not" applied to the previous sentence not the original sentence. I have made the meaning clearer.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

I see the Telegraph changed the article from this Thursday to next Tuesday as though nothing has happened...
No mention of legal and financial advice.

The Telegraph's football journalists hatred of City knows no bounds.

They’re going for the Newcastle takeover in a big way today. Several articles as well as the hit job on City…apparently some MPs (*eeeek*) want to re-examine the takeover. Good luck with that.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Good luck with that - i know IAS has tightened the "Related Party" rules over the last 10 years, but Sheikh Mansour is still not a related party by the current t rules.
The PL trying to change that interpretation will probably get our auditors suing them for implying they don't work with due diligence.
Extraordinary.
What a bunch of clowns.

Sheikh Mansour would almost certainly be a related party to City. However there's no way he could be described as a related party to Etihad. Nor are Etihad a related party to City.

 

[Matt Diablo]

Quite beautiful how this is all playing out. Almost like military precision . . .

 

[Grassland Blue]

Quite beautiful how this is all playing out. Almost like military precision . . .

'Tis like a David Silva through ball....

 

[Gaz (FMwkdsoul)]

It's a bit more complex than that. To make APT lawful they'll have to include director loans & apply the amended rules retrospectively. Obviously, this has several serious implications.

If they throw the whole lot out, it has serious implications for clubs affected by the unlawful APT rule.

From what I can see, the PL are fucked if they do, & fucked if they don't. They've only got themselves to blame...

not seen this, is this confirmed anywhere? @slbsn ?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Sheikh Mansour would almost certainly be a related party to City. However there's no way he could be described as a related party to Etihad. Nor are Etihad a related party to City.

And yet UEFA persuaded PwC to say they were related a decade ago. Worth a punt for them, I guess.

 

[slbsn]

not seen this, is this confirmed anywhere? @slbsn ?

I don't agree with these domesday (from the PL's perspective) scenarios. Suspect the actual amendments will ULTIMATELY be relatively straightforward. Remember shareholder loans is a PSR and an APT issue but I think it is unlikely it makes all PSR null and void or that it requires retrospective application of shareholder loans. That said, nobody knows - not the clubs, not City, not the PL. There is no simple answer to these sort of questions.

 

[halfcenturyup]

not seen this, is this confirmed anywhere? @slbsn ?

The only things confirmed are what was set out in the award.

But the theory is that City think the APT rules are null and void and so not enforceable until they are re-written and pre-approved. Win for City as the Etihad deal isn't challenged.

The PL seems to think they can tweak the rules. They can't tweak the rules for assessing deals retroactively, but not tweak the rules for shareholder loans retroactively, so they either have to do both retroactively which will be difficult with voting (even if it's legal) or do neither, which is a win for City as the Etihad deal isn't challenged.

I think.

 

[Gaz (FMwkdsoul)]

The club only things confirmed are what was set out in the award.

But the theory is that City think the APT rules are null and void and so not enforceable until they are re-written and pre-approved. Win for City as the Etihad deal isn't challenged.

The PL seems to think they can tweak the rules. They can't tweak the rules for assessing deals retroactively, but not tweak the rules for shareholder loans retroactively, so they either have to do both retroactively which will be difficult with voting (even if it's legal) or do neither, which is a win for City as the Etihad deal isn't challenged.

I think.

Draw a line in the sand, and apply the new rules/amendments Im expecting.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Draw a line in the sand, and apply the new rules/amendments Im expecting.

Very likely a drawing of a line under City's issues.

But what happens if other clubs have suffered consequences because of all this? Could still get messy.

 

[johnny crossan]

I don't agree with these domesday (from the PL's perspective) scenarios. Suspect the actual amendments will ULTIMATELY be relatively straightforward. Remember shareholder loans is a PSR and an APT issue but I think it is unlikely it makes all PSR null and void or that it requires retrospective application of shareholder loans. That said, nobody knows - not the clubs, not City, not the PL. There is no simple answer to these sort of questions.

Even the Blind Pugh can see the PL are in deep doo doo Stefan - there's nowhere for the PSR rules (or the replacement version) to go without folding in shareholder loans and that is their Doomsday scenario. Self fulfilling prophecies rarely end well.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Sheikh Mansour would almost certainly be a related party to City. However there's no way he could be described as a related party to Etihad. Nor are Etihad a related party to City.

Exactly my point.
2 sponsorships are covered as Sheikh Mansour has personal shareholdings in those UAE companies. Etisalat is one.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I don't agree with these domesday (from the PL's perspective) scenarios. Suspect the actual amendments will ULTIMATELY be relatively straightforward. Remember shareholder loans is a PSR and an APT issue but I think it is unlikely it makes all PSR null and void or that it requires retrospective application of shareholder loans. That said, nobody knows - not the clubs, not City, not the PL. There is no simple answer to these sort of questions.

Do you think shareholders loans for APT and shareholders loans for FFP/PSR are separate issues?

Simplistically, you would think if the treatment of shareholder loans makes the APT rules unlawful, then it makes the PSR rules unlawful too, if challenged. And if the rules have been applied unlawfully since inception, that is a big problem.

But, I suppose, there may be different arguments for the current PSR position compared to the current APT position.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Exactly my point.
2 sponsorships are covered as Sheikh Mansour has personal shareholdings in those UAE companies. Etisalat is one.

Having a personal shareholding in a company doesn't make it a related party, does it? It may have changed but it didn't in my day.