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

give it to gordon said:
The point I don't understand regarding these loans is under UEFA they are included in the ffp, but not included in the pl.
So how does that work ? Do clubs in Europe have two sets of finance books, one without the loans for the PL. Than another finance book which includes the loans for UEFA ffp ?
Click to expand...
Probably.

We have three sets of books, with the correct set safely kept in Abu Dhabi.
 
give it to gordon said:
The point I don't understand regarding these loans is under UEFA they are included in the ffp, but not included in the pl.
So how does that work ? Do clubs in Europe have two sets of finance books, one without the loans for the PL. Than another finance book which includes the loans for UEFA ffp ?
Click to expand...
They just adjust the filing for UEFA. Quite a few differences between the regimes
 
give it to gordon said:
The point I don't understand regarding these loans is under UEFA they are included in the ffp, but not included in the pl.
So how does that work ? Do clubs in Europe have two sets of finance books, one without the loans for the PL. Than another finance book which includes the loans for UEFA ffp ?
Click to expand...

I thought the issue was the interest-free aspect of the loans rather than the loans themselves which are included in FFP.
 
slbsn said:
Don't understand the question. If you mean does a finding of object restriction equate to a finding that its inclusion was by design, yes I think it does.
Click to expand...
So you agree with Matt Lawton in The Times: "Crucially, the panel deemed the rules to be unlawful, and in breach of competition law “by object”, a serious and damning infringement akin to price-fixing by cartel members."?
 
slbsn said:
One set of accounts with different presentations for different audiences
Click to expand...

Doesn't that allow the pl clubs to spend more than the other European leagues ? If the pl had the same rules as the UEFA these clubs would have less money to spend but the same as they European competitors.

I don't understand how you can have two sets of rules with two different financial rules !!

You can pass the pl rules but fail UEFA like the rags

But City are cleared by CAS but charged by the pl
 
halfcenturyup said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well the conspirators should have thought of that instead of being hellbent on fucking City and Newcastle over.

No sympathey on my part .
 
give it to gordon said:
Doesn't that allow the pl clubs to spend more than the other European leagues ? If the pl had the same rules as the UEFA these clubs would have less money to spend but the same as they European competitors.

I don't understand how you can have two sets of rules with two different financial rules !!

You can pass the pl rules but fail UEFA like the rags
Click to expand...


rags are exempt under the soon-to-be-extinct protected species legislation
 
halfcenturyup said:
It obviously looked like a duck, but Herbert and his witnesses said that it didn't quack and, it seems, nobody from City's counsel said it was quacking like hell. Which makes me think there was benefit for the club to take that approach somewhere.

As always, we need to be patient and see how everything plays out in both these cases, I think, before we jump to conclusions.
Click to expand...
The allegation would’ve been racism, perhaps we decided that pursuing that would be too destructive for Premier League when found guilty
 
slbsn said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with this regarding the position going forward. I think the amendments required to the rules to make them compliant are relatively straightforward and not particularly dramatic (although possibly still a win in City's eyes). Of course, the PL will also have to pass a vote with new drafting in and that may not be straightforward depending on how the various interest groups among the PL clubs shake out.

The historic position is however much more complicated. The problem is that without the inclusion of shareholder loans as APTs, the rules are unlawful. And it seems likely that several clubs may have failed PSR if they had been included (or even if not failed, had less headroom and been able to spend less). You might say that if they'd known this those clubs would've restructured their shareholder loans. Maybe- probably, even - but it's not certain.

So this means you have a situation where some clubs have been punished under unlawful rules when their competitors (who may have breached equally or even more severely if the rules had been lawful). I do see that as a really difficult problem for the PL to resolve.
 
slbsn said:
The judgment seems pretty clear to me that if tested PSR is also unlawful per the shareholder loan point - so separate but deeply connected. But I think it will be fixed.

As it happens I think there is an error in para 258 on this point. It says the Tribunal have been asked whether the exclusion of shareholder loans from the PSR distorts competition. But then go on to answer for APT Rules. City submitted that the exclusion of shareholder loans from the APT Rules was an object restriction. And the Tribunal agreed but it did not conclude on PSR as far as I can see unless anyone can spot it.




View attachment 135831
Click to expand...

Seems like a mistake in wording. I guess. Can happen. There are plenty of spelling mistakes too.

On the unlawfulness of APT, though. It's your view that the unlawfulness can be corrected easily going forward, but that damages can be awarded to any losses incurred as a result of the application of unlawful rules?

If we have the same situation for PSR because of shareholder loans, which seems likely if there is a challenge, surely that is opening up an enormous can of worms? I am beginning to see why Masters cancelled his golf event now.
 
Colin Bells Boots said:
rags are exempt under the soon-to-be-extinct protected species legislation
Click to expand...
Well let's hope so, many of the on field and off fiald rules are there to be used to be observed to the letter by City but seldomly used against those who wrote them.
Almost as though they are not rules but journalistic opinions giving opposing views of news items so they can always be right.
Thank heaven's the UK Legal process is expected to be followed.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
that's exactly what City went for reading the judgment. They wanted shareholder loans classed as RPT's and I think they've got that reading between the lines. Which possibly makes the whole PSR rules unlawful as well
Click to expand...
Since their inception?
 
Braggster said:
I agree with this regarding the position going forward. I think the amendments required to the rules to make them compliant are relatively straightforward and not particularly dramatic (although possibly still a win in City's eyes). Of course, the PL will also have to pass a vote with new drafting in and that may not be straightforward depending on how the various interest groups among the PL clubs shake out.

The historic position is however much more complicated. The problem is that without the inclusion of shareholder loans as APTs, the rules are unlawful. And it seems likely that several clubs may have failed PSR if they had been included (or even if not failed, had less headroom and been able to spend less). You might say that if they'd known this those clubs would've restructured their shareholder loans. Maybe- probably, even - but it's not certain.

So this means you have a situation where some clubs have been punished under unlawful rules when their competitors (who may have breached equally or even more severely if the rules had been lawful). I do see that as a really difficult problem for the PL to resolve.
Click to expand...
I think the PL's position going forward is just as complicated as their unlawful past. Their new Squad Cost & Anchoring Rules still need to incorporate the value of shareholder loans + tax which is simply kryptonite for the cartel.
 
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