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

[Gone for a Burton]

Shocking finishing mate.

Leave Erling out of this eh !!

 

[SilverFox2]

Still pisses me off / don’t understand why if we are being charged retrospectively and the ruling is these interest free loans should of been including from the start, why aren’t the loans and interest being added retrospectively?

The real problem has been that the PL has only very recently seen the need for their rules to be checked for legality and fairness.

Let other Clubs worry about things that affect them and we will leave things alone that benefit us and react only if any changes adversely affect us.

Just my opinion.

 

[Centurions]

Still pisses me off / don’t understand why if we are being charged retrospectively and the ruling is these interest free loans should of been including from the start, why aren’t the loans and interest being added retrospectively?

Because they followed the PL's own rules. The PL can't allow it one day and the very next say you're in breach and we're going to punish you. There would be unending court cases and the courts would 100% find in the clubs favour. I've no idea why people are struggling with this simple concept.

 

[Brendan110_0]

I'm 85% lacoste intolerant

Snap, only wearing 15% Lacoste in one go.

 

[cityontheup]

The real problem has been that the PL has only very recently seen the need for their rules to be checked for legality and fairness.

Let other Clubs worry about things that affect them and we will leave things alone that benefit us and react only if any changes adversely affect us.

Just my opinion.

But that’s not right, if these loans had been included from the start that might of affected who and how they bought players, which indirectly affects us and every other club in the league and is clearly an advantage given how much we spend and earn is scrutinised to the penny.

 

[cityontheup]

Because they followed the PL's own rules. The PL can't allow it one day and the very next say you're in breach and we're going to punish you. There would be unending court cases and the courts would 100% find in the clubs favour. I've no idea why people are struggling with this simple concept.

But the rules have been found to be illegal precisely because these loans weren’t included

 

[SilverFox2]

But that’s not right, if these loans had been included from the start that might of affected who and how they bought players, which indirectly affects us and every other club in the league and is clearly an advantage given how much we spend and earn is scrutinised to the penny.

Possibly this will be evaluated should we win in the compensation we will hopefully receive.

 

[Chris in London]

Thanks for trying.

Still struggling with how you can have a grace period to correct something that has been previously found to be unlawful, tbh, but that is my problem and it will become clear soon enough, I guess :)

Appreciate your explanations as always.

Because shareholder loans aren’t illegal. They haven’t been found to be illegal.

What’s illegal is a system of law that outlaws a whole series of APTs EXCEPT FOR shareholder loans. It’s the exclusion of shareholder loans that make the APT rules unlawful, not the loans themselves.

 

[KS55]

The meeting is going to be fun.
Masters goes before the firing squad, singing:
“I did it my way.”

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Getting the spade off him is proving to be the difficult but atm.

The PL might be better off cutting their losses and throwing him to the wolves but the problem of appeasing the cabal members isn't going to be easy.

Life really is a bitch at times .

 

[cheekybids]

Because shareholder loans aren’t illegal. They haven’t been found to be illegal.

What’s illegal is a system of law that outlaws a whole series of APTs EXCEPT FOR shareholder loans. It’s the exclusion of shareholder loans that make the APT rules unlawful, not the loans themselves.

So will that make the APTs null & void until the rules become lawful…

 

[jrb]

The deal hasn’t been confirmed on the Barcelona website yet, but it’s on numerous websites.

So, how much should City’s new Etihad sponsorship deal be?


Barcelona president Joan Laporta has reportedly told the club’s board that the long-awaited new kit deal with Nike has finally been approved.

RAC1 are reporting it’s been signed off from Barcelona’s point of view and now just needs the Nike signatures to make it all official.

The contract with the sportswear giant is set to be extended until 2038 and will have a total value of a rather eye-watering €1.7 billion.

Barca will receive an increase of around €48m until 2028 and an additional €58-60m from 2028 to 2038.

Barcelona’s new Nike deal not enough to return to 1:1 rule or register Dani Olmo - report

An interesting update

www.barcablaugranes.com

 

[WRicko]

The deal hasn’t been confirmed on the Barcelona website yet, but it’s on numerous websites.

So, how much should City’s new Etihad sponsorship deal be?


Barcelona president Joan Laporta has reportedly told the club’s board that the long-awaited new kit deal with Nike has finally been approved.

RAC1 are reporting it’s been signed off from Barcelona’s point of view and now just needs the Nike signatures to make it all official.

The contract with the sportswear giant is set to be extended until 2038 and will have a total value of a rather eye-watering €1.7 billion.

Barca will receive an increase of around €48m until 2028 and an additional €58-60m from 2028 to 2038.

Barcelona’s new Nike deal not enough to return to 1:1 rule or register Dani Olmo - report

An interesting update

www.barcablaugranes.com

Not really comparable

 

[jrb]

Not really comparable

True.

But, Etihad are renewing the shirt sponsorship deal, as well as the Etihad stadium, and Etihad Campus. On that basis Etihad are getting huge worldwide exposure, especially via the PL, the CL, and the up and coming World Club Cup tournament in America.

 

[MadchesterCity]

But, but, but.....I thought the Premier League said it was very easy to amend the rules?

After reading this below, it seems it may drag on for a fair while yet. Apparently they're talking about applying different interest rates to different clubs for shareholder loans based on the credit score of each club (which, as unfair as that sounds, is arguably the proper way to do it) and some clubs aren't happy about it!

"Concerns have been raised to the Premier League that proposed new rules on shareholder loans will hand a further advantage to the top flight's wealthiest clubs.
A challenge to the league's associated party transaction (APT) rules by Manchester City has forced it to include a fair market value assessment of such loans in amended rules to be put before clubs at a meeting later this month.
Club owners and other shareholders were previously able to put in interest-free loans, but it is now proposed an effective rate of interest will be applied to them which will vary from club to club depending on their credit score.
The PA news agency understands some clubs have questioned the charging of variable rates - arguing it hands an advantage to clubs with the deepest pockets.
However, the league is understood to have advised clubs who pushed back that the rate could not be the same across all clubs for legal reasons.
An arbitration panel found the APT rules were unlawful because they excluded shareholder loans.
The rule amendment will not require fair market value interest charges to be backdated to the time the loan was first issued. However, it is understood the proposed amendment would mean an effective interest rate would be applied to any existing loan going forward after a grace period - not just to new loans.
During the grace period, club owners and shareholders who have put in loans will have the option to convert them to equity if they wish, though doing so makes taking their money out less straightforward.
Clubs are set to vote on a number of APT rule amendments at a meeting in London on November 22.
One involves replacing "would" with "could" in the wording of what constitutes fair market value within the rules, which should have the effect of providing more wriggle room to clubs."

These point seem unfair on clubs that don’t have shareholder loans

The rule amendment will not require fair market value interest charges to be backdated to the time the loan was first issued.
During the grace period, club owners and shareholders who have put in loans will have the option to convert them to equity if they wish

 

[halfcenturyup]

Because shareholder loans aren’t illegal. They haven’t been found to be illegal.

What’s illegal is a system of law that outlaws a whole series of APTs EXCEPT FOR shareholder loans. It’s the exclusion of shareholder loans that make the APT rules unlawful, not the loans themselves.

Yes, I understand that. But for the grace period the PL still effectively wants to exclude shareholder loans from the APT rules. So what I don't understand is why, for the grace period, the rules aren't still unlawful or, I suppose, how you can have a grace period at all to correct unlawfulness.

It's OK, Chris. I am happy to accept that not understanding this is my problem and that you know (at least, iirc) 100 times more about all this than I ever will.

Still weird to me, though.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Btw, it's interesting that Keegan was the first to break the story of the meeting and talk about what was in the 14 page document, followed by Ziegler. Normally Ziegler is the PL's go-to person and Keegan gave a very pro-City view when the decision was announced, do much do that we assumed he had been briefed by City. Maybe City leaked this this time?

The problem is that we are reading from reports written by people who don't understand the importance of what they themselves are reading. So there is probably more to all this yet to come out.

I seem to remember Keegan (was it?) said the PL had asked the tribunal for clarification but they hadn't received it yet? Yes, here it is: "And clarity has been sought from the tribunal panel on whether the amendments, rather than a complete overhaul, satisfy their requirements." Has been sought. Old news. So the document doesn't say it has been received.

Still some way to go on all this, I imagine.

 

[Keeper!]

True.

But, Etihad are renewing the shirt sponsorship deal, as well as the Etihad stadium, and Etihad Campus. On that basis Etihad are getting huge worldwide exposure, especially via the PL, the CL, and the up and coming World Club Cup tournament in America.

Different rules for Arabs, you should know the score by now.

Just wait until the "new" old trafford construction is announced and more importantly how it will be funded. All these present "consultations" are a crock, the deal and the details will already be in place.

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Fuck me. Thought I would catch up with this thread after a weeks graft.

For a simple lad like me can somebody explain what the fucks going on?
We won yes? But the rules have now been tweaked? Didn't city say that they would not be voting for ant more illegal changes or rules. I'm lost on this one peeps. Cheers in advance

 

[richards30]

True.

But, Etihad are renewing the shirt sponsorship deal, as well as the Etihad stadium, and Etihad Campus. On that basis Etihad are getting huge worldwide exposure, especially via the PL, the CL, and the up and coming World Club Cup tournament in America.

thats what many rival fans cant understand about a potential £100m a year deal with etihad is that its not just for a shirt but the shirt, stadium and training campus??