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

[Norbiton]

Not *punishment but definitely retrospective payment of interest at commercial rates.

The clubs have gained at least a commercial advantage if not a sporting one.

*The PL allowed their own members to have interest free, non repayable and or unsecured loans.

This fact alone could lead to professional negligence claims by clubs against the PL.

It could get Lionel !!

Do the proposed new rules mean that clubs actually have to pay interest on the shareholder loans or that an amount is calculated and subtracted from allowable losses for PSR purposes?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Do the proposed new rules mean that clubs actually have to pay interest on the shareholder loans or that an amount is calculated and subtracted from allowable losses for PSR purposes?

The proposed rules don't address PSR at all, do they? Which may be a problem ...

 

[Gone for a Burton]

futuis eos longa et dura urbe !

Would make a great motto…..

ere ear

 

[Gone for a Burton]

Do the proposed new rules mean that clubs actually have to pay interest on the shareholder loans or that an amount is calculated and subtracted from allowable losses for PSR purposes?

I dont know, but its an intriguing question.

 

[KS55]

It would be easier from the PL’s pov if they did away with all the APT rules and just sent the refs out with instructions to nobble us….oh.

 

[nmc]

Let's think about what City's position is now. I suppose we can assume the club's position is still that all the APT rules are currently null and void in their entirety.

The PL's document doesn't say, apparently, that the tribunal has clarified this issue. So where does that leave issues like the lawfulness of PSR, the restatement of PSR numbers for shareholder loans, the legality of sanctions issued under PSR and the rest?

Are we going to see further legal action from the club, as threatened before?

You’d think maybe the PL are leaving themselves open to a range of challenges. If PSR were recalculated for the last period and included a calculation for a FMV afor shareholder loans that could majorly impact, finishing positions (assuming points deductions) prize money and relegation… From City’s perspective a return to the Tribunal for clarification has to remain an option.

 

[nmc]

Do the proposed new rules mean that clubs actually have to pay interest on the shareholder loans or that an amount is calculated and subtracted from allowable losses for PSR purposes?

I bet it’ll be the latter but to be consistent with the PLs approach re sponsorship it should be the former but consistently and fairness are alien concepts to Masters and co.

 

[ManCitizens.]

What’s the point in applying it but not punishing I don’t see how that makes sense logically

Do you really want the PL to have the power to retrospectively punish clubs? We’d be the number one target for some bullshit change that they could then charge us with.

It’s common sense not to punish clubs retrospectively as they’d argue they wouldn’t have done what they did if the rules were different from the get go.

 

[cheekybids]

Do you really want the PL to have the power to retrospectively punish clubs? We’d be the number one target for some bullshit change that they could then charge us with.

It’s common sense not to punish clubs retrospectively as they’d argue they wouldn’t have done what they did if the rules were different from the get go.

I can’t imagine a time with no charges ;)

 

[WRicko]

Do you really want the PL to have the power to retrospectively punish clubs? We’d be the number one target for some bullshit change that they could then charge us with.

It’s common sense not to punish clubs retrospectively as they’d argue they wouldn’t have done what they did if the rules were different from the get go.

One we do not have any shareholder loans or any issues. However you missing my point. I am not saying they should apply retrospectively or punish retrospectively I am saying there is no sense in applying it retrospectively and not punishing as your in affect saying you broke the rules but it doesn’t matter. Better to just say you didn’t break the rules

 

[Centurions]

One we do not have any shareholder loans or any issues. However you missing my point. I am not saying they should apply retrospectively or punish retrospectively I am saying there is no sense in applying it retrospectively and not punishing as your in affect saying you broke the rules but it doesn’t matter. Better to just say you didn’t break the rules

Which no one has as they were/are the rules as of this moment in time. There's not a scooby's chance of any retrospective punishment nor of having the (non-existent) interest taken into account retrospectively, no matter how much we may find it funny. Can we (not aimed at yourself) not all move on from this nonsense.

 

[Tarzan41]

20205 is 18,181 years away.

We will still be in for Isco

 

[calumdown]

We will still be in for Isco

 

[Stoned Rose]

The 'advantage/benefit' has been available since the inception of the loan.

The accrued interest, penalties and sanctions must go back to the start of the loan.....at the very least

Brightons interest free share holder loans are a £100 million more than HH Sheikh Mansour paid for the entirety of City.

Retrospective interest should be set at the rate applicable at the time.

Brighton for example should be paying circa £24 million pa X the length of the loan. Everton could be paying substantially more.

However adva

The PL will try and fudge this with no retrospective interest payments because their own rules were UNLAWFUL.

However,commercial and sporting advantage has been gained and two wrongs never made a right.

These bastards signed up to the letter and wanted to destroy us.....fuck them long and hard City !!

Well in GFAB.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

But what would it actually mean ? You apply it retrospectively and say to the club you would have failed but we don’t care ? We won’t do anything ? Why not just not apply it retrospectively ? What about existing loans going forward ? Are you saying don’t punish for that going forward as well

What I should have explained was that you'd take it into account on future assessments, which are done on a rolling 3-year basis, but not on any assessment where all 3 years were in the past. So if the new rules apply from 2025/26, you could include revised accounts from 2023/24 and 2024/25.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Do the proposed new rules mean that clubs actually have to pay interest on the shareholder loans or that an amount is calculated and subtracted from allowable losses for PSR purposes?

I'd guess the interest would be added to the loan and would have to be reported in the P&L account, whether it's paid or not.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Immortal.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Would the PL announcing that Masters leaving his role be a clue as to how things have gone ? :)

 

[halfcenturyup]

One we do not have any shareholder loans or any issues. However you missing my point. I am not saying they should apply retrospectively or punish retrospectively I am saying there is no sense in applying it retrospectively and not punishing as your in affect saying you broke the rules but it doesn’t matter. Better to just say you didn’t break the rules

You could say the rules were broken but interest on shareholder loans is a mitigating factor.

 

[nmc]

Which no one has as they were/are the rules as of this moment in time. There's not a scooby's chance of any retrospective punishment nor of having the (non-existent) interest taken into account retrospectively, no matter how much we may find it funny. Can we (not aimed at yourself) not all move on from this nonsense.

Move on you say…. I guess we should but the PL and the Red cartel won’t be moving on… they won’t settle until City are out of business.