I think I have it worked out.
The club's position is that the rules were found unlawful, so they have been null and void since 2021. This means any assessments made in that period are also null and void. Which is the club's main interest, of course. Etihad sails through. It also means an entire set of new rules, vetted for unlawfulness (I can't believe I am writing that), should be put in place.
The club's position on the PL's position is that you can't just amend rules to become lawful from 2024, but leave the old unlawfulness in place from 2021-2024. That in itself will also be unlawful. So the PL is exposing itself to a new challenge if it goes ahead.
My guess is they postpone the vote until the tribunal gives its view on whether the current rules are null and void or not.
Edit: I still don't see how PSR comes into it. Yet. At this stage. Currently.
Looks like they've taken advice from Zippy then.The parties are supposed to go back to the panel with proposals. The PL agreed to do this originally but have backed out.
Should we be concerned about who comes up/goes down at the end of the season?
Assuming the PL finally get to a vote after the above.... wouldn't put it past them to be deliberately fucking about so a vote can't happen until they have the required patsies in a row.
Tom Robinson Band.Who sang that?
Seven“Our problem was we just kept winning.”
Perfection in six words.
No because the vote is meaningless if it is unlawful.Should we be concerned about who comes up/goes down at the end of the season?
Assuming the PL finally get to a vote after the above.... wouldn't put it past them to be deliberately fucking about so a vote can't happen until they have the required patsies in a row.
The opposite seems to be true - they're trying to rush a vote through nowShould we be concerned about who comes up/goes down at the end of the season?
Assuming the PL finally get to a vote after the above.... wouldn't put it past them to be deliberately fucking about so a vote can't happen until they have the required patsies in a row.
have you got a cold? ;-)I think most fans don't understand all these financial rules. Seems us Citizens are becoming experts lol.
Talking to a Brighton fan the other day I asked if he was worried about Brighton having to pay interest on the clubs loads ?
He replied no we won't have to pay an interest on them as they are loads from the owner !
have you got a cold? ;-)
Or just why take the chance. State what you will do if the rules are passed, might save everyone some money.I'm thinking that us leaking the letter means we are not confident the PL vote will go our way. A disturbance in the force possibly.
have you got a cold? ;-)
Should have consulted George. The pink hippo knows his stuff.Looks like they've taken advice from Zippy then.
Tom Robinson Band.
Great album. - Power In The Darkness
Should have consulted George. The pink hippo knows his stuff.
Oh, Malcolm!TUNES.
Is the problem not one of definition? It seems that certain deals were defined as APTs solely because certain clubs considered certain sponsorships concluded by City were RPTs but the accountants are clear that none of them fulfil the conditions of an RPT laid down by international accounting standards. Hence they were now classified as APTs and subject to FMV. The problem is that many clubs had received loans from owners and these did not attract interest and often had no date for repayment. These were not to be classified as APTs, not because they were obviously RPTs, but because the PL had decreed it should be so. But FFP, UEFA style, was preoccupied with "subsidies" from owners and owner loans should come under RPT regs and be subject to FMV. Is this why City want this retrospective element because clubs have been flouting the regs for more than a decade with the cooperation of the PL and UEFA?Not sure I get this issue with the new shareholder loan rule not being applied retrospectively.
We are only talking about the APT rules here.
The club's position is that the current rules are null and void, and so they shouldn't have been applied to any 2021-2024 transactions at all.
The PL's position is that the new rules solve the unlawfulness, but that they should only be applied going forward, leaving a period 2021-2024 in which the rules unlawfully excluded shareholder loans. And the club's position is that, following the PL's position, the new rules should be applied backwards to 2021-2024 transactions to correct the unlawfulness. But they can't because it's an ex-ante review and so impossible. Which is why they are null and void in the first place.
Is that it?
There is a much bigger problem for the PL in the treatment of shareholder loans for FFP/PSR back to 2013 , of course, but that isn't relevant here, is it, as the judgment, other than by implication, didn't conclude on that?
Is the problem not one of definition? It seems that certain deals were defined as APTs solely because certain clubs considered certain sponsorships concluded by City were RPTs but the accountants are clear that none of them fulfil the conditions of an RPT laid down by international accounting standards. Hence they were now classified as APTs and subject to FMV. The problem is that many clubs had received loans from owners and these did not attract interest and often had no date for repayment. These were not to be classified as APTs, not because they were obviously RPTs, but because the PL had decreed it should be so. But FFP, UEFA style, was preoccupied with "subsidies" from owners and owner loans should come under RPT regs and be subject to FMV. Is this why City want this retrospective element because clubs have been flouting the regs for more than a decade with the cooperation of the PL and UEFA?