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

ArtetaTechnicalArea said:
It a 20 team league. The rules have been voted for by a super majority of 14. I don't understand how the league can function if every club took it upon themselves to sue if they were one of the 6 whose vote went the rong way.

Where does it end?
Click to expand...
Can they vote on everything, then? If so, you need to be careful what you wish for.
Perhaps they’ll suggest:
No relegation from PL?
Bottom 14 clubs vote to have the top 6 start the following season on minus 40 points?
Any ‘history’ team not properly promoted, but voted in, automatically deducted 75 points?

Of course, what would then happen is the ‘top 6’ would threaten to leave and take their tv money with them, as they did when they set up the PL in the first place. A tyranny of the minority, if you like.
 
ArtetaTechnicalArea said:
It a 20 team league. The rules have been voted for by a super majority of 14. I don't understand how the league can function if every club took it upon themselves to sue if they were one of the 6 whose vote went the rong way.

Where does it end?
Click to expand...
You really are a bit stupid aren't you
 
Vienna_70 said:
From what I understand in the article on the BBC, the Premier League is saying that low or zero interest loans from shareholders will be retrospectively exempt.

That is a fucking disgrace, if true.

More shithousery from the cartel clubs.
Click to expand...
Yes . Agree . There's a story staring the media in the face right there. Make a connection between the clubs that would be affected by retrospective shareholder loans interest payments and the votes cast to make interest payments prospective . Turkeys voting for Christmas ?

I can only guess why our sleuth like journalists at the BBC failed to point this out .
 
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive”.

The league/red clubs acted dishonestly, initiated financial problems to punish a successful club that was outside the cabal thus creating a domino structure of complications, which will eventually run out of control.

Keep going City, the league has dragged us through the mud for too long. It’s time we challenge every single decision.

Tyranny of the minority -:)
 
halfcenturyup said:
Any relevance in the timing? I am surprised the club didn't either i) do this immediately in November, or ii) wait for the final judgment on the first arbitration.

Is it just due to the tribunal making it known last month that they wouldn't consider the November amendments in their final judgment? In which case, this was the first "opportunity" to raise the action?

I suppose, for all we know, the club may have raised this with the tribunal in November but it took till January for them to respond?
Click to expand...
Yes I think so. Told APT 1 couldn’t deal with it so made APT 2
 
Academica said:
So you think the City and thier legal team are just pissing about, for no apparent reason. You may know a lot, but maybe not everything. You have given your opinion (much appreciated as always) but the club obviously think differently.
Click to expand...
This answer bears no relation to what I wrote. Nor have I suggested they are doing it for no apparent reason. Nor have I said I know everything. Clearly, the club have their reasons and the best advice around. Exactly as explained on the video I posted earlier
 
cheekybids said:
Maybe it allows you to raise further points that would he considered unlawful, unfair & unreasonable.
Click to expand...
I suspect this is probably close to the truth (i.e., it's not about the loans per se, it's about laying the grounds for possible future legal challenges). Being able to establish a documented track record of the PL repeatedly acting unlawfully will do City no harm in the long run.
 
Another question so I can try to get my simple mind straight on all this.

To what extent is a contract void if one if its clauses is found to be unlawful? I would imagine it would have to be a clause fundamental to the contract?

And, I suppose as a follow up, to what extent does an identifiably separate section of a contract become void, rather than the whole contract, if one of its clauses is found to be unlawful. I would imagine that would be a clause that is fundamental to the section of the contract, but not the contract as a whole?

I suppose it's more complicated than that but you can probably guess why I am asking these questions......

Edit: Sorry, these questions were to @slbsn but I pressed the wrong button :)
 
Am I right in saying that existing shareholder loans aren't subject to fair market value tests, as such clubs will continue to get the benefit of them for years until the loan is repaid?

If so, clubs that don't have existing shareholders loans at discounted rates will continue to operate at a disadvantage against those clubs that do.
 
moomba said:
Am I right in saying that existing shareholder loans aren't subject to fair market value tests, as such clubs will continue to get the benefit of them for years until the loan is repaid?

If so, clubs that don't have existing shareholders loans at discounted rates will continue to operate at a disadvantage against those clubs that do.
Click to expand...

Nope. Clubs with below market interest apt loans have a short period to either convert them to capital or change the interest rate to "FMV".
 
Last edited:
slbsn said:
Clearly, but for what purpose. What meaningful difference does it make to historic accounts to apply, say an additional 5% cost pa to any shareholder loans. This makes very little difference aside to Everton (Brighton have tonnes of capacity) and it is not even clear if anyone could open up historic cases of PSR where no wrong doing is alleged.
Click to expand...
Given Liverpool and Arsenal don’t have huge headroom on PSR as things stand, it makes a great world of difference if they have 10-20m GBP less headroom.
 
moomba said:
Am I right in saying that existing shareholder loans aren't subject to fair market value tests, as such clubs will continue to get the benefit of them for years until the loan is repaid?

If so, clubs that don't have existing shareholders loans at discounted rates will continue to operate at a disadvantage against those clubs that do.
Click to expand...
That is not what the rules say at all.

www.premierleague.com

Premier League statement

At a Premier League Shareholders’ meeting today, clubs approved changes to the League’s Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules
www.premierleague.com www.premierleague.com
 
cheekybids said:
Maybe it allows you to raise further points that would he considered unlawful, unfair & unreasonable.
Click to expand...

I suppose the question is whether it's lawful to allow a transition period to move from unlawfulness to lawfulness. Seems to me that is just prolonging the unlawfulness. But need a lawyer for that one. And the club have access to some pretty good ones :)
 
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