Search results

As you say, there is no chance the hearing was divided by charges. It’s divided into openings, witness evidence and cross examination, experts and closings. If it’s running slightly short it will likely be because less time than expected was required for cross examination of certain witnesses...

Not really. If true (and no idea if it is), the under run would be a few days - very unlikely to be material

The counter factual is almost certainly a debt for equity conversion which means nobody was disadvantaged. So I don't agree there is any argument for historic unfairness that should be remedied by historic recalculation of T-2 and T-1. As I say, either way, it is obvious that any IC would give...

Clearly there was a strategy but it does mean, in all likelihood, the ship has sailed on that point.

For whatever reason City chose not to challenge that evidence.

No. We can only breach the relevant rule in the year of breach

The periods T-2 and T-1 are closed historic accounts. Of course it is a 3 year calculation but incorporates periods where the clubs can’t change their approach. I don’t agree the right or lawful approach is to require adjustments that may trigger PSR failures and I don’t believe there is any...

There is no way they will apply market levels of interest for historic periods where they cause clubs to breach. That would be obviously unfair and, no doubt, full mitigation anyway

That maybe so but hard to think it will be relitigated especially given it’s 2024

Suspect that argument would not now succeed. The Tribunal accepted all of Herbert’s evidence in respect of why PSR came in.

More material than a spelling error. Yes re unlawfulness but causation and loss the big hurdle. I’m not convinced there is a meaningful loss. I doubt anyone will challenge PSR on this basis before they change the rules partly because there is little gain from causing the PL complete chaos...

In practice, nobody will challenge that historic hypothesis so it’s all moot

I wouldn’t call it damning or akin to price fixing but it’s a serious infringement which is why the rules will need to change.

One set of accounts with different presentations for different audiences

They just adjust the filing for UEFA. Quite a few differences between the regimes

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.

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...

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...

That is what they mean. My point is the fix for that could easily have simply been giving the PL power to declare a party to be a related party even if the accounts did not. As I mentioned, this is precisely what UEFA did in 2014. Instead, the PL went far further.

I think it is about emphasis - we all agree what was decided but aren't completely aligned on how significant it is. Likewise on those points where the PL prevailed. We could do a Q&A Spaces on Friday if I can summon the energy on the topic again.