Search results

I don’t think that is correct and it is not the reading of FIFA re Diarra either. The offending clauses are unenforceable but nobody is currently trying to enforce them so that is moot. There is also a question of the limits of the view that things are null and void. Is APT a defined and...

Tax, ease of administration/company paperwork, more flexible up and down etc. But in reality where the shareholder is near 100% it is not a huge advantage

For them to be deemed null and void as well as unlawful. I’m no Competition law expert but it seems from what I’ve read to be unclear what the answer is. In those circumstances, I think the Tribunal would find a way to limit the damage to the original APT rules. As I have said even if they are...

Nobody knows - I suspect for the 25/26 calculation is most likely by way of some transitional allowance

5-10 per cent I assume, yes.

That is not decided. The Tribunal has not opined or gone that far.

Yes, City say that is their position. But the PL's position is clearly the opposite. My view is either the Tribunal will find a way to get to say everything pre 2024 are binding or the teams will easily pass a regime equivalent to the original APT at the first opportunity.

I think it is worth highlighting clear evidence of a lack of objectivity. But I absolutely take your point.

Everton will have no s/h loans - the existing ones are equity in all but name. Arsenal have lots of capacity as do Brighton. Which leaves some smaller levels of shareholder loan which can easily be converted to equity if need be.

Odd take. A journalist who is claiming to be objective (to the extent Panja is) should not try to mislead his audience by pushing a narrative as one thing when it is, in my view, misleading, preliminary and incomplete. He did that by pushing first a questionable summary re the databank (I stand...

No 2 separate points. 2024 amendments, will go. Shareholder loans going forward will be FMVed for market interest rates.

My view hasn't changed at all. It is best illustrated by my view on costs - as I explained yesterday, I don't believe the PL will pay more than 10-20% of City's costs and it is most likely that the parties agree to pay their own costs. You've missed the point on Panja. Panja promoted Leaf's...

They can’t challenge the jurisdiction after the hearing has taken place on matters the parties both agreed the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide. In any event, there is no suggestion of any appeal because it would be totally futile

In fairness, Etihad had (according to those close to the 2014 UEFA appraisal) always been appraised to be fair market value before this latest round whenever tested

"he really does waffle..." [Bashes out 520 words nobody will read]

Pre Amendment rules... I think there will be special rules for loans that replicate UEFA rules. But APT wise, the consequences of a rejection is here... (2022/23 version just because it is one page to view)

Etihad obviously wouldn’t have to increase unless that was the agreement with City. The PL has no power of the third party. But it has power over City and requires the club to take all necessary steps to vary the agreement to the lower approved FMV or end the transaction.

If ultimately approved, I think you would take the money received from EAG for the period (I assume we did agree a deal for 24/25 at an approved level leaving the remainder for confirmation so to mitigate any potential loss) and compare to what the deal as proposed originally was worth. Then the...

These aren’t views and you claimed to have quoted me. Anyway, we don’t agree on Covid because even United aren’t suggesting the £40m related to match day in 2021/22 because the stadia were open all season. 2021/22 Covid was different which is why a £40m claim when Arsenal disclosed £2m is...

So don't listen