Im not sure slbsn is as well informed as first percieved
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
SebastianBlue
President, International Julian Alvarez Fan Club
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 57,736
I won’t go in to weeds, but one of the issues with converting debt-to-equity is the exposure of the entity funding the swap. I am not sure I share Stefan’s confidence that all of the owner entities of the clubs with low-to-no interest shareholder loans would be willing to assume the inherent risks involved, especially given the general state of football markets at present and the uncertainty surrounding the full implications of this and several other recent consequential rulings.@slbsn has said on twitter it won’t be an issue as owners will simply convert the loans to equity, but then why do the loans in the first place then?
Rammy Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2008
- Messages
- 30,684
I assume though we had zero expectation of actually winning that anyway, just helped with rest of the case.No we challenged the whole thing, it’s the first argument on the full decision.
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 7,103
The legality of APT as a concept was upheld, just not the 2 most recent additions. City argued the whole thing was unlawful and failed.
It’s not arguable that was a major victory for the PL, if City had succeeded in that there’d be no APT rules right now, and as it stands we’re just back to 2020 rules.
That they don’t involve the interest free loans as APTs was part of the 2020 rules too, and I’m not sure they’re going to easily get agreement to just include them from enough clubs.
Think this has a fair bit to run yet.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,489
There’s nothing wrong as such with an interest free loan, it’s only an issue now due to the APT rules.
What really should happen is owners should be forced to put in equity, that’s what a regulator whose main motivation was the financial stability of clubs would be advocating for…
Yes. It's all a bit contradictory. A shareholder can normally decide for many reasons on putting whether to invest equity or loans. Fiscal, mostly. Fundamentally, it affects nothing. But, now, a shareholder will be forced either into a structure that isn't the most beneficial to them, or punished with a commercial rate of interest that, ironically, affects their "sustainability" and their ability to compete. It's a weird financial world we live in. Tangled webs and all that.
GaudinoMotors
Well-Known Member
The Forest fan is not a happy bunny. Shame.
No they can't Mark - they just need to re work the rules.
Inflating sponsorship to unrealistic levels would be a return to the 90s when united were at it and successful.
You know - before any rules.
Txiki Txiki Bang Bang
Well-Known Member
Good
Amazon would make billions if they can secure a fly on the wall deal to cover this emergency meeting. It would be like that "Nein" speech from Valkyrie, except you would have 20 different people reenacting that speech
John Wayne
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2007
- Messages
- 3,594
It's a significant victory for City. The panel agreed with the principle of FMV and admitted that it's "not an exact science". City did not get FMV thrown out, but realistically, I don't think they ever thought it would be. What has been ripped up is the APT rules, so Panja is wrong to say we revert to November 2021. The decision (link to page 164 on City's website) explicitly rules the amended APT and original APT to have been applied unlawfully. This is a fox in henhouse moment.
Just spouted his usual anti city shite and nothing about what really happened today .Has he commented on the unlawful rules?
Carry on!The legality of APT as a concept was upheld, just not the 2 most recent additions. City argued the whole thing was unlawful and failed.
It’s not arguable that was a major victory for the PL, if City had succeeded in that there’d be no APT rules right now, and as it stands we’re just back to 2020 rules.
People can argue about whether City thought they’d actually win that argument or not, but the fact is they made the argument and lost and the PL is in a much much better position than they’d be if that claim had been upheld.
Nobody is listening.