City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)

[chesterbells]

Works for me, matey:

https://archive.ph/LFW0m

And me :-)

 

[blueyorkie]

But will they side with the PL when they know that interest-free loans from an owner will now have commercial rates of interest applied, which may tip them into failing PSR? And will the PL go back and say, well here's what your accounts should've looked like if we'd treated these loans properly?

Also, I've quickly read part of the full report from the panel and it seems the PL had identified that interest-free owner loans could be an issue. But it seems someone (and the name is redacted) 'suggested' excluding these from APT, which is now deemed to be unlawful. I'd like to know who the 'someone' was.

Bet you can guess !

 

[give it to gordon]

Wow just finished watching the itv news on +1
No mention of City's win.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

I mean, your 2nd paragraph does sound like sour grapes, now that the chickens have come home to roost.

I doubt you'll be the only fan of clubs that play in red, that will now be suggesting the PL is on its backside now that the tables have been turned.

With the irony being of cause, that everything was hunky-dory, refs were great, and the rules worked just fine, when yourselves and United were winning everything.

Only really old gooners will remember the times when they won anything, that is why they have been trying to nobble our progress.


**** of a manager, **** of an owner, ans deluded fans who resent not winning things - these sour twats are a set of jealous under-achievers.

 

[terraloon]

But will they side with the PL when they know that interest-free loans from an owner will now have commercial rates of interest applied, which may tip them into failing PSR? And will the PL go back and say, well here's what your accounts should've looked like if we'd treated these loans properly?

Also, I've quickly read part of the full report from the panel and it seems the PL had identified that interest-free owner loans could be an issue. But it seems someone (and the name is redacted) 'suggested' excluding these from APT, which is now deemed to be unlawful. I'd like to know who the 'someone' was.

Been thinking about this and here’s a novel thought.

KSE now charge a commercial rate so Arsenal actually account for interest of say £20 million .

However almost as a contra entry in the accounts KSE pay “ fair value of £20 million for sponsorship / advertising.

The more I think about this I am not sure loans will be converted into equity

 

[Stoned Rose]

I suggest you all calm down blues.

RAWK and Shitcafe reckon we lost and the outcome weakens us for the 115.

Was fun whilst it lasted.

 

[RobinHood]

Presumably that clubs can’t take the piss by signing ludicrous sponsorships, and the PL can’t take the piss by trying to block reasonable deals.

Assuming Fair Market Value is used, subjectivity rears its ugly head again.

 

[supercity88]

So the long & short of it is (by my understanding) is, the PL brought in APT to stop sponsor companies associated to a clubs' owner, from agreeing inflated sponsorship deals as a way of getting money to the affected clubs through the back door. The thinking being this would unfairly distort the transfer market.

From City's viewpoint, we argued that the way APT's are judged is unlawful, because the PL adjudicate what they view as fair market value sponsorships, based on a database of previous sponsorship deals. HOWEVER, if a club disagrees with the PL's decision, they're NOT allowed access to the sponsorship database to challenge the decision.

On top of this, director loans aren't included in APT or PSR. Director loans currently held by Arsenal & others are interest free / very low interest, so City effectively argued why weren't these loans also considered to be a backdoor way of funding certain clubs. The independent review body found in our favour on these points.

It was also found that the amount of time the PL took to adjudicate against City regarding the Abu Dhabi bank & Etihad deals (2 & 3 months respectively) was unreasonably long, & found in City's favour in this respect.

City also alleged that these rules were created specifically to target owners from Gulf States, but the panel ruled in favour of the PL.

In terms of the legality of APT itself, the panel found it to have a legal basis, but with serious flaws with how it was constructed.

This is what's led to both sides claiming victory. APT remains, but must be amended so City & others can review the sponsorship database, & the PL must also include director loans in APT. OR the PL can scrap the lot & try coming at us with something else.

This is my short form understanding of the situation.

But when you look at the aim of each side, there has been only one winner. And the fallout from this, because of the verdict, is going to be a fucking nightmare for the PL. What clubs will vote for amended rules that, whilst lawful, cause them an issue?

 

[Zabbasbeard]

Don't worry - I know I will be far from alone in feeling the same way. Never liked your owners from when they were at Brum but always had a lot time for Hammers.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Rags, Arse, Victims and spuds splitting the bill four ways would be most satisfactory.

and if forced upon them, absolute fucking karma.