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

SalfordCityBlue said:
I think there could be a carve up. City don't necessarily want zero regulation in this area, but they want it to be fair and non-discriminatory (against us). To be honest, I'm not even sure they'd care it was unlawful - as long as it doesn't get challenged they could pass something that all the clubs are happy with - the PL messed up here by picking a fight with the one club that had a) the balls and b) the money to take it all the way.
Click to expand...
City's position was based on law & fairness not balls or money.

Arabia has money and balls, but above all are very principled people and they fight for their principles when they are wronged.
 
cleavers said:
Yes, but its semantics really, the banks would want their money back, and it would be the owners who'd have to find it, but OK they currently owe £0.
Click to expand...
The graph should really show how much each club is serviced through loans, whether that be from banks or from shareholders.

Then some **** needs to explain to the world, why those that have debt have to pay interest, and why those that have shareholder loans don't.

Then that same **** needs to then explain, why clubs that are self sufficient, have record profits, record revenues, despite being hamstrung at every avenue, are being dragged through the courts and being slaughtered by the media.

I appreciate I'm asking for a fair bit here.
 
terraloon said:
As I say I don’t think 7 clubs will vote the PL down indeed the panel’s verdict probably gives the PL a clear line of sight in terms of how an independent panel will view matters going forward
I don’t like using the phrase red herrings in relation to owners loans but sorry I think this is being a little overstated in terms of this aspect of the ruling. One way or another the owners will work round this my guess re Chelsea this was as much to do with their plans going forward in terms of associated sponsorship or more likely something to do with the multi club plans concerns re a sum is nothing more than a sum that will increase the costs for PSR but simply won’t see the owners receiving any income
Click to expand...

Once again, I was trying to answer the question why Chelsea would vote with City going forward when they will be getting hit with interest on their loans as a result of City.

My point was that there will be no new rules on shareholder loans if City, Chelsea and five other clubs vote them down. That will force the PL to either keep rules that have been found to be "illegal" (which they can't do) or scrap them altogether.

When I first read the award my question on the shareholder loans wasn't about going forward, though, it was about the years 21/22, 22/23, 23/24 and 24/25. Surely, the effects have to be applied retrospectively, and there can't be an amnesty because that would be discriminatory, which is what got us here in the first place. I wouldn't be surprised if shareholder loans turns out to be the PL's biggest problem in all this, apart maybe from reputational damage. Again.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.