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

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

do we have an idea of who the unnamed person was who emailed the PL on behalf of his and 10 other clubs?

I may be being thick here but i don't understand why this person is given anonymity


View attachment 134287

I was reading the reaction on a Newcastle forum and they were saying, based on the size of the redaction, it was someone with a short name - no more than 10 letters.

Coinicidentally, the Arsenal vice chair who didn't shake Khaldoon's hand is called Tim Lewis.

So my money is on him and Arsenal.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

Yes

Sun rise in Thailand soon pal, get yourself to bed!

 

[SSBlue]

From an Arsenal perspective this isn't great for us. The main ruling I see from this that impacts us is the fact that club owners can't give the club loans without having fair market value interest charged.

At present the Kroenkes loan the club £250m and as football is a risky business I'd say fair market value interest rates are around 8% so that's an extra £20m that needs to be factored into FFP moving forward.

Sounds like the Arsenal Accountants might have to start pulling some fake hamstrings.

 

[mancboy]

What he is also failing to grasp, is that by converting to equity, they must produce more shares, that then devalue their existing shares! If converting to equity was the best way to do it then they wouldn't do loans in the first instance. Also loans are none commital, equity is effectively purchasing, and who the hell would want to right off millions of pounds of their money by taking a bigger % of a sinking ship?

By producing more shares you would be diminishing the overall value of the investment

 

[blueste41]

Any new rules they bring in will have to be legally watertight, do clubs have vote in new rules? If so is it a simple majority?

Going to be tricky for some clubs, but if you make rules to benefit yourself and get called out on it,

Yes, 14 clubs will be required to vote in favour of the proposed changed rules. This puts the PL in an impossible position-they need a minimum of 14 clubs to agree to change the rules so they comply with the law (as ludicrous as that sounds) and most clubs won't want a change because it will mean they fail PSR (equally ludicrous) they are fuked!

 

[CTID1977]

Proper fucked. The rule amendment that triggered our legal action struck down and the shareholder financing that benefited other clubs deemed discriminatory.

muchas gracias amigo!

 

[phargrave]

Sounds like the Arsenal Accountants might have to start pulling some fake hamstrings.

View attachment 134296

Or resort to some “dark arts”……

 

[terraloon]

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.

Changes to PSR are dynamic I can’t think of one instance where those changes have been applied retrospectively to in effect punish clubs who made their financial plans based on the rules in place . After all we have only seen Forest and Everton impacted to date and realistically their charges would havent been impacted by this aspect in their favour
irrespective let’s say all those clubs that have submitted their PSR calculations now are charged and found to have breached I would imagine that any IC would in effect mitigate to such a degree as to make the exercise meaningless.
As for Chelsea I would imagine like most clubs they will be looking at all this from what’s best for them and having already had the PL already disallow sponsorship from Paramount + for a warped take on how that would impact broadcasters in the US I would imagine there is associated sponsorships being discussed

 

[give it to gordon]

Yes, 14 clubs will be required to vote in favour of the proposed changed rules. This puts the PL in an impossible position-they need a minimum of 14 clubs to agree to change the rules so they comply with the law (as ludicrous as that sounds) and most clubs won't want a change because it will mean they fail PSR (equally ludicrous) they are fuked!

I like the sound of that !

 

[nmc]

I’m assuming there’s nothing stopping owners converting debt to equity ?

Don’t the rules about limiting owner investment prevent this?