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

[cheekybids]

I don't understand, for the love of God, why the PL doesn't just adopt the same financial rules as UEFA. The top seven clubs have to comply with them anyway. Even do away with FFP for clubs not in Europe.

Why not do something simple instead of something mind-bogglingly complicated (and crazy expensive).

The award says the PL has had to beef up its APT team to handle the workload and has even had to pay Nielsen more to beef up their team as well? Is it all worth it?

You’re forgetting why they were introduced.

 

[Bluearmy]

I won't bother linking it but Barney Ronay has come up with a very long and tedious pile of shite masquerading as an article in The Guardian. Basically we have won fuck all.

Dickheads exposing their mental capacity for the world to see…

 

[cheekybids]

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

You continually miss the point.

 

[Bluearmy]

A few thoughts. Should interest on directors loans not be back dated ? Check for previous years breaches due to extra costs ? If so for when ? When APT rules came in ? Or when FFP came in ? Surely directors loans could be considered related party or APT ?

Also the tribunal has not ruled APT illegal but I am confused as to how they can argue that the premier league can go above and beyond Related Party without arguing there is some problem with the law in general for all business (surely parliaments job not the courts or the premier leagues ). I think theoretically Related Party / APT should be as strict as possible provided it’s done fairly. I just don’t see why football should be different to any other business

How were they not originally???

 

[Ducado]

What's even more damning is that they were told that owner loans at zero or preferential interest rates were likely to be APTs. And yet they, at the suggestion of some unnamed individual or club, chose to exclude these from the rules.

This is the real story here in my view and the media should be asking the question of who suggested excluding soft loans and why the PL listened to them.

It’s quite mind boggling that they even thought it was fair and above board the emergency meeting should be fun next week how they fix this mess will be interesting

 

[SebastianBlue]

Not quite. A lot of Barney blather as usual (I quite like him tbh)...but at the end he says it's basically a draw but with the blue corner shading it on work rate and aggression. A little dig in there, but accepts the premise of what City are trying to do (with some success).

It’s always interesting to see a different view of the same text.

I wholly disagree with your assessment—see my earlier summary of the “analysis” for my thoughts—but it is interesting!

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

That’s not quite right. Interest free loans are only an issue due to the implementation of APTs. Once they implemented rules around that then they should also have had APT rules applied and been assessed for FMV.

Thing is, everyone’s gone so far down the rabbit hole in trying stop us and in this particular case Newcastle, I think fans of other clubs in particular don’t realise the consequences. I don’t think the PL should be looking to crack down on interest free loans, aside from if to convert them to equity instead. Either of those options should be seen as more palatable than clubs being charged interest by their owner. Not in the crazy world they’ve concocted though.

I see what you're saying, but to clarify, I'm not talking about legal principles here so much as moral consistency. In the sense that we are accused of financially weighting things in our favour in an unproven way, while at the same time the Premier League have pushed through a framework which has been factually shown to actually weight things in other club's favour. In Arsenal's case we're talking about tens of millions that, if the rules were fair and balanced, should be counting towards their PSR calculations since the introduction of APT rules.

I know the APT rules don't apply to what we are accused of, but I'm highlighting the brass neck of a league that is on the one hand attempting to haul us over the coals for adding an extraneous illegal revenue source - while with the other hand, facilitating some clubs in leveraging an extraneous revenue source (or rather, cost avoidance) unlawfully.

To your final point, I agree, there's nothing wrong in principle with that kind of funding, and they have made a rod for their own back. But after this, it's never been more apparent that there is no consistent idea here of some ethical, sustainable vision. They are playing favourites. And if people didn't believe it before, well it's now been proven in court.

 

[cleavers]

You don't for one moment think that the greedy, grasping Glazers put a penny of their own money in do you?

Well no obviously, I got that point earlier, the trouble with a list like that is the muppets that think it means "debt free".

 

[Vic]

so...who win?

"We think it's right to have rules against murder, but you can't fit people up"

 

[City Raider]

If the prem are claiming victory, yet having to call an emergency meeting and being open to a huge compensation claim, I wonder what their definition of defeat could possibly be.