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

[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.

 

[OrigamiNinja]

He should turn whistleblower. We all know some very dodgy shit has gone on behind the scenes with the ones who voted him into his position.

There’s clearly some level of corruption going on here. Why was he vetted by United and Liverpool? What was said at the interview? What offers/promises were made?

Given what we now know, I don’t think it’s too far-fetched to suggest there may have been some level of you scratch our back, we will scratch yours, going on.

 

[Brightwell Bros.]

Not for the first time I'm struck by how utterly out of their depth basically the whole of football journalism is reporting on this, and the business and legal desks that might once have helped have been stripped back in the name of efficiency savings. They're just not equipped for it.

 

[Damanino]

We should wait for the meeting next week and the morning of the meeting we should drop the news of claiming damages of 75m pounds. to add a bit of extra topic for the meeting.