Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Apologies if posted already, I've just seen this, got to be honest not what I was expecting -
View attachment 134333
What time will this **** be on Talkspunk today?
Can’t wait to hear him backtrack and whimper.
Apologies if posted already, I've just seen this, got to be honest not what I was expecting -
View attachment 134333
Exactly , the PL implemented unlawful rules, knowingly to suit a vocal minority of clubsIn respect of one of the rules, the PL was given specific advice and went against it, thus rendering that particular rule to be unlawful.
In any normal sphere this would be the story, but it’s not.
Wasn't one of the CAS panel selected by the Premier League? If so it's pretty much nailed on there was not going to be a unanimous decision.The law isn't simply black and white and can be interpreted differently by different experts. Even this panel of 3 expert ex judges didn't agree on all points. The CAS panel wasn't in total agreement. We often see verdicts in one court overturned in another.
Yeah pg 164 of the judgement I thinkIs there an easy summary of our challenges that were not upheld?
It's a bit like a scattergun. Deadly effective even if most bullets miss.
Correct, shareholder loans cannot be counted as revenue to meet with PSR and neither can equity investment. The ruling now means that the interest that would be due on that loan must be taken into account when deciding if a club meets PSR. So converting the loan to equity would only make the interest go away, if shareholders would be willing to convert loan to equity is (in most cases) unlikely.Slightly (greatly)confused on shareholder loans. Am I right in thinking that a shareholder loan doesn't affect PSR, in so much as an owner can't just give a loan that would allow a club to pass PSR. As an example if club had an £80m shortfall for PSR, an owner can't just inject £80m as a loan to allow a club to pass PSR. Is it only that clubs should be paying interest on such loans that is the problem. Then It as been said that the loan will be converted into equity. So if the loan becomes equity can that money be used for anything and does it help with PSR.
So, under the current rules 0% shareholder loans are accepted but they are now unlawful.
A few clubs will need to factor in FMA interest rates into their PSR.
We’re told an easy solution to this is to turn those loans into equity - if that shareholder has the appetite to do so (which is a big assumption).
So my question is, are shareholders now allowed to pump equity into a club, regardless of how much and, if so, is there anything stopping our owners from doing the same?
I haven’t a clue and would love some clarity on that if someone on here knows the answer
As has been said many times before distinguished judges that have spent their lives getting to the absolute peak of their profession and are regarded to have an impeccable reputation cannot be "bought". Remember, people against City say that we will simply "buy a verdict" because we have so much money-it's nonsense but it works both ways.Wasn't one of the CAS panel selected by the Premier League? If so it's pretty much nailed on there was not going to be a unanimous decision.
Thanks for reply, that makes things a lot clearer.Correct, shareholder loans cannot be counted as revenue to meet with PSR and neither can equity investment. The ruling now means that the interest that would be due on that loan must be taken into account when deciding if a club meets PSR. So converting the loan to equity would only make the interest go away, if shareholders would be willing to convert loan to equity is (in most cases) unlikely.