So if Samuel had the same training as GDM he'd be kosher and Cliff isn't representing the advice of our entire legal team? I know you feel the need to line up with the forum admin to support Stefan but really.
What a brilliant fuckin post that is.To be honest whilst it's nice that Stefan Borson provides some kick back, he really does waffle and come out with some mealy mouthed drivel at times.
At the end of the day, we were told by Platini that the whole purpose of FFP was to stop owners pumping too much money into their clubs, to try to make the game more sustainable. The PSR rules are supposed to be a more lenient/watered down version of the same, as the allowable losses are higher.
However FFP insists owner loans have interest allocated at a FMV rate and PSR doesn't (or didn't).
Judging by the Premier League's stance on this point and losing in court on it, if Mansour had simply leant City £1.5Billion at 0% then they wouldn't be pursuing City for breaching PSR... dream on.....
The Premier League have been proven by this judgement and their immediate response to be completely corrupt and disingenuous.
These hefty preferential loans at clubs like Arsenal and Liverpool have been around for over 15 years, deliberately circumventing PSR. How can they write off historical issues of interest free orclow interest loans?
I've actually calculated Liverpool's 2010 0.5% £240m loan would now stand at £735m if an FMV interest rate of 8% had been applied. They would never have had the money to buy Mo Salah, let alone Van Dijk. Alisson, Fabhino and Keita. They wouldn't have won anything at all under Klopp.
Arsenal have spent way above their means over the last 8 years using this same mechanism, to build the side they have today.
When the PSR rules were written, I find it hard to believe high quality law firms were not involved because of the sums of money at stake. These firms will have provided sound legal advice as to the legality of this issue, and almost certainly advised against it. You'd have to assume they deliberately ignored it at the behest of Arsenal, Liverpool and United to give them a loophole whilst they try to "get City"
City have had two sponsorship deals stopped this year under the APT rules that have just been found unlawful and can claim compensation. I have no idea how much they're for, but axtypical deal of £20m over 5 years is £100m. So this alone could be considerable.
Yesterday the Daily Mail, when covering this story, suggested many smaller Premier League clubs had been trying to get the Premier League to drop the PSR case against City, and settle for damages out of court.
It is now very clear to me, City are going to win their PSR case either at arbitration or on appeal in a court of law. The legal costs and compensation are going to hit £1Billion or thereabouts for this whole affair.
On the one hand, we want our club vindicated and cleared, but we don't want to destroy competitive football and the Premier League.
This is why our owners are pushing for a football regulator.
I'd love to see the Glazers. Kroenke, FSG, Joe Lewis and Boehly booted out of football for good.
I wish Stefan Borson would show more balls.
Indeed. You're a brave man coming on here, what with your Arsenal allegiance and all the anger that City fans now feel towards that club. Their part in all of this and their tub-thumping rallying calls to the other PL clubs to unite against big bad, cheating City, is now starting to be revealed. Hence the increasing antagonism towards AFC from most of the City fans on here.All I'll say is how incredibly awesome is it that you guys have Stefan Borson on here to give his considered view based on years of expertise. Whilst the 'old man shouting at clouds' type of posts that dominate this thread may be more immediately visceral, facts and opinions based on years of expertise are optimal IMHO.
It's also a reminder to myself to not comment on things I don't know the ins and outs of without expressly stating it's an opinion or hearsay and should be treated as such. Others would do well to follow likewise.
Could it be the case that they have received very good advice and decided to ignore it? It has been known to happen sometimes on a risk and reward basis, the risk you get found out the reward you don't and you hobble an opponent but to me it's hard to believe they actually thought they would get away with itI think that’s slightly wide of the mark about Cliff. Firstly he will be professionally precluded from winning at all costs. Secondly the letter that was sent out was extremely strident of itself and even more so by way of its contents. Thirdly he will have been acting on instructions to do so, that will have been given following advice from others, including no doubt, Pannick.
This is a huge departure from the earlier press release and should be viewed accordingly.
It’s also worth pointing out the poor track record of the legal advice the PL has been in receipt of, which should colour anyone’s views on the relative quality of City’s.
Have any of them sent out letters to the other clubs in such strident terms?It's incredibly weird how the same people who understand that other clubs executives and teams say things that may be a very liberal interpretation of events but they believe that nobody at City could possibly do the same.
Of course…should we ban him if he doesn’t get everything right? What do people want from this pile on?It's also possible for him to be wrong.
silly remarks don't help intelligent debate.Do we have utd and lfc fans in here attacking slbn or something. Some right ungrateful twats
Martin Samuel is a writer. Simon Cliff works directly for City.
Neither of these are unbiased and informed people.
Who? City?Could it be the case that they have received very good advice and decided to ignore it? It has been known to happen sometimes on a risk and reward basis, the risk you get found out the reward you don't and you hobble an opponent but to me it's hard to believe they actually thought they would get away with it
I'm pretty sure Rumpole of the Bailey said that...doesn't that count?Nobody says that. Ever.