I am still rather confused. Part of the 115 charges brought against City appear to be that the club has tried to disguise owner investment as sponsorship . Now it appears that some owners of some clubs have made sizeable loans free of interest to their clubs. There seems to be no time limit on these loans and no deadline by which they must be repaid. The most notable beneficiaries of such loans were Chelsea which received £1.5 billion from their owner, never paid a penny in interest and were told in the end that their owner didn't want a penny back. I know no shares changed hands, but I'm perplexed as to whether this practice should be described as an APT at (much) less than FMV, disguised owner investment or as a classic example of that heinous practice, financial doping. Any suggestions, gooners, seeing as your club has real expertise in this area of football finance?