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

[Rory Bluelow]

Hey I am not disagreeing that it can’t be applied but a court of law hasn’t ruled

Given the seniority and eminence of this panel, (former Supreme Court etc) I’d say it’s findings would not be challenged/changed by a court of law.

 

[halfcenturyup]

by this logic, every single rule up to and including our 115 charges means absolutely sod all.

It's going to be an interesting couple of weeks, isnt it?

 

[mancboy]

It's going to be an interesting couple of weeks, isnt it?

riveting lol

 

[East Level 2]

I don't know if you agree, but to me director loans are a prime example of 'financial doping' ( that term is ridiculous in itself). Exactly what we have been accused of continually.

I think director loans can be seen as financial doping if they are interest-free or at a very low interest rate.
A loan of £200 million would cost £10 million a year at 5%, so the club is effectively gaining that £10 million without earning it. In reality it's no different to getting a sponsorship deal that is over-valued by £10 million.
The difference in the long term is that the £10 million from sponsorship might stay in the game, but the loan goes back to the director, unless it's written off.

 

[johnnytapia]

I see the arsenal fan has given you a like, that in itself should make you question what you've just written.

Ha ha . True!

 

[Bluewonder]

I think director loans can be seen as financial doping if they are interest-free or at a very low interest rate.
A loan of £200 million would cost £10 million a year at 5%, so the club is effectively gaining that £10 million without earning it. In reality it's no different to getting a sponsorship deal that is over-valued by £10 million.
The difference in the long term is that the £10 million from sponsorship might stay in the game, but the loan goes back to the director, unless it's written off.

Plus, there's no way a football club could borrow at 5%, because they just don't offer a sufficiently secure investment.

Take the CFG as an example. This is arguably the most secure investment in the game. It is headed up by one of the world's leading clubs, has diverse global investments, is profitable at MCFC level and is ultimately owned by a multi-billionaire. Plus, the CFG money is used to invest in infrastructure, rather than make punts on footballing potential.

However, its borrowings bear an interest rate of LIBOR plus 3-3.5%. That's 8-8.5% overall.

I doubt an upper mid-table football club could borrow at less than 10%.

 

[Tbilisi]

I think director loans can be seen as financial doping if they are interest-free or at a very low interest rate.
A loan of £200 million would cost £10 million a year at 5%, so the club is effectively gaining that £10 million without earning it. In reality it's no different to getting a sponsorship deal that is over-valued by £10 million.
The difference in the long term is that the £10 million from sponsorship might stay in the game, but the loan goes back to the director, unless it's written off.

I watched Martin Samuel piece and he said directors loans were what brought Pompey down, the directors hit hard times and requested the money back.

I am sure the PL must have forgotten how toxic loans could be.

 

[Stoned Rose]

I watched Martin Samuel piece and he said directors loans were what brought Pompey down, the directors hit hard times and requested the money back.

I am sure the PL must have forgotten how toxic loans could be.

Can’t be.

As we all know, these rules were brought in to “prevent another Portsmouth”.

 

[mancboy]

I watched Martin Samuel piece and he said directors loans were what brought Pompey down, the directors hit hard times and requested the money back.

I am sure the PL must have forgotten how toxic loans could be.

Its madness the way they view debt vs investment, debt is fine, investment is bad, the reality is if you cant pay your mortgage the bank takes your house, if someone else pays it for you the bank couldnt care less.

 

[cheekybids]

Plus, there's no way a football club could borrow at 5%, because they just don't offer a sufficiently secure investment.

Take the CFG as an example. This is arguably the most secure investment in the game. It is headed up by one of the world's leading clubs, has diverse global investments, is profitable at MCFC level and is ultimately owned by a multi-billionaire. Plus, the CFG money is used to invest in infrastructure, rather than make punts on footballing potential.

However, its borrowings bear an interest rate of LIBOR plus 3-3.5%. That's 8-8.5% overall.

I doubt an upper mid-table football club could borrow at less than 10%.

Which if we are going to look at it retrospectively, Arsenal were mid table.