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

[TheThirdDeano]

This ‘small victory’ gets bigger every day huh?

 

[Gordyola]

In February 2024 at a meeting of all the Premier League clubs took place to vote on the amendments. At that meeting City stated they believed the amendments were illegal.
A sensible, financially competent organisation would have sat down with City and asked them why they believed that. Then, instead of taking a vote, would have asked their legal team for advice.
The Premier League didn't. Instead they voted on the amendments sending it on a very toxic and expensive collision course with one of its members. In doing so it risked damaging the PL brand around the world.
Me and you know why they took that course of action but none of the lick spittle press will ask them why did they do that and questioning if they, Masters et al are fit to run the PL.

The PL did consult with their council and were told in their view the amendments were in fact inline with Uk law. An organisation can have any rule, unless clearly in contravention of the law eg no females allowed, and are valid until tested

 

[terraloon]

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.

You could equally argue that conversion of debt into equity or creation of equity in the first place enables in effect free cash to be injected
If you track back you will find that Granda Media for indtnce purchased approx 10% of Arsenals shareholding which was newly created to enable a significant cash injection nothing wrong with the rules then but could the argument be that equity is for all intents and purposes no more than a cash injection?

 

[give it to gordon]

They knew that excluding shareholder loans was unlawful but chose to ignore it after a club owner who has lent his club a substantial amount of money, interest free, asked them to exclude it. So they did.

Never mind Masters resigning, the NEDs who constitute the rest of the board should also resign over that as they're supposed to provide oversight.

How did these rules get signed of by the pl legal team ?

 

[vincent]

This ‘small victory’ gets bigger every day huh?

Indeed. It appears the whole fabric of their financial rules are in complete tatters.

 

[lonestay]

Newcastle are keeping quite because they are hoping that after the nuclear winter that's approaching the prem, they can step in with big money and control football in the UK and not look like the bad guys .

 

[cheekybids]

Further to my earlier post about why didn't the PL seek legal advice when City said the amendments were illegal;
Why were we left to stand alone ?
I'm looking at you Newcastle in particular but other clubs also voted against the amendments.
Why wasn't there a joint action by those clubs ?
Why were we left to be the bad guys ?

I think it served our purpose, there job is to support with votes & maybe follow up with litigation at the right time.

 

[Goatmeal]

I can see the only way out for the PL is to scrap the APT rules altogether
Reinstate the points to forest and Everton
Compensate them with their payout for actual league position
Luckily neither got relegated or it could have gone really nasty
As it is they have a way out

 

[cheekybids]

Interest free loans are effectively disguised equity funding. Of course they should all be charged retrospectively.

Maybe quote - ‘not in the spirit of the rules’ another narrative they tried to throw at us.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I don’t disagree but the point I am trying to make the panel is just that an arbitration panel can be appealed by the PL (which is highly unlikely) but irrespective process has to be followed to remove rules that a panel has given a ruling on

There was always zero chance of any appeal, unless the arbitrators were all pissed on sherry on judgement day and flipped a coin.