First, to listen to the parties’ solution to rules found to be unlawful or to give guidance on how to action the findings. Second, to decide the level of damages City can obtain. Third, to decide costs liability.To discuss what? I’m a numbskull because I didn’t realise either :-) :-)
Maybe so mate but, to my admittedly layman’s view, if the rules were unlawful then they need to be redrafted retrospectively to make them historically legal.Not really the same, and regardless Leicester successfully appealed the PL decision.
Sorry when the owner converts his loan to equity it’s hardly the same as selling say 25% of the existing equityThe quid pro quo for equity funding is the transfer of ownership. It is just selling all or part of the club, so it is fine.
I don't believe there is anything in law which prevents anyone providing anyone else with an interest free loan. But what the regulations did was to accept that sponsorship deals with related or "associated" parties were revenue which had to be proven to be at FMV whereas loans from shareholders were not APTs and no FMV tests needed to be carried out on the interest rate on these loans. This made the APT regulations breach competition law. Furthermore this special treatment of shareholder loans was at the request of a PL chairman/executive who had made a sizeable loan to his club, .and was thus a knowing and wilful breach of the rules and it made the APT regulations unlawful.How did these rules get signed of by the pl legal team ?
It may be new shares issued but that is still part sale of the company, ie it dilutes the ownership of existing shareholders.Sorry when the owner converts his loan to equity it’s hardly the same as selling say 25% of the existing equity
Rumoured Brighton, allegedly
It has to be one of the clubs where shareholder loans are a major factor, so Everton, Brighton or possibly Arsenal. My guess would be Bloom at Brighton, although given Everton's parlous financial state you could also look at them.
4. The rules that apply to Newcastle, to take care of the fiction that they are not state owned.It’s about time there were 3 PL rule books:-
1. The rules that apply to red clubs
2. The rules that apply to City
3. The rules that apply to the other clubs
It really is that blatant in practice so make it that blatant in the rules
Many, but not all of the PL clubs are majority owners who can easily pass any special resolution to increase equity . If it’s those same owners or majority owners turn their loans into newly created equity then it does the exact reverse of dilution of their owners ship it actually strengthens their position . If however loans from non majority shareholders are converted then yes it does diluteIt may be new shares issued but that is still part sale of the company, ie it dilutes the ownership of existing shareholders.