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

[DenisLawBackHeel74]

I don't think so. They will judge us on the evidence provided, defense submitted, on the rules that were in force at the time. Other clubs benefiting from other rules which have subsequently been found to be unlawful will not affect our hearing.

But surely the PL will need to adjust these rules and make them apply retroactively …..or have some type of amnesty which is also retroactive…

 

[marco]

I think we’ve absolutely nailed them not just on APT but likely on some of the 115 charges since we can now prove that we were singled out over ‘alleged’ inflation of sponsorship deals with Etisalat and Etihad…when other clubs were benefiting unfairly through APT loans that have been proven to be ‘unlawful’…….proper 4d chess move imo

Oh this gone be gooood !!

cant agree more, when all this 115 started i did trust our owners saying we have nothing to hide but there was allways an element of doubt we would somehow be stiched up, there is no doubt more will come out that will tarnish the PL but as we stand today we have enough to wipe the floor with them

 

[MadchesterCity]

View attachment 134793

Is that Vivian?

 

[SilverFox2]

Ah hence the handling charge they put on doing the deal.

Anyone calculated the interest rate on the Glazers Man U debt that is still paid by Man U. Ie in the accounts.?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Do you think the apparently fair verdict of our first panel will be shown by the one currently in progress?
I am fearful that they may be persuaded to try to save the callapse of the old PL.

It isn't going to collapse whatever the outcome. That's just hyperbolic nonsense stirred up by the press at the behest of the cartel. And that won't even register in the minds of the, what will be a very experienced, panel imho.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

There is clearly nothing illegal about soft loans, per se.

But here is a question. Is it actually legal to prevent an owner funding a company with soft loans? For example, directors of a company that owns a club have a Companies Act responsibility to act in the interest of the company's shareholders. There may be good reasons why the directors consider soft loans to be in the interests of the shareholders. Who are the PL to say they can't do that? Is it not abuse of a dominant position to force an owner to restructure its funding (that is what the current APT rules require), potentially unfavourably to the shareholders.

It's the same question as forcing a club to renegotiate downwards (or upwards!) a sponsorship contract which was accepted by both parties as being to the benefit of the shareholders.

Which responsibility takes precedence? The responsibility of the directors of the club, or of the club owners, to their shareholders, or the contractual responsibility set out in the PL rules?

Or maybe I am missing something simple. It wouldn't be the first time ......

In Everton, Brighton, Arsenal and Liverpool's cases, the providers of funding ARE the shareholders.

I have a loan I took out to buy some expensive camera equipment. I'm paying the capital and a commercial rate of interest (although it's a very decent one) on that loan. The provider had to be sure I could finance that, so I had to give details of income and expenditure, which it accepted.

The thing about interest-free loans is that clubs are paying back neither the interest nor the capital. That allows them to spend that money on transfers and wages. If clubs were required to pay back shareholder loans over a maximum set period, or were required to disallow what they would have paid on repayment of capital and interest from their accounts, then that would be fairer.

 

[mancboy]

In Everton, Brighton, Arsenal and Liverpool's cases, the providers of funding ARE the shareholders.

I have a loan I took out to buy some expensive camera equipment. I'm paying the capital and a commercial rate of interest (although it's a very decent one) on that loan. The provider had to be sure I could finance that, so I had to give details of income and expenditure, which it accepted.

The thing about interest-free loans is that clubs are paying back neither the interest nor the capital. That allows them to spend that money on transfers and wages. If clubs were required to pay back shareholder loans over a maximum set period, or were required to disallow what they would have paid on repayment of capital and interest from their accounts, then that would be fairer.

however you dress it up, it is gaining an unfair financial advantage which apparently the apt rules seek to stop.

 

[MadchesterCity]

i'd of paid miss Rooney to talk to me lol
more so if doing swimming costume shoot

Doubt she’d be wearing swimming costume, got a vag like a blootered pheasant

 

[lancs blue]

Will City and the Premier League know whats in the 2nd part of the panels award, or will they be waiting like everyone else for it to be given?

Not sure tbh.

 

[DenisLawBackHeel74]

There is clearly nothing illegal about soft loans, per se.

But here is a question. Is it actually legal to prevent an owner funding a company with soft loans? For example, directors of a company that owns a club have a Companies Act responsibility to act in the interest of the company's shareholders. There may be good reasons why the directors consider soft loans to be in the interests of the shareholders. Who are the PL to say they can't do that? Is it not abuse of a dominant position to force an owner to restructure its funding (that is what the current APT rules require), potentially unfavourably to the shareholders.

It's the same question as forcing a club to renegotiate downwards (or upwards!) a sponsorship contract which was accepted by both parties as being to the benefit of the shareholders.

Which responsibility takes precedence? The responsibility of the directors of the club, or of the club owners, to their shareholders, or the contractual responsibility set out in the PL rules?

Or maybe I am missing something simple. It wouldn't be the first time ......

I think it’s more about obtaining an unfair advantage through loans that are significantly below the market rate, not shareholder loans per se……simple solution is to revalue those loans at the appropriate market rate and apply them retroactively…….but you would quickly see a number of clubs fail FFP …ooops.

And in some cases like Everton’s, they would never have got a loan on anywhere like favourable terms due to their financial situation….so what do you do in that/those type of cases….a proper premier league pickle….lol