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

[Dribble]

Don't you just love Dick Dastardly.

This fella? No...

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

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…

At least until the loans are paid back

 

[If I die in the Kippax St]

This is precisely the point. Many both inside and outside the media, either by choice or through ignorance, do not grasp the reality. I'm fairly sure it does not matter whether the interest is actually charged and paid however and shown in the annual accounts. What is important is that to level the playing field in terms of PSR then a notional commercial interest rate must be applied for PSR calculations at FMV as if the borrowing by the club from owner investors, directors et al (aka related parties) had been obtained at arms length on the open market. In effect this would mean that say Arsenal's loans of around £250 million would have a charge of say 8-10% per year applied for PSR calculations. That's in excess of £20 million a year added to their costs for PSR purposes. This to me is as close and clear to a definition of 'financial doping' as we can get
This has been made crystal clear by the tribunal in their rulings.
Liverpool and Brighton face a similar challenge.

Actually is does matter whether interest is charged and applied to the profit and loss account which affects the bottom line. It also matters that any loans need to be disclosed in the balance sheet as a creditor thus affecting the financial strength of a business/organisation. However I do agree with your main point on financial doping

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

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…

Won't the tribunal have to acceot that any new regs are lawful?

 

[inchy14]

And that is the point.

The new rules that Masters was spluttering about last week, could well be painstakingly re-constructed over a sufficient period of time, and they could, though it's unlikely, produce a robust masterpiece of meticulous exactitude, compliant with UK commercial law in every aspect, or maybe not, but even if they pull off this masterpiece of in-house corporate legislation, it'd still be a crock of shit.

Because it's not the slap dash, make it up on the hoof, nature of these rules that's the real problem, though that was one of the reasons we scored such a significant victory, it's their purpose.

And their purpose cannot be addressed without stating what it is, as opposed to what is spun, and the biggest clue to what it is, is to ask who is best served by these rules? And to get there you follow the money, in this case "old" money, and when you do that you'll find where the real power lies in the Premier League, and what really motivates these powers behind the throne.

Everyone in here knows who the real power brokers in the Premier League are, what drives them and so on, and that Masters is simply their puppet. It is no coincidence that City were happy to take our UEFA case to CAS, happy to take this APT nonsense to arbitration and likewise the 115, because each time we do we're taking these trumped up charges away from the festering shit pits of self interest that spawned them, away from the power brokers and their puppets, and into the light of arbitration, governed by law and facts and reality.

That's why we're confident we'll smash the 115, because we know that nothing these self interested fuckers cook up can stand scrutiny when exposed to impartial legal professionals.

Great post.

 

[moomba]

Last week it was reported that City's attempts to reference the recent decision were being ignored by the current panel.

If I'm not mistaken, that was reported by an Arsenal fan trying to out magic hat/Nick Harris magic hat/Nick Harris.


File under made up story.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Actually is does matter whether interest is charged and applied to the profit and loss account which affects the bottom line. It also matters that any loans need to be disclosed in the balance sheet as a creditor thus affecting the financial strength of a business/organisation. However I do agree with your main point on financial doping

OOH! Is there a possibility of false accounting? Of not giving a true and fair (OH! and complete) picture of the club's finances? Could be embarrassing if the cartel are well and truly nailed for something City are shown not to have done!

 

[M12Blue]

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

, I would suggest the PL do whatever they have to get City back in the fold. However not sure club would now

 

[give it to gordon]

Who would have thought that this snotty little kid kicking the ball around the local rec, back in the 70's would now need to understand, finance, law, var etc to understand football in 2024

 

[Stoned Rose]

Looking at the current "115" hearing, as it has now come to the attention of the P.L. via the first tribunal decision, that City didn't have a flat pitch to play on, due to the unlawfulness of the P.L.'s own rules, I don't see how the present tribunal can ignore submissions by City trying to refer to that decision. Last week it was reported that City's attempts to reference the recent decision were being ignored by the current panel.
If the current panel are standing on ceremony and saying that City can't amend ANY argument they hadn't previously given notice of prior to the hearing, that's a very dangerous course for this panel to follow, bearing in mind the "unlawfulness" which has already been found within the rules.
That to me is contrary to natural justice, and a recipe for further litigation, especially when taking account of the strength of that 1st tribunal panel, who came down very strongly in City's favour - irrespective of the subsequent misleading narrative of the P.L. and the media generally.
Of course, the P.L. lawyers could accept and recognise that finding of unlawfulness if they wished - and allow City to use that finding - if they were reasonable, but they can't (yet!) risk all the 115 charges falling apart and being thrown out, I guess, so the argument will continue.... for a while - but I wonder if it's going to dawn on the P.L. soon that they need to close this all off very quickly now; settle with City; then redefine ALL the relevant rules?
What a can of worms we've opened.

Do you not have a “return” button on your phone mate?