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

[ganganvince]

Stand in a bowl of hot water on one leg with a spoon in your back pocket , works for me

Table, tea or dessert

 

[flb]

Table, tea or dessert

Table of course ffs

 

[halfcenturyup]

Me too but it's quite a big word

Ironically. As is its use by a lawyer :)

 

[the blue panther]

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

Sorry but I'm a simple guy and that response has escaped me - so, congratulations - I presume it's a clever put-down of some sort, but you only need to clarify if I'm wrong.

 

[bluemonkey71]

A clowns pocket.

Tattered windsock

 

[flb]

Tattered windsock

A cat with its throat cut

 

[Big Joe Corrigan]

A cat with its throat cut

The sleeve of an old jumper.

 

[flb]

The sleeve of an old jumper.

An old ripped welly

 

[KS55]

No idea but don't stand within spitting distance of a scouser trying to pronounce it.

Sequipedalian. Adj.

Appertaining to the use of unnecessarily high falutin’ language often by show off lawyers on internet football fan sites.

 

[halfcenturyup]

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.

Yes to all that. I wasn't thinking from a PSR viewpoint, or from an APT viewpoint.

I am asking how it can be legal for the PL to tell a company not subject to PL rules that it has to change the terms of a perfectly valid loan agreement because it can't finance a subsidiary with soft loans even if it is beneficial for it to do so, or has to change the terms of a perfectly valid sponsorship agreement because the PL considers it not at fmv.

Especially as the directors of those companies have no responsibility to the PL at all, but they do have a responsibility to their shareholders which I would imagine must take precedent.