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

[fulabeer]

If you want to come into my house not only do you have to take your shoes off, but so does your friend. And if he doesn’t want to you still can’t come into my house.

The problem with analogies is that they can over simplify. Real life isn't like that.

What if i visit your house on business. Ie i'm here to fix your boiler.
You ask me to remove my shoes/safety boots. I refuse on the grounds of health and safety.
You then refuse me entry and prevent me from earning my money. You don't get your boiler fixed.

Who's at fault?

The PL seem to think you should remove your shoes regardless if it is lawful or safe, because that is what suits them.
They are in a dominant position as you need to earn money. They know you know, that they will just get somebody else. So they are said to be "abusing" their position.

In practice, what you have to agree is a lawful solution that suits us both. That may be i wear "over protectors" on my shoes/boots. Or i lay down carpet protectors.
I can then lawfully go about my business, you get your boiler fixed!

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

I don’t think that is correct and it is not the reading of FIFA re Diarra either. The offending clauses are unenforceable but nobody is currently trying to enforce them so that is moot. There is also a question of the limits of the view that things are null and void. Is APT a defined and discrete regime within the rules? If the shareholder loans issue also infects PSR (which it does) and the related party rules (which it does) are we arguing that all the financial rules are null and void? Are we arguing the entire rule book is null and void? I doubt it to both.

Bluemooners have thought for a long time that the regulations are simply wrong and the message that I am getting from your post is that there is such confusion that no-one can actually say what the rules are, or at least, which rules can be enforced and which cannot. This is scandalous and a real problem for the PL, and the only way it can clear up the mess is by taking all the time "necessary" and by sitting down and discussing with all "stakeholders" what the rules are trying to achieve and what they should do to that end. And the should seek consensus and unanimity where possible. And a good few opinions from the lawyers would help.

The present state of affairs - a "governing body" introducing rules, against the opinion of its own lawyers, regulations which it knows to be unlawful to discriminate against two of its leading clubs - is a disgrace and at any other time would have led to the resignation of those presiding over it. If they stay it is high time they started acting like a governing body and not a member of a cartel. No club has gone out of business because it is too rich but many have because of high levels of debt. The PL has to seek a way of attracting money into our game, and thus less of insinuation that trying to increase revenue is wrong, while at the same time keeping clubs sustainable and the PL competitive.

Not easy and they've already messed up several times. One final go, I think, and if ....

 

[cityontheup]

What I can’t understanding as others have asked why can’t these owner loans be added retrospectively as we are being charged with alleged offences from years ago, and as these loans weren’t added to the APT from the start which has been shown to be illegal then surely that means the APT rules should not be applied from the day they were voted in regardless of any changes made earlier this year

 

[Albeeeert]

What I can’t understanding as others have asked why can’t these owner loans be added retrospectively as we are being charged with alleged offences from years ago, and as these loans weren’t added to the APT from the start which has been shown to be illegal then surely that means the APT rules should not be applied from the day they were voted in regardless of any changes made earlier this year

I think the PL are probably caught in a catch 22 with this because PSR is inherently retrospective, it is calculated over the past three years.

So, if they don't take into account interest on shareholder loans for the past three years, that give those clubs with interest free loans an unfair and unlawful advantage.

But, if they do take that into account and those clubs end up failing PSR it seems likely they'll end up with a similar situation to the Leicester case where the rules are unenforceable because they didn't know or have the opportunity to resolve that at the time.

Possibly the only way it can be resolved is to wipe the PSR slate clean for everyone and start again.

 

[nmc]

I’d say it is a potential issue. Don’t think there will be an interim ruling. More likely they will they process what they can and hope there are no problem cases. Remember the vast majority of deals have been approved and most of those quite quickly. But things are up in the air.

It would be interesting to know how many sponsorship deals have been presented to the PL since the amendment to the APT rules - and how many have been subject to a FMV assessment - we know we have three but I wonder how many more were? That team who finished 8th have a new kit sponsor…. I wonder if that was assessed to see if it was in line with the shirt sponsorship deals of their peers… Newcastle, West Ham and Crystal Palace! I bet not.

 

[Stoned Rose]

What I can’t understanding as others have asked why can’t these owner loans be added retrospectively as we are being charged with alleged offences from years ago, and as these loans weren’t added to the APT from the start which has been shown to be illegal then surely that means the APT rules should not be applied from the day they were voted in regardless of any changes made earlier this year

Probably because the historical rules we’re alleged to have breached haven’t been proven to be unlawful.

 

[Stoned Rose]

I think the PL are probably caught in a catch 22 with this because PSR is inherently retrospective, it is calculated over the past three years.

So, if they don't take into account interest on shareholder loans for the past three years, that give those clubs with interest free loans an unfair and unlawful advantage.

But, if they do take that into account and those clubs end up failing PSR it seems likely they'll end up with a similar situation to the Leicester case where the rules are unenforceable because they didn't know or have the opportunity to resolve that at the time.

Possibly the only way it can be resolved is to wipe the PSR slate clean for everyone and start again.

What a delightful mess.

 

[MadchesterCity]

Everton will have no s/h loans - the existing ones are equity in all but name. Arsenal have lots of capacity as do Brighton. Which leaves some smaller levels of shareholder loan which can easily be converted to equity if need be.

Is that legal though? If so why is everyone who wants to invest not piling cash in as 0% interest shareholder loans and then converting them into equity, free cash to spend

 

[citizen_maine]

It would be interesting to know how many sponsorship deals have been presented to the PL since the amendment to the APT rules - and how many have been subject to a FMV assessment - we know we have three but I wonder how many more were? That team who finished 8th have a new kit sponsor…. I wonder if that was assessed to see if it was in line with the shirt sponsorship deals of their peers… Newcastle, West Ham and Crystal Palace! I bet not.

Not an associated party are they?

 

[wolviedinho]

It doesn’t really matter if the rules are null and void or just unlawful does it? Because sponsorships still need clearance from the league and they showed with Newcastles takeover they’re more than happy to pass an emergency rule blocking new sponsors being approved until permanent rules are passed.

So on a practical level, it doesn’t change anything for City, we still need our sponsorships to hold up to every legal test and requirement, just not the extra steps that pushed it into unlawful territory.

It became unlawful once it was established the sponsor was from Abu Dhabi. Unlawful under racist act 2008. Also know as the cartel made up rules act.