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

slbsn said:
All interest free loans are coming from near 100% owners. And there isn’t some 30-40% tax saving by giving an interest free loan. Yes there are reasons why they chose loan vs equity but it’s usually about flexibility. They can’t call these loans in - none of the clubs with meaningful loans have that kind of capital lying around. We are talking about Brighton (£400m of as good as equity loan),Everton £450m (actually accounted for as equity from memory and about to be written off in Friedkin deal), Arsenal (already accounting for FMV with UEFA and loads of PSR capacity anyway) and then small loans around the edges.

It just isn’t a big deal but you don’t need to agree. Many don’t.
Click to expand...

It's only a big deal to the extent that it forces shareholders to do something they presumably didn't want to do: either capitalise the loans or take a hit to the P/L.

Each club can determine how serious that is to them. As you say, probably not very in most cases. But maybe some clubs won't be so keen on ex-ante assessment when it affects them. Who knows?

But I'm not sure I agree that they can't call shareholder loans in because the clubs don't have the funds to repay them. They can call in whatever cash the club has and effectively bankrupt them. As in Portsmouth?
 
I am a bit confused regarding the meaning of turning loans into equity.

Are all these 14 clubs that currently have shareholder loans struggling financially hence they have taken these shareholder loans which if they were to repay would tip them into a deeper financial crisis hence the club just gives the shareholders more shares in the club and holds onto the cash that was originally loaned to them?
 
slbsn said:
All interest free loans are coming from near 100% owners. And there isn’t some 30-40% tax saving by giving an interest free loan. Yes there are reasons why they chose loan vs equity but it’s usually about flexibility. They can’t call these loans in - none of the clubs with meaningful loans have that kind of capital lying around. We are talking about Brighton (£400m of as good as equity loan),Everton £450m (actually accounted for as equity from memory and about to be written off in Friedkin deal), Arsenal (already accounting for FMV with UEFA and loads of PSR capacity anyway) and then small loans around the edges.

It just isn’t a big deal but you don’t need to agree. Many don’t.
Click to expand...
It would be really helpful if perhaps you could summarise the principal reasons given by 'the many' for their disagreement with your assessment that 'it isn't a big deal' ?
 
Strange how most of the PL clubs are looking at their investments.
Their investments range from expecting aa cash cow indefinately to wanting to massively invest but prevented by rules.

How lucky we are to have an owner who simply invested not only financially but also in management people at the peak of their obvious areas of expertise.

Incidentally our owners investment continues which must be frightening to others who must spend to compete where previously they could divide up their cartel profits and simply buy votes by giving breadcrumbs to mid table clubs.

We have gone legal on the PL where their targeted changes to rule have been hastily configured with a hubris that the writers never considered so I am hopeful there are many other areas of general illegality or unfairness that our waiting game will turn to if necessary.
 
johnny crossan said:
It would be really helpful if perhaps you could summarise the principal reasons given by 'the many' for their disagreement with your assessment that 'it isn't a big deal' ?
Click to expand...
They don’t understand that such loans are basically equity anyway. Everton’s shareholder loans are actually treated as equity in their accounts under FRS102.22. The owners can achieve most of the aims of shareholder loans (like added security) with slithers of loans. And this was the explanation from one lawyer in the Athletic. He doesn’t get it because even his number is highly misleading.1728984714203.png
 
freshie said:
View attachment 134980

View attachment 134981

View attachment 134979

View attachment 134982
View attachment 134983

So 3 out of the 4 lawyers felt that it wad a win for us
Click to expand...
Not even sure if the fourth one is a lawyer. I’d say he’s almost certainly not a practising one. I’m always wary of academics talking about the implications of determinations because they don’t have a feel for things like those at the coal face do. Only a lived experience can give you that instinct.
 
slbsn said:
zglinski is taken from his tweet. Nobody can call the changes to the fundamental calculation of FMV to be “minor quibbles”. That misunderstands the importance of that test.

Obviously, I wouldn’t want to “punch down” on Panja again [eye roll] but seems he hasn’t publicised Simon Leaf’s more considered view. Funny that.
Click to expand...

Panja disingenuous or selective ?

Are you sure
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Not even sure if the fourth one is a lawyer. I’d say he’s almost certainly not a practising one. I’m always wary of academics talking about the implications of determinations because they don’t have a feel for things like those at the coal face do. Only a lived experience can give you that instinct.
Click to expand...


Sounds like the sort of comment a small-claims lawyer would make :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.