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

[Colin Bells Boots]

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.

Sounds like the sort of comment a small-claims lawyer would make :)

 

[halfcenturyup]

The Portsmouth reference was around the implementation of PSR in the first place wasn’t it, rather than around APTs? Or are you saying that in terms of how much the underlying motivations behind some of the PSR rules had changed?

Or is it they’re referring to Portsmouth when they talk about “misplaced references to one administrative procedure of one PL club 14 years ago”?

I assumed the one administrative procedure was something we don't know about Etihad I. The timing is just too coincidental.

As @Chris in London and I agree on everything now, I can presume to answer for him. I think he is saying using Portsmouth as a justification for FFP/PSR while allowing the very mechanism that did for them, soft loans, unfettered in APT (and FFP/PSR btw) can be seen to be contradictory. Hypocritical, even.

(Waiting to be blasted .....). :)

 

[meltonblue]

I assumed the one administrative procedure was something we don't know about Etihad I. The timing is just too coincidental.

As @Chris in London and I agree on everything now, I can presume to answer for him. I think he is saying using Portsmouth as a justification for FFP/PSR while allowing the very mechanism that did for them, soft loans, unfettered in APT (and FFP/PSR btw) can be seen to be contradictory. Hypocritical, even.

(Waiting to be blasted .....). :)

Yes that’s what I’m assuming too, just wanted to check :)

 

[halfcenturyup]

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?

Loans are just part of the funding strategy of a club by the owner. Mansour put funding in as 100% but he has mucho dineiro. Some owners may prefer to loan money so it can be repaid easily if the club is in a position to do so. Some owners may prefer loans for tax reasons - favourable tax treatment for interest income compared to dividends, for example.

If an owner considers he can increase equity and reduce loans, he can convert some of the loans to equity (new shares) without putting more cash in (the cash was received when the loan was made). It is just a book-keeping entry, apart from some documentation and some minor associated costs.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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.

Have checked his LinkedIn and whilst very impressive academically he has no vocational qualifications and thereby has never practised as a lawyer.

I wouldn’t discount his views, but I wouldn’t give them as much weight as those who practise. Greater academic powers do not necessarily equate to better judgement.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Have checked his LinkedIn and whilst very impressive academically he has no vocational qualifications and thereby has never practised as a lawyer.

I wouldn’t discount his views, but I wouldn’t give them as much weight as those who practise. Greater academic powers does not necessarily equate to better judgement.

Those who can .....

 

[halfcenturyup]

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

Here if anyone wants to read the whole thing.

https://archive.ph/OO1zo

Always good to hear different views, I just to think it's too early really to say much about the consequences yet.

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

Have checked his LinkedIn and whilst very impressive academically he has no vocational qualifications and thereby has never practised as a lawyer.

I wouldn’t discount his views, but I wouldn’t give them as much weight as those who practise. Greater academic powers do not necessarily equate to better judgement.

Can he do it on a cold wet day in Birmingham at the Small Claims Court?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Those who can .....

I think that’s slightly unfair in respect of him, because looking at his qualifications and current calling he’s clearly highly academic and so is presumably doing what he does professionally out of choice, not because he couldn’t cut it in practice.

I guess if you are a legal geek then being a law/jurisprudence lecturer at Oxford is pretty close to nirvana! I also expect he’s a right boring ****!

But I’d be wary about his views on the implications of this or any other judgment as his basis for evaluating such things is essentially theoretical, which means his sense of judging these things isn’t as fully developed as those who operate in the field.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Can he do it on a cold wet day in Birmingham at the Small Claims Court?

He doesn’t even appear to have the requisite rights of audience to do that!