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

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...
The old adage of “those who cannot do, teach” is often true, particularly where commercial and legal matters are concerned.
 
terraloon said:
I think the point you make has been missed by so many commentators .

Namely that these loans are sums that for the vast majority of owners have chosen to leave on the books because of advantages be it to them or indeed the club and if their is a PSR advantage that’s great
I very much doubt that any PL club owner sees their cash input into a club as a sort term investment so when putting the money in converting into equity won’t be that much of an issue and way above my pay grade I believe it is possible for a company to buy back shares from shareholders at cost without any significant tax issues
My point is that the author of that Athletic article is making the assumption that these loans will remain in the accounts as loans when I am pretty sure that that will not be the case
Click to expand...

You reduce shareholder's equity most easily by paying dividends. Reducing share capital is a bind. But your point stands.

Here is a question. How to apply loan interest to these soft loans in the 24/25 assessment? Is applying interest to years T-1 and T-2 in a future assessment, applying it retrospectively? I think what we can say, is that it's a mess.
 
fulabeer said:
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!
Click to expand...
Brilliant analogy!
 
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.