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

slbsn said:
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.View attachment 134985
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
Manchester City`s victories are evident.

This was a City win. To put it in football terms, the PL`s goalkeeper faced 10 shots and saved 7, however City scored three goals and won.

1. The tribunal found that the APT rules are unlawful because they breach competition law.
2. The tribunal found that the APT rules are procedurally unfair.
3. The PL has been found to have a dominant market position and its APT rules have been found to be unlawful and unfair.

There is not a quick fix as set out in the misleading and incorrect public statement belatedly issued by the PL on Monday, which they backtracked on as soon as Friday !

What now needs to be tested is whether all decisions made under the unlawful regime are now voided. That has significant implications.

Manchester City were right to bring the challenge, and it was entirely legitimate for them to do so because elements of the rules have been found to be unlawful.

The potential inclusion of shareholder loans into the profitability and sustainability regulations (PSR) will cause a number of other PL clubs much to think about. Some wo could have failed PSR if not for the preferential treatment they have received.

The ruling is a big wake-up call for the PL, its rule-making and decision-making powers.

Returning to football terms, City won the match with some beautiful strikes, the PL saved a few and had some good chances. The PL will be very wary next time they face City however the game will go on.
 
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.
 
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.