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

[Citizen Green]

1: PL 'won' with minor changes to be made to APT regs
2: Meeting next week to propose rules that are *legal* to be agreed upon
3: City want to sue until they win, why don't they just leave the league if they don't like the *unlawful* rules (lol)
4: Meeting cancelled

 

[oakiecokie]

Without wanting to sound thick (many would agree that I already am) does this actually mean that the PL advisers have warned them to "re=write" these rules and is this positive for City, or are we all being a bit too premature ?
#Thickooakie#

 

[waspish]

It's why the meetings been cancelled they know they won't get the votes! Funny if the other have the votes not to push anything they want through they have someone at the top to just cancel a scheduled meeting! All ifs on buts on my part though

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It's why the meetings been cancelled they know they won't get the votes! Funny if the other have the votes not to push anything they want through they have someone at the top to just cancel a scheduled meeting! All ifs on buts on my part though

I reckon you are correct mate. I think the respective clubs’ positions will have been made clear to the PL since last week, or at least enough to act as an effective veto.

I wonder how Ipswich would vote?

 

[hello]

Of that panel of four, I would always tend to put more weight on the views of practising experts in the field rather than an academic. On the bases of each individual bio, Leaf seems most expert and Zglinski least.
3 out of 4 is good :)

The old adage that those that can't hack it the real world "teach"

 

[hello]

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.

Or some not so minor costs if you play in red and need a fucking huge exception to make the threshold you deemed was acceptable when writing the rules on a napkin.

 

[johnny crossan]

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

So you think the PL won't have to rewrite the APT rules (back to say 2021) and factor in the loans and interest into the PSR calculations for those clubs with interest free loans? Also the new anchoring proposals won't need to include them either - assuming they are not converted into equity?

 

[argyle]

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

Someone should tell Sam Wallace....

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Someone should tell Sam Wallace....

And Rob ‘Gore Vidal’ Draper.

 

[MCFC1993]

Wouldn't be surprised if most clubs want to drop the APT stuff now that shareholder loans have to be included.

Meetings probably been cancelled because they won't be able to vote the actual changes required to make APT work through.

The red shirts wanted a version of APT that blocked others from doing what they wanted but allowed them to do as they pleased. Now that's been rumbled as illegal the league is at a sticking point.