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

[johnny crossan]

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?

US owned so they'll probably vote with the redshirt cartel etc and their catamites - Spurs, Brentford & Brighton. There's a chance though that they'll join a US owned splinter group with Everton, Villa & Chelsea.

 

[surprisedbygrass]

Someone should tell Sam Wallace....

Good post . I just listened to The Athletic podcast and one of the journalists , who has been doing a deep dive into the judgement, says it's been hard to get any lawyers to go on record at this stage as so many of them are advising PL teams as to their individual positions ....and don't want to declare for one side of the other . Suggests to me that this will take some time to sort out .

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

US owned so they'll probably vote with the redshirt cartel and their catamites - Spurs, Brentford & Bournemouth. There's a chance though that they'll join a US owned splinter group with Everton, Villa & Chelsea.

It’s all about self interest at the end of the day.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Good, get the right advice and take it, then present it for a vote. Its not that difficult

I suspect Masters doesn't want to face the clubs until he has an idea of how much compensation they have to pay City which will hit them all in the pockets.

 

[johnny crossan]

It’s all about self interest at the end of the day.

I think it's becoming clear now that the Redshirt group's interests do not coincide with those of all the US owned clubs.

 

[Chris in London]

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”?

Yes. The matters relied on by the PL are outlined at paras 17-18 and explained in more detail at paras 180-185. I don’t read the “misplaced” issue as referring to anything other than Portsmouth

 

[Chris in London]

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

Except that calling in shareholders loans was precisely what fucked Portsmouth. Which according to the PL was what motivated the changes in the first place.

So is it not that much of an issue after all?

And if you’re right that it’s not that much of an issue have you applied your mind to (a) why they bothered changing the rules in the first place and (b) why they tried to exempt shareholder loans from the regulations?

 

[halfcenturyup]

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?

Tbf, I don't think anyone knows what is going on in the background. Without knowing that, it's difficult to make educated guesses.

And there are very few people in the country with their competition law experience to understand it, so we just have to wait for more news then try to make sense of it later.

 

[kingn6]

Some blue advice on how to deal with Masters

 

[hello]

I suspect Masters doesn't want to face the clubs until he has an idea of how much compensation they have to pay City which will hit them all in the pockets.

Didn't he blow of some big event with the yank broadcasters to attend this emergency meeting? So he potentially fucks up the biggest overseas TV deal by blowing off their execs to chair a meeting and then cancels it? We knew he was an incompetent corrupt clown but he's taking ineptitude to new levels.