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

[Stockton Heath Blue]

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 :)

Is it not a case of "Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach?" ;-)

 

[meltonblue]

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

Got you. The Portsmouth one is interesting as that really shows the fallacy of the reasons behind putting in PSR in the first place as they’d have still have passed PSR. Including shareholder loans in APTs wouldn’t have changed their plight either, it was allowing shareholder loans at all rather than equity that ultimately was their downfall (similar with Abramovic and Chelsea recently).

That’s still the issue with PSR to me. Until it puts in measures that focus on the balance sheet as much as the P&L, it can’t be said to have sustainability as its main motivation, it just doesn’t make sense as it doesn’t go far enough to do that.

 

[supercity88]

Three that ruled in our favour are lawyers or barristers it seems The one against is a teacher.

That's it. One is an Associate Professor at LSE and so spends their time thinking about theories and trying to hypothesise what certain decisions mean in practice. The other three are practicing lawyers so see the laws in practice, apply them and are best placed to assess what they mean for clients. You can go with the guy with his head in the clouds or the three who have their feet on the ground.

 

[slbsn]

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?

I never said that. Rules equivalent to the UEFA rules are inevitable on shareholder loans. These will be added to the 2021 APT regime or an equivalent rewrite of it. And they will apply beyond APT - in reality every interest free loan is a RPT not an APT

 

[old blue]

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.

Was the napkin from a New York restaurant perchance?

 

[Centurions]

Well well well

Emergency summit over Man City legal saga has been DITCHED

MIKE KEEGAN: The emergency meeting between the Premier League and its clubs rocked by the recent dispute with Manchester City has been ditched.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Perhaps they got a copy of the email City sent to the other 19 clubs offering to answer any and all questions on the panels conclusion? It would make sense for them to educate themselves before "tweaking" the APT rules. I'm sure we'd be happy to help.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Agree I honestly can’t understand this, could you add a billion in 0% share holder loans and use that to buy new players and avoid PSR and FFP rules?

Could the Glazers add money in (borrowed obviously) and then turn it into equity, diluting scruffy Jim’s percentage of ownership?

 

[Cobwebcat]

The PL should have just been allowed to carry on passing unlawful rules.

City have caused everyone loads of trouble with their actions and we will no doubt pay for our rudeness.

Who do we think we are? Not content with winning on the field we now have to win off it too?

State owned bloody oil money. We should be ashamed.

If this carries on I’m going to switch teams to someone with a proper history beginning from the time my new club started to be successful.

Footy just isn’t fun anymore what with all our cheating. How can anyone else compete with us? The right thing would be to know our place..it’s not like we even wear red. I’m just ashamed.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Zglinski is clearly a bitter **** and should never be referenced on here again.

He's in his mid-30's and has spent all his career in academia, as a student, research fellow or a lecturer. Whereas Leaf is a practicing lawyer in Sports Law.

I think someone said on here a while back that an academic could have a very different standpoint on an issue compared to a "real" lawyer.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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.

Just posted on this. He's purely an academic.