Cobwebcat
Well-Known Member
…and rallying around Richard. Guess he is on his own now.Total disarray:)
I thought the “big hitters” were attending
…and rallying around Richard. Guess he is on his own now.Total disarray:)
I thought the “big hitters” were attending
Looks that way. Chelsea are US owned and often side with us.I think it's becoming clear now that the Redshirt group's interests do not coincide with those of all the US owned clubs.
Is it not a case of "Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach?" ;-)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 :)
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
Three that ruled in our favour are lawyers or barristers it seems The one against is a teacher.
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 APTSo 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?
Was the napkin from a New York restaurant perchance?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.
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
Could the Glazers add money in (borrowed obviously) and then turn it into equity, diluting scruffy Jim’s percentage of ownership?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?