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

[Goatmeal]

We need masters to be forced out.
Then let him blow the lid off the tail wagging the dog cartel

 

[halfcenturyup]

I think you are asking too much of the Tribunal. If City only challenged half heartedly (I think the lack of discussion suggests this is the case) the Tribunal had no grounds to reject Herbert’s evidence. This is especially so when the counter argument is one of bad faith - that’s bound to need cogent evidence and forceful submission that just wasn’t there or available.

Does the record of the proceedings have to include everything that happened in the hearing or can things that, in the end, weren't disputed be left out?

Thinking maybe both parties wanted to leave the discussion around RPTs and FMV of City's historical transactions to the 115 panel. The PL, maybe, because they have a weak case that could have undermined their whole APT ruleset. The club, maybe, because the burden of proof switches in the 115.

And, in the end, the issue didn't change the award, so no reason to push it and maybe get an unfavourable ruling that affects the other hearing: the rules have been declared unlawful anyway.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Any of you lot come round, Mrs London will set the dogs on you

No problem. Dogs love me. I think it's the smell .....

 

[terraloon]

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.

Personally I suspect that dividends will be the long term aim of many of the US owned clubs at some point .
Clubs will now have the best part of 6 months to sort T(24/25) if they leave owners loans on the books going forward I would be surprised that is unless there PSR numbers are ok even with a nominal charge to interest.
I genuinely don’t think they will re open T-1 or -2

 

[remember arthur mann]

In my opinion City will take these fuckers to the cleaners

And back hopefully.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Reading the thread, I have seen some posters say shareholder loans or equity can be used to spend money on players etc. But shareholder loans are not money earned (turnover) which is what the PSR is based on.

Whilst the shareholder loans can help with cashflow or reduce some interest costs due to low interest rates (might not be allowed going forward if these are tested for arms length principle), these loans or even if converted to equity will not equate to turnover and therefore be not much help towards PSR.

You're right, but the point is that there are cashflow items that don't appear in the P&L, which could include capital repayments on loans, outlay on transfers or spending on infrastructure. Similarly there are items in the P&L that don't specifically appear in the cashflow statement, including player amortisation.

Companies can report profits, based on their T/O and expenses in the P&L account, but could also have huge cash outflows. That will apply to us, with the construction of the CFA and the South and North stand extensions. The ownership group puts the cash in as equity, rather than loans. You could argue that whether it's loans or equity used to fund these sorts of building works, there's a distinct advantage in not having to fund capital outflows commercially.

If we had to fund the North Stand and hotel construction via commercial loans, we wouldn't have that money to spend on players, so does this give us an advantage over, say, Spurs, who funded the new WHL via their own cash and commercial debt?

 

[mancboy]

Any of you lot come round, Mrs London will set the dogs on you

how im picturing chris

 

[Lord Blue]

I think you are asking too much of the Tribunal. If City only challenged half heartedly (I think the lack of discussion suggests this is the case) the Tribunal had no grounds to reject Herbert’s evidence. This is especially so when the counter argument is one of bad faith - that’s bound to need cogent evidence and forceful submission that just wasn’t there or available.

i guess that, given the tribunal costs cold hard cash, they are only going to devote time to the specifics raised in the dispute. if city didn't ask for something to be specifically looked at, then the tribunal won't have delved deeply unless clearly relevant?

 

[JASR]

Any of you lot come round, Mrs London will set the dogs on you

Harsh name to call your kids.

 

[terraloon]

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?

From what I understand just about every one of the current loans can be called in ( nothings changed) most I believe not immediately but on notice of between 12 mths to 2 years is common place.
In stability terms it is an issue but for me most of the owners they have used the loan vehicle because it ticks so many boxes for them . As for why they changed the rules well I suspect it was a great result for them and if you don’t ask and all that!