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

Rory Bluelow said:
The old adage of “those who cannot do, teach” is often true, particularly where commercial and legal matters are concerned.
Click to expand...
If the law was that easy, the PL wouldn't have got it wrong. And their "practising" lawyers would have told them to save their money and give in.
 
manimanc said:
As if this bellend or anyone at the Premier League is going to get the 115 on us. Not a fuckin chance.

The way they've handled this shitshow goes to show you they haven't got a scoobies what they are doing.

Masters has committed professional suicide.
Click to expand...
Ole Mr 4th choice as I call him.
 
Chris in London said:
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?
Click to expand...
Nobody is proposing outlawing loans so I don't think the Portsmouth example is key. And whether the loans would have been called in or not, Portsmouth would've been bust very quickly without shareholder support regardless of the loans. The action of calling the loan may have triggered it (to be honest not sure if that is the case or not without checking but I'd guess HMRC really triggered the collapse) but it will always be a matter of time if the owners stop funding a club like Portsmouth.

And I would say they resisted including loans because it wasn't a meaningful advantage and helped with admin so nobody was particularly bothered Inc City. But when City needed the argument, they dusted it down and successfully ran it at the Tribunal.
 
Chris in London said:
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?
Click to expand...
Portsmouth went into administration in early 2012. And we still don't have any rules about debt or shareholder loans in PSR. It's really hard to buy the argument that the amended rules had anything to do with Portsmouth therefore.

The PL seem to have had quite an easy ride over the issue of why they introduced the original APT rules when they did, so soon after the Newcastle takeover, while simultaneously claiming this was a reaction to something that happened nearly 10 years earlier. It's disappointing that neither our legal team, nor the tribunal members raised this.

Also why they seem to have prima facie accepted the explanation of the email sent from (let's hazard a guess) Daniel Levy referring to 'Gulf states' but where verbal evidence was given that this was effectively not specifically aimed at Gulf states but was just an example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.