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

[Gaz (FMwkdsoul)]

It's a bit more complex than that. To make APT lawful they'll have to include director loans & apply the amended rules retrospectively. Obviously, this has several serious implications.

If they throw the whole lot out, it has serious implications for clubs affected by the unlawful APT rule.

From what I can see, the PL are fucked if they do, & fucked if they don't. They've only got themselves to blame...

not seen this, is this confirmed anywhere? @slbsn ?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Sheikh Mansour would almost certainly be a related party to City. However there's no way he could be described as a related party to Etihad. Nor are Etihad a related party to City.

And yet UEFA persuaded PwC to say they were related a decade ago. Worth a punt for them, I guess.

 

[slbsn]

not seen this, is this confirmed anywhere? @slbsn ?

I don't agree with these domesday (from the PL's perspective) scenarios. Suspect the actual amendments will ULTIMATELY be relatively straightforward. Remember shareholder loans is a PSR and an APT issue but I think it is unlikely it makes all PSR null and void or that it requires retrospective application of shareholder loans. That said, nobody knows - not the clubs, not City, not the PL. There is no simple answer to these sort of questions.

 

[halfcenturyup]

not seen this, is this confirmed anywhere? @slbsn ?

The only things confirmed are what was set out in the award.

But the theory is that City think the APT rules are null and void and so not enforceable until they are re-written and pre-approved. Win for City as the Etihad deal isn't challenged.

The PL seems to think they can tweak the rules. They can't tweak the rules for assessing deals retroactively, but not tweak the rules for shareholder loans retroactively, so they either have to do both retroactively which will be difficult with voting (even if it's legal) or do neither, which is a win for City as the Etihad deal isn't challenged.

I think.

 

[Gaz (FMwkdsoul)]

The club only things confirmed are what was set out in the award.

But the theory is that City think the APT rules are null and void and so not enforceable until they are re-written and pre-approved. Win for City as the Etihad deal isn't challenged.

The PL seems to think they can tweak the rules. They can't tweak the rules for assessing deals retroactively, but not tweak the rules for shareholder loans retroactively, so they either have to do both retroactively which will be difficult with voting (even if it's legal) or do neither, which is a win for City as the Etihad deal isn't challenged.

I think.

Draw a line in the sand, and apply the new rules/amendments Im expecting.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Draw a line in the sand, and apply the new rules/amendments Im expecting.

Very likely a drawing of a line under City's issues.

But what happens if other clubs have suffered consequences because of all this? Could still get messy.

 

[johnny crossan]

I don't agree with these domesday (from the PL's perspective) scenarios. Suspect the actual amendments will ULTIMATELY be relatively straightforward. Remember shareholder loans is a PSR and an APT issue but I think it is unlikely it makes all PSR null and void or that it requires retrospective application of shareholder loans. That said, nobody knows - not the clubs, not City, not the PL. There is no simple answer to these sort of questions.

Even the Blind Pugh can see the PL are in deep doo doo Stefan - there's nowhere for the PSR rules (or the replacement version) to go without folding in shareholder loans and that is their Doomsday scenario. Self fulfilling prophecies rarely end well.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Sheikh Mansour would almost certainly be a related party to City. However there's no way he could be described as a related party to Etihad. Nor are Etihad a related party to City.

Exactly my point.
2 sponsorships are covered as Sheikh Mansour has personal shareholdings in those UAE companies. Etisalat is one.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I don't agree with these domesday (from the PL's perspective) scenarios. Suspect the actual amendments will ULTIMATELY be relatively straightforward. Remember shareholder loans is a PSR and an APT issue but I think it is unlikely it makes all PSR null and void or that it requires retrospective application of shareholder loans. That said, nobody knows - not the clubs, not City, not the PL. There is no simple answer to these sort of questions.

Do you think shareholders loans for APT and shareholders loans for FFP/PSR are separate issues?

Simplistically, you would think if the treatment of shareholder loans makes the APT rules unlawful, then it makes the PSR rules unlawful too, if challenged. And if the rules have been applied unlawfully since inception, that is a big problem.

But, I suppose, there may be different arguments for the current PSR position compared to the current APT position.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Exactly my point.
2 sponsorships are covered as Sheikh Mansour has personal shareholdings in those UAE companies. Etisalat is one.

Having a personal shareholding in a company doesn't make it a related party, does it? It may have changed but it didn't in my day.