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

[Gaz (FMwkdsoul)]

That assumes everyone impacted by the inclusion of Shareholder loans is happy to include them

19 voted in fav, see who the outlier was and if they kick off.

 

[cheekybids]

You are Rob Harris and I claim my £115.

I tip my magic hat to you….

 

[citizen_maine]

19 voted in fav, see who the outlier was and if they kick off.

You've lost me. 19 voted in favour of what?

 

[Gaz (FMwkdsoul)]

You've lost me. 19 voted in favour of what?

leaving out shareholder loans from the initial APT rules.

 

[johnny crossan]

The judgment seems pretty clear to me that if tested PSR is also unlawful per the shareholder loan point - so separate but deeply connected. But I think it will be fixed.

As it happens I think there is an error in para 258 on this point. It says the Tribunal have been asked whether the exclusion of shareholder loans from the PSR distorts competition. But then go on to answer for APT Rules. City submitted that the exclusion of shareholder loans from the APT Rules was an object restriction. And the Tribunal agreed but it did not conclude on PSR as far as I can see unless anyone can spot it.




View attachment 135831

I recall an article in the NYT which claimed the "object" description above implied it was knowingly included as unlawful, do you agree with that interpretation?

 

[johnny crossan]

19 voted in fav, see who the outlier was and if they kick off.

Newcastle - somewhat unsurprisingly - our voting in favour was a surprise tho'.

 

[citizen_maine]

leaving out shareholder loans from the initial APT rules.

Right, sorry - that was kinda my original point. They're now looking to get those 19 to vote the other way. I'm not sure enough of them will

 

[slbsn]

I recall an article in the NYT which claimed the "object" description above implied it was knowingly included as unlawful, do you agree with that interpretation?

Don't understand the question. If you mean does a finding of object restriction equate to a finding that its inclusion was by design, yes I think it does.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

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.

that's exactly what City went for reading the judgment. They wanted shareholder loans classed as RPT's and I think they've got that reading between the lines. Which possibly makes the whole PSR rules unlawful as well

 

[give it to gordon]

The point I don't understand regarding these loans is under UEFA they are included in the ffp, but not included in the pl.
So how does that work ? Do clubs in Europe have two sets of finance books, one without the loans for the PL. Than another finance book which includes the loans for UEFA ffp ?