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

The only criticism I have of Martin Samuel's article concerns his discussion of the role of Sir Jim's investment in the rags. Samuel is right to argue that the rags could be involved in the title race if Ineos were allowed to finance the changes needed at the club - but PSR prevents this. This is far too charitable to Sir Jim. There is much more evidence to show that Sir Jim put money into the club BECAUSE the rules would NOT allow him to finance any real change. There is no evidence of any real disagreement with the Glazers and no real evidence of a desire to spend, no desire of real unhappiness with the rules. What we have seen with his other clubs is rather a determination to cut costs and increase profitability at a cost of bringing no success on the field. At the swamp we have seen an emphasis on cutting costs coupled with the worst start to a league season since ... Sir Jim is the kind of "investor" that PSR attracts ... a hard faced "what's in it for me? ... "loads a momey" wide boy. Pay no tax, put nowt in, make a packet and stuff the rest.
Bang on mate, its scruff's safety blanket "the rules stop me from spending dont they".
 
how much more do they want to spend they just spent 600 million
Well, I suppose a few bob on a leaking roof, and a few broken seats. Then there's the new 100000 seater super stadium. But Scruffy seems to hope the fans will fix the seats themselves and everybody else's fans will pay for the stadium. He really doesn't like paying taxes so it wouldn't be a good idea to expect too much. He's only a poor billionaire.
 
How has the Daily Fail got hold of the 14 page document?

A 14-page document outlining proposed changes and seen by Mail Sport has been sent to clubs ahead of what promises to be a potentially volatile meeting at the swanky Nobu Hotel in Portman Square.

The inclusion of shareholder loans – monies lent to clubs from those with stakes in them – is one of three changes being proposed across the 14 pages.

Instead, that exclusion has now been removed, although equity injection investments remain exempt. The other two focus on access to a databank of commercial deals used by the Premier League to reach a verdict on whether a proposed sponsorship is at fair market value (FMV) and the reversal of a number of changes brought in earlier this year.

The definition of FMV has been changed from whether the amount ‘could’ be sold rather than ‘would’ be sold between willing parties. The words ‘in normal market conditions’ have been removed, along with three lengthy paragraphs outlining its definition by the Premier League. There is an argument that in exceptional circumstances companies linked to countries in the midst of huge drives for exposure, such as Saudi Arabia, would be willing to pay a premium.

One issue the competition may face is a reluctance from those who benefit from shareholder loans to vote for the changes. And clarity may need to be sought from the tribunal panel on whether the amendments satisfy their requirements.

 

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.