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

[SilverFox2]

I used to work in the dairy industry & they still talk of losing a massive export contract from Japan & a quick google tells you the sponsorship should be approved ;)

“In fiscal year 2022, the annual consumption volume of milk and dairy products in Japan amounted to almost 94 kilograms per person, accounting for the largest type of food eaten. While milk is also drank as a beverage in Japan, the main way of consumption is in a processed form.”

Milk is big business everywhere for the reasons you describe together with the fact that it is processed to get most of its nutrients out. This leaves so called healthier skimmed versions.
Then they sell the extracted nutrients back to us in the form of powdered whey for it's suddenly healthy protein value.

 

[cheekybids]

How much do people think the Etihad Airways sponsorship is worth now after our success and inter continental expansion ?

10% 50% 100% ?% more.

 

[M18CTID]

But, but, but.....I thought the Premier League said it was very easy to amend the rules?

After reading this below, it seems it may drag on for a fair while yet. Apparently they're talking about applying different interest rates to different clubs for shareholder loans based on the credit score of each club (which, as unfair as that sounds, is arguably the proper way to do it) and some clubs aren't happy about it!

"Concerns have been raised to the Premier League that proposed new rules on shareholder loans will hand a further advantage to the top flight's wealthiest clubs.
A challenge to the league's associated party transaction (APT) rules by Manchester City has forced it to include a fair market value assessment of such loans in amended rules to be put before clubs at a meeting later this month.
Club owners and other shareholders were previously able to put in interest-free loans, but it is now proposed an effective rate of interest will be applied to them which will vary from club to club depending on their credit score.
The PA news agency understands some clubs have questioned the charging of variable rates - arguing it hands an advantage to clubs with the deepest pockets.
However, the league is understood to have advised clubs who pushed back that the rate could not be the same across all clubs for legal reasons.
An arbitration panel found the APT rules were unlawful because they excluded shareholder loans.
The rule amendment will not require fair market value interest charges to be backdated to the time the loan was first issued. However, it is understood the proposed amendment would mean an effective interest rate would be applied to any existing loan going forward after a grace period - not just to new loans.
During the grace period, club owners and shareholders who have put in loans will have the option to convert them to equity if they wish, though doing so makes taking their money out less straightforward.
Clubs are set to vote on a number of APT rule amendments at a meeting in London on November 22.
One involves replacing "would" with "could" in the wording of what constitutes fair market value within the rules, which should have the effect of providing more wriggle room to clubs."

 

[halfcenturyup]

But, but, but.....I thought the Premier League said it was very easy to amend the rules?

After reading this below, it seems it may drag on for a fair while yet. Apparently they're talking about applying different interest rates to different clubs for shareholder loans based on the credit score of each club (which, as unfair as that sounds, is arguably the proper way to do it) and some clubs aren't happy about it!

"Concerns have been raised to the Premier League that proposed new rules on shareholder loans will hand a further advantage to the top flight's wealthiest clubs.
A challenge to the league's associated party transaction (APT) rules by Manchester City has forced it to include a fair market value assessment of such loans in amended rules to be put before clubs at a meeting later this month.
Club owners and other shareholders were previously able to put in interest-free loans, but it is now proposed an effective rate of interest will be applied to them which will vary from club to club depending on their credit score.
The PA news agency understands some clubs have questioned the charging of variable rates - arguing it hands an advantage to clubs with the deepest pockets.
However, the league is understood to have advised clubs who pushed back that the rate could not be the same across all clubs for legal reasons.
An arbitration panel found the APT rules were unlawful because they excluded shareholder loans.
The rule amendment will not require fair market value interest charges to be backdated to the time the loan was first issued. However, it is understood the proposed amendment would mean an effective interest rate would be applied to any existing loan going forward after a grace period - not just to new loans.
During the grace period, club owners and shareholders who have put in loans will have the option to convert them to equity if they wish, though doing so makes taking their money out less straightforward.
Clubs are set to vote on a number of APT rule amendments at a meeting in London on November 22.
One involves replacing "would" with "could" in the wording of what constitutes fair market value within the rules, which should have the effect of providing more wriggle room to clubs."

That's weird. How can you have a grace period for making the rules lawful. They either are lawful at a specific moment in time, or they aren't, in which case they are unenforceable?

I know: "We introduced rules two years ago for the death penalty for pitch invasions. What? We can't do that? OK we will keep applying the current rules so everyone gets used to them in two years' time. What's that you say? Your husband was put to death last year for this? Can't do anything about that. The rules weren't unlawful then......".

 

[Paladin]

But, but, but.....I thought the Premier League said it was very easy to amend the rules?

After reading this below, it seems it may drag on for a fair while yet. Apparently they're talking about applying different interest rates to different clubs for shareholder loans based on the credit score of each club (which, as unfair as that sounds, is arguably the proper way to do it) and some clubs aren't happy about it!

"Concerns have been raised to the Premier League that proposed new rules on shareholder loans will hand a further advantage to the top flight's wealthiest clubs.
A challenge to the league's associated party transaction (APT) rules by Manchester City has forced it to include a fair market value assessment of such loans in amended rules to be put before clubs at a meeting later this month.
Club owners and other shareholders were previously able to put in interest-free loans, but it is now proposed an effective rate of interest will be applied to them which will vary from club to club depending on their credit score.
The PA news agency understands some clubs have questioned the charging of variable rates - arguing it hands an advantage to clubs with the deepest pockets.
However, the league is understood to have advised clubs who pushed back that the rate could not be the same across all clubs for legal reasons.
An arbitration panel found the APT rules were unlawful because they excluded shareholder loans.
The rule amendment will not require fair market value interest charges to be backdated to the time the loan was first issued. However, it is understood the proposed amendment would mean an effective interest rate would be applied to any existing loan going forward after a grace period - not just to new loans.
During the grace period, club owners and shareholders who have put in loans will have the option to convert them to equity if they wish, though doing so makes taking their money out less straightforward.
Clubs are set to vote on a number of APT rule amendments at a meeting in London on November 22.
One involves replacing "would" with "could" in the wording of what constitutes fair market value within the rules, which should have the effect of providing more wriggle room to clubs."

I thought the intention was to make appropriate adjustments in PSR to remove the benefit of interest-free loans. Sounds like they are actually going to force clubs to pay the interest or convert the loans to equity.

This will take money out of football unnecessarily. Surely, allow the interest free loans, and ring fence the saved money for club projects that are outside the remit of PSR?

 

[bluealf]

I'm 85% lacoste intolerant

100% intolerant to clomethiazole as well.

I'm lactose intolerant as well, milk, cream, ice cream, yoghurt, custard, if I eat too much milk chocolate but not cheese unless I eat a stupidly high amount.

 

[citizen_maine]

That's weird. How can you have a grace period for making the rules lawful. They either are lawful at a specific moment in time, or they aren't, in which case they are unenforceable?

I know: "We introduced rules two years ago for the death penalty for pitch invasions. What? We can't do that? OK we will keep applying the current rules so everyone gets used to them in two years' time. What's that you say? Your husband was put to death last year for this? Can't do anything about that. The rules weren't unlawful then......".

I think what they mean is that you'll need to include the loans immediately, but there will be a grace period in which the loans will be an acceptable excuse for breaching the PSR limit i.e. if the loans are the only reason you would have breached, you'll be ok

 

[wolviedinho]

But, but, but.....I thought the Premier League said it was very easy to amend the rules?

After reading this below, it seems it may drag on for a fair while yet. Apparently they're talking about applying different interest rates to different clubs for shareholder loans based on the credit score of each club (which, as unfair as that sounds, is arguably the proper way to do it) and some clubs aren't happy about it!

"Concerns have been raised to the Premier League that proposed new rules on shareholder loans will hand a further advantage to the top flight's wealthiest clubs.
A challenge to the league's associated party transaction (APT) rules by Manchester City has forced it to include a fair market value assessment of such loans in amended rules to be put before clubs at a meeting later this month.
Club owners and other shareholders were previously able to put in interest-free loans, but it is now proposed an effective rate of interest will be applied to them which will vary from club to club depending on their credit score.
The PA news agency understands some clubs have questioned the charging of variable rates - arguing it hands an advantage to clubs with the deepest pockets.
However, the league is understood to have advised clubs who pushed back that the rate could not be the same across all clubs for legal reasons.
An arbitration panel found the APT rules were unlawful because they excluded shareholder loans.
The rule amendment will not require fair market value interest charges to be backdated to the time the loan was first issued. However, it is understood the proposed amendment would mean an effective interest rate would be applied to any existing loan going forward after a grace period - not just to new loans.
During the grace period, club owners and shareholders who have put in loans will have the option to convert them to equity if they wish, though doing so makes taking their money out less straightforward.
Clubs are set to vote on a number of APT rule amendments at a meeting in London on November 22.
One involves replacing "would" with "could" in the wording of what constitutes fair market value within the rules, which should have the effect of providing more wriggle room to clubs."

With the new proposals and the legal frameworks the dishonest premier must now operate, well at least for this specific part of the apt rules, in a fair and partial way towards all members. So why did they not do this from the start? Anyone asking this question?

It seems the web of deceit is coming full circle on those clubs who came after city.

Did they really expect us to take this shit all because they said so? Tribalism has caused these people along with some hate to act in an unreasonable way. That can only be good news for city.

The media will now proclaim us saviours of football. Shining a light on the unlawful activities of some clubs aided by masters. Oh that’s right, city lost the apt case, didn’t we? Now we want to ruin football.

Apocalypse now and it’s live…

 

[citizen_maine]

I thought the intention was to make appropriate adjustments in PSR to remove the benefit of interest-free loans. Sounds like they are actually going to force clubs to pay the interest or convert the loans to equity.

This will take money out of football unnecessarily. Surely, allow the interest free loans, and ring fence the saved money for club projects that are outside the remit of PSR?

Why include sponsorships in PSR then? This is the whole point of the judgment is it not?

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Its doublethink. We lost the APT case, yet we are now responsible for fucking football finances up because of our APT case win!

The media have screwed themselves into this totally illogical picture of what is going on. I mean the public now have to believe both things are true even though they conflict. Wtf.