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

[citizen_maine]

I understand that for new (lawful) rules, you can have introductory concessions.

But to maintain rules that have been found to be unlawful, even for a grace period, seems to my simple brain to be having unlawful rules again (for the grace period).

Of course, I am happy to accept I know nothing about any of this. It wouldn't be the first time :)

The intention is to bring in new (lawful) rules though

 

[WRicko]

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?

The point is costs have to be fair market value including loans what your proposing doesn’t meet that criteria

 

[Stoned Rose]

Thanks for trying.

Still struggling with how you can have a grace period to correct something that has been previously found to be unlawful, tbh, but that is my problem and it will become clear soon enough, I guess :)

Appreciate your explanations as always.

I’m struggling with this too mate.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

I understand that for new (lawful) rules, you can have introductory concessions.

But to maintain rules that have been found to be unlawful, even for a grace period, seems to my simple brain to be having unlawful rules again (for the grace period).

Of course, I am happy to accept I know nothing about any of this. It wouldn't be the first time :)

The PL won't want to screw their cartel members if at all possible, so will be looking for a way out by way of a compromise , despite what appears to be a completely unlawful move. In my opinion which is without any legal knowledge.

 

[Gone for a Burton]

The PL will not want to penalise clubs with shareholder loans with their knowing about, and accepting there existence, pre the City case.

They will attempt a policy of mitigation despite the advantages the clubs have had (Brighton £300 million?).

Deals will be done with 'damaged' clubs to elicit their compliance and keep them from voting against the 'fudged' new rules.

If 7 clubs vote agin the new 'fudged' proposals the shit will fly high and wide.

I hope it happens and the 'guilty' are held to account and sanctioned with points deductions.

Most of them have been involved in trying to systematically destroy our club.

Revenge is a dish served cold....very cold.

Set fire to the rain City !!

 

[SilverFox2]

I understand that for new (lawful) rules, you can have introductory concessions.

But to maintain rules that have been found to be unlawful, even for a grace period, seems to my simple brain to be having unlawful rules again (for the grace period).

Of course, I am happy to accept I know nothing about any of this. It wouldn't be the first time :)
[/QUOTE

I understand that for new (lawful) rules, you can have introductory concessions.

But to maintain rules that have been found to be unlawful, even for a grace period, seems to my simple brain to be having unlawful rules again (for the grace period).

Of course, I am happy to accept I know nothing about any of this. It wouldn't be the first time :)

Many thanks 50up for asking these questions.

We have so much talent on BM (yourself included) so let's all get in layman's terms something that in legal terms is probably complicated.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

The intention is to bring in new (lawful) rules though

The intention should be to bring in new ( lawful ) rules, but that would impact on certain cabal members , which will not find favour amongst them . Arsenal are looking down the barrel it would appear.

 

[nmc]

I’m not surprised but there’s not a single mention of sustainability, fair play (hahaha) or the protection it offers the clubs to incentivise owners to turn their loans into equity.

If the lender, of say, Everton’s soft loans said they wanted them fully repaid tomorrow wouldn’t it effectively bankrupt the club?

Yes…. But it’s okay because the PL introduced the APT rules to prevent another Portsmouth ( the club where the owner recalled his soft loans at short notice which effectively bankrupted the club). Oh hang on….. the PL were lying and another Portsmouth could happen because the very rules introduced to ‘stop another Portsmouth’ were watered down by the red cartel (sound familiar.) so Everton are the prime candidates to be the next Portsmouth.

 

[cityontheup]

Still pisses me off / don’t understand why if we are being charged retrospectively and the ruling is these interest free loans should of been including from the start, why aren’t the loans and interest being added retrospectively?

 

[Stoned Rose]

The PL will not want to penalise clubs with shareholder loans with their knowing about, and accepting there existence, pre the City case.

They will attempt a policy of mitigation despite the advantages the clubs have had (Brighton £300 million?).

Deals will be done with 'damaged' clubs to elicit their compliance and keep them from voting against the 'fudged' new rules.

If 7 clubs vote agin the new 'fudged' proposals the shit will fly high and wide.

I hope it happens and the 'guilty' are held to account and sanctioned with points deductions.

Most of them have been involved in trying to systematically destroy our club.

Revenge is a dish served cold....very cold.

Set fire to the rain City !!

Shocking finishing mate.