Do the proposed new rules mean that clubs actually have to pay interest on the shareholder loans or that an amount is calculated and subtracted from allowable losses for PSR purposes?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,088
Do the proposed new rules mean that clubs actually have to pay interest on the shareholder loans or that an amount is calculated and subtracted from allowable losses for PSR purposes?
The proposed rules don't address PSR at all, do they? Which may be a problem ...
Gone for a Burton
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2022
- Messages
- 4,554
- Team supported
- City
ere earfutuis eos longa et dura urbe !
Would make a great motto…..
Gone for a Burton
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2022
- Messages
- 4,554
- Team supported
- City
I dont know, but its an intriguing question.Do the proposed new rules mean that clubs actually have to pay interest on the shareholder loans or that an amount is calculated and subtracted from allowable losses for PSR purposes?
nmc
Well-Known Member
Let's think about what City's position is now. I suppose we can assume the club's position is still that all the APT rules are currently null and void in their entirety.
The PL's document doesn't say, apparently, that the tribunal has clarified this issue. So where does that leave issues like the lawfulness of PSR, the restatement of PSR numbers for shareholder loans, the legality of sanctions issued under PSR and the rest?
Are we going to see further legal action from the club, as threatened before?
You’d think maybe the PL are leaving themselves open to a range of challenges. If PSR were recalculated for the last period and included a calculation for a FMV afor shareholder loans that could majorly impact, finishing positions (assuming points deductions) prize money and relegation… From City’s perspective a return to the Tribunal for clarification has to remain an option.
nmc
Well-Known Member
Do the proposed new rules mean that clubs actually have to pay interest on the shareholder loans or that an amount is calculated and subtracted from allowable losses for PSR purposes?
I bet it’ll be the latter but to be consistent with the PLs approach re sponsorship it should be the former but consistently and fairness are alien concepts to Masters and co.
ManCitizens.
Well-Known Member
Do you really want the PL to have the power to retrospectively punish clubs? We’d be the number one target for some bullshit change that they could then charge us with.What’s the point in applying it but not punishing I don’t see how that makes sense logically
It’s common sense not to punish clubs retrospectively as they’d argue they wouldn’t have done what they did if the rules were different from the get go.
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 10,582
Do you really want the PL to have the power to retrospectively punish clubs? We’d be the number one target for some bullshit change that they could then charge us with.
It’s common sense not to punish clubs retrospectively as they’d argue they wouldn’t have done what they did if the rules were different from the get go.
I can’t imagine a time with no charges ;)
One we do not have any shareholder loans or any issues. However you missing my point. I am not saying they should apply retrospectively or punish retrospectively I am saying there is no sense in applying it retrospectively and not punishing as your in affect saying you broke the rules but it doesn’t matter. Better to just say you didn’t break the rulesDo you really want the PL to have the power to retrospectively punish clubs? We’d be the number one target for some bullshit change that they could then charge us with.
It’s common sense not to punish clubs retrospectively as they’d argue they wouldn’t have done what they did if the rules were different from the get go.