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

[Centurions]

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 rules

Which no one has as they were/are the rules as of this moment in time. There's not a scooby's chance of any retrospective punishment nor of having the (non-existent) interest taken into account retrospectively, no matter how much we may find it funny. Can we (not aimed at yourself) not all move on from this nonsense.

 

[Tarzan41]

20205 is 18,181 years away.

We will still be in for Isco

 

[calumdown]

We will still be in for Isco

 

[Stoned Rose]

The 'advantage/benefit' has been available since the inception of the loan.

The accrued interest, penalties and sanctions must go back to the start of the loan.....at the very least

Brightons interest free share holder loans are a £100 million more than HH Sheikh Mansour paid for the entirety of City.

Retrospective interest should be set at the rate applicable at the time.

Brighton for example should be paying circa £24 million pa X the length of the loan. Everton could be paying substantially more.

However adva

The PL will try and fudge this with no retrospective interest payments because their own rules were UNLAWFUL.

However,commercial and sporting advantage has been gained and two wrongs never made a right.

These bastards signed up to the letter and wanted to destroy us.....fuck them long and hard City !!

Well in GFAB.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

But what would it actually mean ? You apply it retrospectively and say to the club you would have failed but we don’t care ? We won’t do anything ? Why not just not apply it retrospectively ? What about existing loans going forward ? Are you saying don’t punish for that going forward as well

What I should have explained was that you'd take it into account on future assessments, which are done on a rolling 3-year basis, but not on any assessment where all 3 years were in the past. So if the new rules apply from 2025/26, you could include revised accounts from 2023/24 and 2024/25.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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'd guess the interest would be added to the loan and would have to be reported in the P&L account, whether it's paid or not.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Immortal.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Would the PL announcing that Masters leaving his role be a clue as to how things have gone ? :)

 

[halfcenturyup]

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 rules

You could say the rules were broken but interest on shareholder loans is a mitigating factor.

 

[nmc]

Which no one has as they were/are the rules as of this moment in time. There's not a scooby's chance of any retrospective punishment nor of having the (non-existent) interest taken into account retrospectively, no matter how much we may find it funny. Can we (not aimed at yourself) not all move on from this nonsense.

Move on you say…. I guess we should but the PL and the Red cartel won’t be moving on… they won’t settle until City are out of business.