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

[TonyColemansbagofapples]

What happens if it becomes obvious that certain clubs & the premier league had colluded in creating unlawful rules?

Absolutely fuck all I would imagine. Move along the bus, nothing to see here.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The rules are void.

So if the clubs with interest-free loans don't have to pay interest retrospectively, it's hard to see how City's Etihad deal can be retrospectively judged to be of excessive value.

Yes. The whole Etihad nonsense is because the cartel clubs thought we were playing fast and loose with the rules on related parties. So they got the PL to bring in the associated party rules, so these could be applied to deals like Etihad.

On that basis we therefore shouldn't be charged with anything prior to 2021, when the APT rules were introduced. However the other aspect to the allegations about Etihad and other Abu Dhabi-related deals is that they were disguised equity investment as Etihad themselves were only paying a fraction of the actual sponsorship. By CAS demolished this argument, so there's no excuse for the PL charges on that basis either,

The argument about interest-free shareholder loans is more complex. Whether clubs pay the interest or not, it still should have been recorded in the profit and loss account and, if they roll it up, it should be added to the loan and compounded.

Let's use an example of a £200m interest free loan at 10%. The £20m a year is money that shouldn't have been available to spend on transfers or wages, particularly if the club pays it back. If it doesn't and the interest is compounded, that loan increases to over £320m after 5 years, meaning it's attracting notional interest of over £32m.

After thinking about this, what I'd do is add this retrospective interest onto a club's expenses for PSR purposes, as well as any interest accrued since that time, until all the retrospective interest has been accounted for.

 

[give it to gordon]

Why did the pl lawyers etc not tell the pl the rules were illegal ?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Yes. The whole Etihad nonsense is because the cartel clubs thought we were playing fast and loose with the rules on related parties. So they got the PL to bring in the associated party rules, so these could be applied to deals like Etihad.

On that basis we therefore shouldn't be charged with anything prior to 2021, when the APT rules were introduced. However the other aspect to the allegations about Etihad and other Abu Dhabi-related deals is that they were disguised equity investment as Etihad themselves were only paying a fraction of the actual sponsorship. By CAS demolished this argument, so there's no excuse for the PL charges on that basis either,

The argument about interest-free shareholder loans is more complex. Whether clubs pay the interest or not, it still should have been recorded in the profit and loss account and, if they roll it up, it should be added to the loan and compounded.

Let's use an example of a £200m interest free loan at 10%. The £20m a year is money that shouldn't have been available to spend on transfers or wages, particularly if the club pays it back. If it doesn't and the interest is compounded, that loan increases to over £320m after 5 years, meaning it's attracting notional interest of over £32m.

After thinking about this, what I'd do is add this retrospective interest onto a club's expenses for PSR purposes, as well as any interest accrued since that time, until all the retrospective interest has been accounted for.

Again, are we not getting ahead of ourselves here? There are no proposed changes to PSR afaik and the PSR rules haven't been found to be unlawful. Yet. Isn't that right?

Even if the APT rules are null and void until new lawful rules are approved and made effective, all that means is that any new shareholder loans will have to be assessed under the new APT rules, the pre-existing loans will surely be untouched?

As far PSR is concerned, if those rules are also declared null and void since inception which they surely would be if they are ever challenged (in the same way and for the same reasons APT rules are apparently currently null and void) then that gives the PL a hundred headaches. Maybe some deal with the PL not to challenge PSR in arbitration in return for ...... what? That doesn't stop other clubs running a slam-dunk case though if they want to be troublesome ......

Maybe I have the wrong end of the stick, though. Has happened before :)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Why did the pl lawyers etc not tell the pl the rules were illegal ?

They knew excluding them was illegal but a club chairman (presumably Bloom) persuaded them to exclude them from PSR. Masters and the PL board should resign for that alone.

 

[WRicko]

In English please.

It’s is bother to read and understand it

 

[citizen_maine]

Yes. The whole Etihad nonsense is because the cartel clubs thought we were playing fast and loose with the rules on related parties. So they got the PL to bring in the associated party rules, so these could be applied to deals like Etihad.

On that basis we therefore shouldn't be charged with anything prior to 2021, when the APT rules were introduced. However the other aspect to the allegations about Etihad and other Abu Dhabi-related deals is that they were disguised equity investment as Etihad themselves were only paying a fraction of the actual sponsorship. By CAS demolished this argument, so there's no excuse for the PL charges on that basis either,

The argument about interest-free shareholder loans is more complex. Whether clubs pay the interest or not, it still should have been recorded in the profit and loss account and, if they roll it up, it should be added to the loan and compounded.

Let's use an example of a £200m interest free loan at 10%. The £20m a year is money that shouldn't have been available to spend on transfers or wages, particularly if the club pays it back. If it doesn't and the interest is compounded, that loan increases to over £320m after 5 years, meaning it's attracting notional interest of over £32m.

After thinking about this, what I'd do is add this retrospective interest onto a club's expenses for PSR purposes, as well as any interest accrued since that time, until all the retrospective interest has been accounted for.

A very simplistic view here, but if the rules are unlawful because sponsorships are included but shareholder loans aren't, then that's been the case since PL FFP/PSR came in. So has the whole thing been ruled unlawful?

 

[Uwe Already]

A very simplistic view here, but if the rules are unlawful because sponsorships are included but shareholder loans aren't, then that's been the case since PL FFP/PSR came in. So has the whole thing been ruled unlawful?

Sounds a little bit like “disguised owner investment = evil” “in full view owner investment = good” both are owner investment - worse we never disguised owner investment!

 

[halfcenturyup]

A very simplistic view here, but if the rules are unlawful because sponsorships are included but shareholder loans aren't, then that's been the case since PL FFP/PSR came in. So has the whole thing been ruled unlawful?

Afaik no, because FFP/PSR hasn't been challenged, only APT has been. But obviously will be when it is challenged. The implications of which were the point of my earlier post.

 

[cheekybids]

They knew excluding them was illegal but a club chairman (presumably Bloom) persuaded them to exclude them from PSR. Masters and the PL board should resign for that alone.

I’m sure a mathematical genius like Bloom wouldn’t have realised the advantage…..