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

Prestwich_Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...
Which guarantees that is precisely what the PL will not do on the grounds that it is too sensible.
 
cheekybids said:
What happens if it becomes obvious that certain clubs & the premier league had colluded in creating unlawful rules?
Click to expand...
Think it may have happened quite recently before. I recall that HMRC found fault with some clubs who had been assured by the Prem that whatever arrangement it was, (sorry can’t find detail) was OK.
 
WRicko said:
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
Click to expand...
But City are being taken to task over rules that didn't even exist when they were planning their financial strategy, are they not?
 
citizen_maine said:
but the ruling was you can't have one without the other
Click to expand...

The connection between APT and PSR was discussed in detail in the reasoning, but the judgment was only in respect of APT. I may be wrong, of course, but I think this was the judgment:
1000000953.png

It doesn't refer to the lawfulness of PSR at all, although, by implication, it seems to me they would be found unlawful for the treatment of shareholder loans if they were challenged. But I am no lawyer as you can probably tell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.