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

[Cobwebcat]

I'm thinking that us leaking the letter means we are not confident the PL vote will go our way. A disturbance in the force possibly.

Or just why take the chance. State what you will do if the rules are passed, might save everyone some money.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

have you got a cold? ;-)

TUNES.

 

[Cobwebcat]

Looks like they've taken advice from Zippy then.

Should have consulted George. The pink hippo knows his stuff.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Tom Robinson Band.

Great album. - Power In The Darkness

Twisted Sister surely ? Incidentally, now the gloves are off we should run out to that. Very topical and a good song for chanting.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Should have consulted George. The pink hippo knows his stuff.

Tempted to post the naughty Rainbow video again .....

 

[HalfwayUpTheKippax]

TUNES.

Oh, Malcolm!

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Not sure I get this issue with the new shareholder loan rule not being applied retrospectively.

We are only talking about the APT rules here.

The club's position is that the current rules are null and void, and so they shouldn't have been applied to any 2021-2024 transactions at all.

The PL's position is that the new rules solve the unlawfulness, but that they should only be applied going forward, leaving a period 2021-2024 in which the rules unlawfully excluded shareholder loans. And the club's position is that, following the PL's position, the new rules should be applied backwards to 2021-2024 transactions to correct the unlawfulness. But they can't because it's an ex-ante review and so impossible. Which is why they are null and void in the first place.

Is that it?

There is a much bigger problem for the PL in the treatment of shareholder loans for FFP/PSR back to 2013 , of course, but that isn't relevant here, is it, as the judgment, other than by implication, didn't conclude on that?

Is the problem not one of definition? It seems that certain deals were defined as APTs solely because certain clubs considered certain sponsorships concluded by City were RPTs but the accountants are clear that none of them fulfil the conditions of an RPT laid down by international accounting standards. Hence they were now classified as APTs and subject to FMV. The problem is that many clubs had received loans from owners and these did not attract interest and often had no date for repayment. These were not to be classified as APTs, not because they were obviously RPTs, but because the PL had decreed it should be so. But FFP, UEFA style, was preoccupied with "subsidies" from owners and owner loans should come under RPT regs and be subject to FMV. Is this why City want this retrospective element because clubs have been flouting the regs for more than a decade with the cooperation of the PL and UEFA?

 

[ShakesSpeare]

Does anyone know how this is related to the trials?
Does anyone know what are those proposed amendments that the club claims are "unlawful"?

 

[iwasthere1968]

Trials ? Ffs

 

[halfcenturyup]

Is the problem not one of definition? It seems that certain deals were defined as APTs solely because certain clubs considered certain sponsorships concluded by City were RPTs but the accountants are clear that none of them fulfil the conditions of an RPT laid down by international accounting standards. Hence they were now classified as APTs and subject to FMV. The problem is that many clubs had received loans from owners and these did not attract interest and often had no date for repayment. These were not to be classified as APTs, not because they were obviously RPTs, but because the PL had decreed it should be so. But FFP, UEFA style, was preoccupied with "subsidies" from owners and owner loans should come under RPT regs and be subject to FMV. Is this why City want this retrospective element because clubs have been flouting the regs for more than a decade with the cooperation of the PL and UEFA?

This is what confuses me sometimes.

Aren't we often confusing APT rules with PSR rules? Yes, the tribunal made it clear that APT rules are a part of the PSR rules, but their unlawful judgment related only to APT. They came to no conclusion that PSR was unlawful. Only because they weren't asked the question, I suppose. It's pretty clear that if the APT rules were unlawful for the treatment of shareholder loans, then the PSR rules would also, if ever challenged, be unlawful for the same reason.

What the club and the PL, and the tribunal again at some point, is arguing about is only what happens with the APT rules?

A thought had occurred to me that, if the club gets the supplementary judgment it wants on the question of whether the APT rules are null and void or not, then they have a huge negotiating advantage as any challenge of PSR will come to the same conclusion and that is a box Pandora Masters doesn't want opening.