Gorton_Tubster
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 16,489
- Location
- Riding the blue tidal wave.
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Optics is what I think. It can be the only answer surely.
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
I'm a few pages behind - so this may have already been raised
If it is the case that Everton have voted with the PL because otherwise their interest on shareholder loans made have seen them fail PSR and be subject to a further penalty................
Would it mean that Luton - who finished 4 points behind Everton and got relegated - not have a possible claim against the PL. This because if - at the time - Everton were benefitting from unlawful loans they may have been sanction by at least 4 points and they would have been relegated rather than Luton?
I don’t think the Premier League could dock Everton points for following the PL rules even if they were unlawful.
It’s the PLs job to make sure the laws are lawful, not Everton’s (I realise this gets muddy because Everton are a shareholder in the PL).
Luton could launch a claim against the PL that its unlawful rules benefitted some clubs and that cost them relegation but it seems like a hard case to prove. It’s not like it was the only factor in them getting relegated.
Last edited:
Cobwebcat
Well-Known Member
At least if the panel go against our interpretation we know where we stand.
Why the PL didn’t wait is a complete mystery to me.
PL vote against City’s wishes shock.
City just shrugging now.
Why the PL didn’t wait is a complete mystery to me.
PL vote against City’s wishes shock.
City just shrugging now.
wolviedinho
Well-Known Member
This vote is all about shareholder loans which ironically city don’t really have a problem with but used it to highlight how the league aided some club owners to finance while punishing other clubs by using apt far too harshly after Newcastle.
Own goal.
If anything it highlights the majority rule of oppression. Or in football terms the right to challenge the cartel clubs for honours.
Own goal.
If anything it highlights the majority rule of oppression. Or in football terms the right to challenge the cartel clubs for honours.
Last edited:
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 10,848
I don't think you are the only one confused. Common sense would say waiting for the IC's ruling on the matter was the correct thing to do. It stinks of arrogance.
It’s not just arrogance though, there must be a purpose or a strategy. Failure to see what they are up to puts us at a disadvantage….
Is this an update today - or is it the 9 Oct post, which is now out of date? Confused as to why it’s been posted
The vote might be legally irrelevant but you only need to look at the reporting of this vote as a defeat for City to see how it’s being used in the PR battle.
I thought there no such thing, blueanons.
Perhaps today was a crass show of force by the PL because they are angry with City. Maybe there is no strategy at all. Just like when they rushed out the 115 charges. Maybe they simply want to fuck City up and give us a bloody nose whenever they can. No pressure on the tribunal now then LOL
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
So has suspected it will come down to who's legal experts are correct The above rule and conditions will have been drafted by the PL's clearly City and three other clubs think that the tribunal will rule otherwise so we just wait and seethe full wording - https://www.premierleague.com/news/4172030
At a Premier League Shareholders’ meeting today, clubs approved changes to the League’s Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules
At a Premier League Shareholders’ meeting today, clubs approved changes to the League’s Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules.
The amendments to the rules address the findings of an Arbitration Tribunal following a legal challenge by Manchester City to the APT system earlier this year.
The Premier League has conducted a detailed consultation with clubs - informed by multiple opinions from expert, independent Leading Counsel - to draft rule changes that address amendments required to the system.
This relates to integrating the assessment of Shareholder loans, the removal of some of the amendments made to APT rules earlier this year, and changes to the process by which relevant information from the League’s "databank" is shared with a club’s advisors.
The purpose of the APT rules is to ensure clubs are not able to benefit from commercial deals or reductions in costs that are not at Fair Market Value (FMV) by virtue of relationships with Associated Parties. These rules were introduced to provide a robust mechanism to safeguard the financial stability, integrity and competitive balance of the League.
Shareholder Loans
- The new rules seek to ensure that there is appropriate parity between the treatment of shareholder loans and other APTs going forward, with transitional rules clarifying the treatment of existing shareholder loans within that framework.
- Shareholder loans entered into after 22 November 2024 will be required to be submitted as an APT and subject to an FMV assessment. If the Premier League Board determines the loan to evidently not be at FMV, the club in question shall be required to terminate or vary the loan to reflect FMV and pay any identified shortfall in interest.
- Any Shareholder loan that was entered into before 22 November 2024 and which is replaced with other forms of financing (e.g. by way of conversion to equity or repayment) within 50 days (i.e. by 11 January 2025) will not be required to be submitted as an APT or assessed for FMV.
- Any Shareholder loan that was entered into after 14 December 2021 but before 22 November 2024 and remaining in effect on 11 January 2025 must be submitted as an APT. If the Premier League Board determines the loan is evidently not at FMV, the club is permitted to retain the Shareholder loan on its existing terms, though adjustments must be made to its Annual Accounts for 2024/25 onwards as if, from 22 November 2024, the loan was at FMV.
- Any Shareholder loan that was entered into prior to 14 December 2021 and remaining in effect on 11 January 2025 must be submitted as an APT and be subject to an FMV Assessment upon any drawdown taking place after the 22 November 2024. If the Premier League Board determines the loan is evidently not at FMV, the club is permitted to retain the Shareholder loan on its existing terms, though adjustments must be made to its Annual Accounts for 2024/25 onwards as if any drawdowns made after 22 November 2024 were at FMV.
A possibility is that by getting these rules voted through will influence the tribunal as to how to rule Will they decided that by ruling in favor of the PL16 will be best as otherwise it will open a "can of worms"?