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

sir baconface said:
Clearly the PL lawyers say yes, while our own say no.

So we simply don’t know.

I don’t think we’ve learned anything at all today.
Click to expand...
That's the problem. This needs to be settled once and for all in the High Court. These Tribunals are a fucking joke. Held in private, costing millions and not arriving at anything definitive. There is something rotten at the core of the PL, and for me it is a lot more than an obvious antipathy towards our great club.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
The IC have said it's unfair and unlawful if shareholder loans aren't included in the calculations. That is still the case with this new rules. I have no idea what you're going on about tranfers for
Click to expand...
You have misunderstood, they have said it's unfair if FMV interest rates aren't included in the PSR calculations. Your statement "unlawful if they aren't included" demonstrates this, you were claiming that shareholder loans were being used to prop up clubs to meet PSR this would mean they WERE included.
The transfer analogy was regarding you saying that they are unfair because other clubs don't have shareholder loans, nobody is stopping them from getting some so you can't blame other clubs if your owners aren't prepared to provide them!
 
blueste41 said:
You have misunderstood, they have said it's unfair if FMV interest rates aren't included in the PSR calculations. Your statement "unlawful if they aren't included" demonstrates this, you were claiming that shareholder loans were being used to prop up clubs to meet PSR this would mean they WERE included.
The transfer analogy was regarding you saying that they are unfair because other clubs don't have shareholder loans, nobody is stopping them from getting some so you can't blame other clubs if your owners aren't prepared to provide them!
Click to expand...

I have not misunderstood, what do you think the word "calculations" is in my sentence for. The IC have specifically said that APT rule are unlawful because the shareholder loans aren't included in the calculations. It's there in black and white if you actually read the judgement. Your analogy has no point whatsoever that I can see. The fact is shareholder loans are still not in the calculations before 21/11/24 including the rolling 3 year periods for PSR. It's that simple
 
BerkshireBlue said:
I have not misunderstood, what do you think the word "calculations" is in my sentence for. The IC have specifically said that APT rule are unlawful because the shareholder loans aren't included in the calculations. It's there in black and white if you actually read the judgement. Your analogy has no point whatsoever that I can see. The fact is shareholder loans are still not in the calculations before 21/11/24 including the rolling 3 year periods for PSR. It's that simple
Click to expand...
Calculations on the interest shareholder loans would attract if they were provided by a financial institution not the loan amount!!!!

map.JPG
 
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.