1) new claim/tribunal but wouldn't be a shock if constituted with at least some of the same people@slsbn you have answered a question I keep asking but please, a slight clarification of your post.
To paraphrase you say If the Tribunals decision shows the PL still to be acting unlawfully and the PL don't accept and amend, it is up to City to take them to court.
1) do they have to go before a completely new tribunal or does it go back to the original panel.
2) if the PL refuse to amend the illegal acts forcing City to take them back to court, can they be punished and if so, how ?
3) why would City have to take them back to court. Why can't the tribunal enforce their decision, I.e. keep fining the PL until they conform and act legally.
Liquidity no different between equity and shareholder loan. All of the shareholder loans at zero are c100% owners so not an issue1. Liquidity
2. If not 75% plus owner, need permission from other shareholders to dilute their holdings, if new shares are to be issued.
"I hope City have collected and saved everything Harris and Magic Hat have written about the club, and when the 115 cases is over, hand it over to Lord Pannick and his legal team."I doubt City will.
I hope City have collected and saved everything Harris and Magic Hat have written about the club, and when the 115 cases is over, hand it over to Lord Pannick and his legal team.
Nobody knows the answers to these hypotheticals. I don't think a challenge to a system that has been operating without complaint for over a decade is feasible but I may be completely wrong and someone may well try. All parties have clearly acquiesced the rules so perhaps they are estopped from making that claim by acquiescence - don't know - technical but seems likely to me.Ok. So I have a third stupid question.
If the APT rules are found to be null and void because of the treatment of shareholder loans, and we accept the argument from the PL that the APT rules are a vital part of PSR as the tribunal found, why is there no possibility of a challenge to the lawfulness of the treatment of shareholder loans in FFP/PSR since inception? The ultimate conclusion of which would he "null and void"ing of FFP/PSR in line with the treatment of APT.
Based on what you say, I am sure there must be a reason. But I can't see one, maybe you can help me out.
You had me at hello…i will win you over eventually :)
Always love a bit of estoppel on a Sunday afternoon…Nobody knows the answers to these hypotheticals. I don't think a challenge to a system that has been operating without complaint for over a decade is feasible but I may be completely wrong and someone may well try. All parties have clearly acquiesced the rules so perhaps they are estopped from making that claim by acquiescence - don't know - technical but seems likely to me.
No there not ImhoNext you'll be saying there is no chance of the club going nuclear and taking down the entire PL....
1) yes, they could run that argument. Could work but I doubt it - 2 sets of barristers would both have good arguments.You are probably sick to death of answering stupid questions on this topic, but I have two nonetheless.
First stupid question. You say there is "net net" no difference if the tribunal finds for City that the rules are currently null and void. Surely there is in practice a big difference for the club in that the Etihad deal can't be re-assessed as there was no need to report it if the rules didn't exist at the time and so it can just be concluded at the value the club originally proposed?
Second stupid question. You say that, if the tribunal finds that the rules post-vote are lawful but interest should be applied retroactively then any club affected could be given mitigation to avoid sanction. But what about clubs who are affected indirectly? Couldn't they have a case against the PL for any losses incurred due to position or relegation due to the non-sanction of clubs with shareholder loans (in the same way some clubs are claiming compensation from City if the allegations that the club has deliberately and unlawfully breached the PL's rules are proven?). It has already been found by the tribunal that the PL deliberately and unlawfully excluded shareholder loans from APT (and therefore FFP/PSR), as far as I understand it.
It seems to me the PL has problems whatever judgment the tribunal comes up with, unless they fully validate the PL's approach.
But then again, I have no idea what I am talking about really. Just trying to get things straight in my simple mind :)
Not when I was 15You should have waited until they were 18. Pervert.
;)
We could do with a bit at No.6.Always love a bit of estoppel on a Sunday afternoon…