Whilst Nick and his Hat-based alter ego might get some bites on Twitter and annoy a few blues, it won't be registering with the club.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.
1) yes, they could run that argument. Could work but I doubt it - 2 sets of barristers would both have good arguments.
2) we know from Everton that it is hard to get compensation even for clear breaches - we believe only Burnley there at the moment so feels all a bit remote given nobody thought there was an issue with shareholder loans. But again someone could have a go. And again nobody knows if will work. I am merely giving you a take on what I think is the probable outcome. The claims vs City should be easier to make out if the case is proven due to the nature of City's breaches if proven (concealed, deliberate, systematic, etc).
In short, loads of theoretical claims could be dreamt up but none sound very strong to me and people tend not to run totally pointless claims.
What happened to 'we' ? - "if you are wrong and fraud is proven" - your own repeated predictions will be also confounded in that event or is this perhaps another revisionist sortie designed to retrofit the future outcome to selected parts of your commentary?City haven't argued that and nor would it succeed. There is no question that the rules on cooperation with the league are lawful and the investigation has always been about the underlying matters of the leak and not, per se, PSR. PSR is a consequential breach if the underlying matters are made out.
The harsh reality is that if you are wrong and the fraud is proven, all of this is irrelevant.
Wish Southampton could manage a bit and shut gobber up -1-1!!Always love a bit of estoppel on a Sunday afternoon…
You were the one that said zero chance of losing fraud. Personally, I don’t feel capable of such certainty. Hence “you”.What happened to 'we' ? - "if you are wrong and fraud is proven" - both your own repeated predictions & mine will be confounded in that event or is this perhaps another revisionist sortie designed to retrofit the future outcome to selected parts of your commentary?
If I may say so and with great respect, yours is a very slippery 'objectivity' Stefan. It would help if you were clearer about the reasons you disagree with City's case that since the APT rules were found unlawful 'by object' they are null and void from their inception, leaving the whole corpus of PSR regulations, of which they form an essential part, in an identical state. (Who knows what City have argued in the 115 case yet btw, to me this set of charges holding up depends if the cooperation City withheld was for lawful ends - leaks included.)
Unconvinced on the first point, the second may be temporary.Liquidity no different between equity and shareholder loan. All of the shareholder loans at zero are c100% owners so not an issue
I can’t think a single example in football where a club has repaid a 0% shareholder loan. So not sure what liquidity you mean - To date once the shareholder loan has been granted it’s been permanent. On the second, clearly if ownership changes no shareholder wants to subsidise another by giving an interest free loan.Unconvinced on the first point, the second may be temporary.
You’re looking backwards. The future is where it’s at with APT.I can’t think a single example in football where a club has repaid a 0% shareholder loan. So not sure what liquidity you mean - To date once the shareholder loan has been granted it’s been permanent. On the second, clearly if ownership changes no shareholder wants to subsidise another by giving an interest free loan.
Everyone (including City) wanted them excluded because it’s administratively far easier to put loans in than to issue shares every time. Perhaps a tax saving too in some jurisdictions. Don’t know what you mean re the future or Portsmouth but I’m confident it won’t have an impact on any club going forward which is why they all happily voted it through asapYou’re looking backwards. The future is where it’s at with APT.
Why did Brighton (?) and others lobby for loans to be excluded from APT?
Portsmouth?
I didn't get where I am today without being annoying! Hope you are totally wrong though, except on the 115 outcome of course - what are your odds on us wiping the floor with the PL?You were the one that said zero chance of losing fraud. Personally, I don’t feel capable of such certainty. Hence “you”.
I’ve no idea what this means “will be confounded in that event or is this perhaps another revisionist sortie designed to retrofit the future outcome to selected parts of your commentary?” Sounds impressive though.
As for being slippery (btw your accusatory tone is generally fucking annoying - you don’t have to agree with my view but the determination to question my intentions is not appreciated and to the extent my views may change, it’ll depend on the facts as they evolve and for no other reason), I disagree. I simply don’t think having read the judgment that the Tribunal had in mind such an extreme finding. That reading was behind my view that the win at the Tribunal was narrow at best. Important for City in some respects but narrow.
It’s clear to me that the Tribunal had no problem endorsing PSR and APT. In any event, I don’t follow the argument that APT (introduced from late 2021) undermines the years of PSR before it.
But I can’t be any clearer that I could be totally wrong. We are talking about an argument by the world’s (yes world’s) greatest legal minds on complex areas of competition law in front of a highly accomplished Tribunal. I’m giving a view based on my reading - nothing more, nothing less. And objectively and ignoring my support of the football team. Try it.