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

[KS55]

Stefan, Simon Jordan, has he seen the light or has someone had a word in his jug of beer?

Jordan is none too bright.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Stefan, Simon Jordan, has he seen the light or has someone had a word in his jug of beer?

Yeah strange that. Something Jordan likes to do is be correct in factuality. That allows him to win arguments. So I assume he isnt seeing the bigger picture now, reluctantly. He still hates City with a passion.

 

[Maly]

And the new rules won't be found to be unlawful by object unless the Tribunal really believes in retrospective action on shareholder loans and the absence of transitional rules. Again, I can't see it.

Last reply

This is the part I don’t understand

If the new laws don’t retrospectively include interest in the shareholder loans, don’t the clubs who have shareholder loans get an advantage for the next 3 years due to the rolling 3 year PSR calculations?

Therefore, aren’t we in exactly the same position as before? By design, isn’t it favouring clubs with shareholder loans?

Or have I completely misunderstood the new rules?

 

[slbsn]

Here's mine. How is renegotiating our major sponsor deals at lower levels not a big loss? Rubbish. I think the simple difference between us is that I believe the red cartel's lawyers and client media are just out to destroy our club and you don't. Their bent APT rules were brought in when the equally bent FFP attack failed - along with the related 115 charges an existential decade-long assault on a competitor threatening their revenue streams. City is fighting for its life and on your call losing the battle- it's time to back them.

Last, last reply. It’s not a loss unless the refusal to approve is causative of that loss. If the PL refuse because they find it not to be FMV and the Tribunal doesn’t challenge the underlying final determination, then any alleged loss is not caused by the PL and no claim will succeed. As for the rest, you’ve conflated a few different things.

I’m not their spokesperson in the media. If you fancy doing it, go for it.

 

[slbsn]

This is the part I don’t understand

If the new laws don’t retrospectively include interest in the shareholder loans, don’t the clubs who have shareholder loans get an advantage for the next 3 years due to the rolling 3 year PSR calculations?

Therefore, aren’t we in exactly the same position as before? By design, isn’t it favouring clubs with shareholder loans?

Or have I completely misunderstood the new rules?

No they have to get rid of them by mid Jan or they will apply to all PSR from 24/25s assessment

 

[Maly]

No they have to get rid of them by mid Jan or they will apply to all PSR from 24/25s assessment

So if the don’t convert them to equity, the last 3 years interest at fmv will be included in the PSR calculations?

 

[slbsn]

So if the don’t convert them to equity, the last 3 years interest at fmv will be included in the PSR calculations?

No, interest from 22 Nov 24

 

[chesterguy]

The question i would like answering is why did the PL deliberately exclude Sharehokder loans at the outset which the tribunal said was the case? The answer to that question could open up a huge mess of trouble with potential actions of collusion and/or corruption. As i understand it the PL use Bird and Bird and i am sure i read that they were the firm that investigated City. I also believe that they are Liverpool and Arsenals lawyers and both those clubs have benefited by having loans excluded. Who doesnt love a conspiracy theory

 

[Gone for a Burton]

This is the part I don’t understand

If the new laws don’t retrospectively include interest in the shareholder loans, don’t the clubs who have shareholder loans get an advantage for the next 3 years due to the rolling 3 year PSR calculations?

Therefore, aren’t we in exactly the same position as before? By design, isn’t it favouring clubs with shareholder loans?

Or have I completely misunderstood the new rules?

You're spot on.

They've had the historical advantage, now they're getting a future advantage.

Interest should be retrospectively charged even if the rules were unlawful.

If the clubs believe they were mislead let them take action against the PL.

Two or even Three wrongs don't make a right.

Evil is at work !!

 

[Gone for a Burton]

No. Seems we have got what we wanted. Sometimes it’s good to ask for more than you want/need so that you get the things that you actually want

The art of negotiating.