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

[Pingu the Penguin]

Please tell me the rags have a MASSIVE amount of shareholder loans

 

[BringBackSwales]

One or two surprising names in there. Or perhaps not, given how they may benefit from the verdict.

I thought spurs did too?

 

[Tugay One Cup]

So what are the practical implications?

I'm going to roll a fat spliff and laugh at rival fan reactions online.

Beyond that, I have no idea.

 

[bridgeno1]

So what are the practical implications?

New APT rules and FFP implications moving forward. Basically the PL can't arbitrarily cap a sponsorship deal from counting as revenue. Plus some more stuff but that's the gist.

 

[GSW Blue]

The judgment states they PL have acted unlawfully, City can seek damages, not hard to work out the winner.

The PL are being at best disingenuous when they state the tribunal ruled APT is needed, City never challenged the overall basis of APT, but how it was aimed at certain clubs, one of which is City.

City only needed to prove one point in law for it to be deemed unlawful, there were seven points it failed on, again easy to work out who has been successful.

The interesting point is where it mentions loans from owners should be in the calculations, can anyone explain how that will work for certain clubs who have such debt?

It’s not the value of the loan but the saving on interest that will be taken into account for FFP.

 

[flb]

Apparently so, according to what I have read on this thread.

Abstained no doubt, pretty much like they abstain from winning trophies season in season out, Levy is a shithouse, he still thinks his club is one of the big four-funny from a club that haven't won a title for 63 long long years, City made them an irrelevance from 2008, hes the type of **** who has a fork in his sugar bowl.

 

[Ballosteve]

That could really fuck up Brighton so we’ll see how the Brighton supporting finance guy reports it. He’s been disingenuous throughout.

300 million in owner loans...

 

[SebastianBlue]

I read it as we provided a whole lot of reasons why we believed the rules were unlawful. The fact that the panel agreed with some of the reasons means the rules are unlawful. The fact they didn’t agree with every reason doesn’t make the rules a bit lawful. They’re unlawful full stop.

It’s like saying a disallowed goal wasn’t offside but it was only disallowed because of a foul on the keeper. It doesn’t make it a part goal.

And yet, the idiot masses will swallow that narrative hook, line, and sinker.

 

[ninjamonkey]

It won't be retrospectively applied. Any changes would apply moving forward.

I know I didn't say it would. If a club is told they're now in the red under new rules and need to ensure they comply by the next annual financial report, they'll simply argue they would have done things differently previously to ensure they wouldn't be in that situation had they known and they'll win that argument with ease.

They cannot just change the unlawful rules and carry on as is, everybody it impacts will have a case against them that they'll win.

 

[Kippax Street 1880]

The BBC are a fucking joke of an organisation, sad bitter rags sat in Salford quays writing utter shit. Any city fan paying that license fee hang your head in shame.