You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
Charlesfarsbar
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2016
- Messages
- 1,152
The question I have is that if the tribunal have found certain aspects of the PSR and APT rules to be unlawful, how did this come to pass ?
The PL had sought legal advice before drafting the rules , were they implemented despite the legal advice or was the legal advice simply wrong
It all points to a set of rules that have been curated and pushed through by a certain number of clubs specifically targeted at City, and probably more prominently, Newcastle
This surely has a bearing on the 115 case , setting our stall out that there are rules specifically targeted at our club that were unlawful
The PL had sought legal advice before drafting the rules , were they implemented despite the legal advice or was the legal advice simply wrong
It all points to a set of rules that have been curated and pushed through by a certain number of clubs specifically targeted at City, and probably more prominently, Newcastle
This surely has a bearing on the 115 case , setting our stall out that there are rules specifically targeted at our club that were unlawful
Email to BBC North West after last night's "City have failed..." item:
Have you given up the nonsense that City "failed" in its challenge to the APT rules?
It's not difficult to see who "won". Will City be able to claim compensation for the PL's rules being unlawful? If "yes", see "win".
Have you given up the nonsense that City "failed" in its challenge to the APT rules?
It's not difficult to see who "won". Will City be able to claim compensation for the PL's rules being unlawful? If "yes", see "win".
Then that must be the truth of it because they had as much time as they wanted, also they have had the document since the 25th September-you would think somebody somewhere within the PL would have managed to work on a draft statement in 19 days?If that statement wasnt hastily cobbled together the pl are in worse shape than we thought
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
In respect of one of the rules, the PL was given specific advice and went against it, thus rendering that particular rule to be unlawful.The question I have is that if the tribunal have found certain aspects of the PSR and APT rules to be unlawful, how did this come to pass ?
The PL had sought legal advice before drafting the rules , were they implemented despite the legal advice or was the legal advice simply wrong
In any normal sphere this would be the story, but it’s not.
I dont disagree with you mate, just the content of the statement looks like it was put together in 19 secondsThen that must be the truth of it because they had as much time as they wanted, also they have had the document since the 25th September-you would think somebody somewhere within the PL would have managed to work on a draft statement in 19 days?
So, under the current rules 0% shareholder loans are accepted but they are now unlawful.
A few clubs will need to factor in FMA interest rates into their PSR.
We’re told an easy solution to this is to turn those loans into equity - if that shareholder has the appetite to do so (which is a big assumption).
So my question is, are shareholders now allowed to pump equity into a club, regardless of how much and, if so, is there anything stopping our owners from doing the same?
I haven’t a clue and would love some clarity on that if someone on here knows the answer
A few clubs will need to factor in FMA interest rates into their PSR.
We’re told an easy solution to this is to turn those loans into equity - if that shareholder has the appetite to do so (which is a big assumption).
So my question is, are shareholders now allowed to pump equity into a club, regardless of how much and, if so, is there anything stopping our owners from doing the same?
I haven’t a clue and would love some clarity on that if someone on here knows the answer
Slightly (greatly)confused on shareholder loans. Am I right in thinking that a shareholder loan doesn't affect PSR, in so much as an owner can't just give a loan that would allow a club to pass PSR. As an example if club had an £80m shortfall for PSR, an owner can't just inject £80m as a loan to allow a club to pass PSR. Is it only that clubs should be paying interest on such loans that is the problem. Then It as been said that the loan will be converted into equity. So if the loan becomes equity can that money be used for anything and does it help with PSR.
blue b4 the moon
Well-Known Member
Published
16 September
Could Man City claim damages?
Simon Stone, BBC Sport chief football news reporter
Manchester City could be eligible to claim for damages on earnings lost as a result of the tribunal's findings.
On page 163, it outlines 'declaratory relief, injunctive relief and damages' can be sought.
This, potentially is a financial problem for the Premier League depending on whether City pursue a claim – which they have indicated they will - and what the size of it is.
Imagine the piss boiling if a deal is cut to drop the 115 charges for a £1 compo claim.Published
16 September
Could Man City claim damages?
Simon Stone, BBC Sport chief football news reporter
Manchester City could be eligible to claim for damages on earnings lost as a result of the tribunal's findings.
On page 163, it outlines 'declaratory relief, injunctive relief and damages' can be sought.
This, potentially is a financial problem for the Premier League depending on whether City pursue a claim – which they have indicated they will - and what the size of it is.
The weird thing is I and probably most of us would also be gutted if we did that though.