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

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
I think it’s a case of yes and no. Owners can introduce equity for infrastructure projects and the like, and also cover losses, but only up to allowable levels under FFP/PSR.
I think this is how it works, but I’m no expert.
 
On the last paragraph, being perfectly honest, I'm not sure I would want it any other way! Their feeble and obvious attempts here make it somewhat all that little bit more enjoyable.
Think you're right. Since the news broke yesterday afternoon, so many journalists have exposed themselves as being the complete numbskulls that we all knew they were. Wankers the lot of them

 
This all day long - although in my experience the advice is often describing the degree of risk involved in a course of action and not always definitive. The advice the PL got and the wording I think is clearer and to ignore it after we had indicated we would take action quite mad.
I would think this surely has to be a resignation issue for the PL chief?
 
Had a few interactions with this senile old **** on Twitter. Guy is a delusional twat.
Pompey are his club but is a scouse loving goon.
Me too all I can say in his favour (along with Sam Lee) is they do actually reply a couple of times until they are shown to be full of shit & then the block comes out rather than the Harris/Delooney types who just ignore & block.
 
Given the bbc and various newspapers are saying we lost a lot more than we won, can anyone who understands this stuff advise what did we lose in yesterday’s verdict that was materially significant to us?
What we lost and won is clear from the judgement (page 161-163 headed "Overall conclusions"). In terms of numbers alone it's true to say we lost more than we won. I suspect proof of if we won overall will be judged by how the rules are changed and the impact those changes have on clubs.

 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.