Fair enough. I just get a bit tired reading in the press how City voted in favour of excluding loans from APT and then changed tack, like it's some sort of gotcha. Then you get fans of other clubs believing it and repeating it on here. It's a lazy interpretation and, more to the point, it's wrong. The club never voted for any element of APT in a statutory vote, ever.
But as you say, we don't know why the CFO voted in a single subcommittee to proceed with recommendations which excluded loans. There could be many reasons, but I doubt the real reason is interesting at all.
I’m not sure a Labour government would want to help the Telegraph as much as the last one.I wouldn't get too carried away with what the government may do to ensure that AD isn't upset by what the PL is doing.
Our owner funded RedbirdIMI to purchase The Telegraph and The Spectator for 600 mill with Redbird actually running the titles. The last government (possibly more disposed to AD than the current one) rushed a law through to prevent our owner even being a passive partner. They have had to sell the Spectator and are in the process of selling the Telegraph to get as much of their money back as possible. It actually looks like they will get most or all of it back contrary to the market expectations.
You have to say that this was an extremely unfriendly act by the UK government but there you go. Don't expect anything helpful regarding football issues.
No United in that list , abstaining no doubt , but I’m sure SJ can see the benefits of related party sponsorships down the line ….As fingered by Martin Samuel. Not sure if Ingo Bank is a real person or some Emirati financial institution :)
View attachment 134708
There is a difference between Roan and the online team. But it is all very male dominated."Laddish" is a weird adjective to use though, if applied to either Roan or Stone. Neither is laddish, or manly in the way they look or sound - despite Roan's beard.
"Cuntish" is more suitable.
He’s a fucking disgrace.Roan has still not even reported the Judges’ summary.
We didn’t vote for the exemption. Fake news!
It was partly about the Telegraph but more about foreign ownership of the media generally.I’m not sure a Labour government would want to help the Telegraph as much as the last one.
Yeah I’m not saying it’s a gotcha at all. Just to me I think at the time, we probably thought there were other aspects of it more likely to be considered unlawful. It’s not as if we didn’t challenge it on several avenues.
The one bit I don’t get is if excluding shareholder loans is unlawful for APT, surely the same could be said for considering them RPTs, which could have a huge consequence.
Huge consequences, yes. If, and it's still an if, of course, APT really is null and void since inception, then FFP/PSR will also, presumably, if challenged, be null and void for the same reasons. Can you imagine what a mess that would cause? Huge bargaining chip for the club, or any other club for that matter ....
Seemed to me that is what Samuel was hinting at.
The proof of this can be seen in the Glazers ownership of the rags.I think most clubs prioritises protecting the business case of their (US) owners. For them it is perfectly fine being a mid table team as long as they make good money every year. The cartel system virtually guarantees that this can go on forever. City is a threat to this system and those who profits just want to continue to extract money out of football.