halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,088
Hey, I resent that. I take everything slbsn says in the utmost good faith, you ****.
Anyway, I am more of a wet sponge.
;)
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
Hey, I resent that. I take everything slbsn says in the utmost good faith, you ****.
Anyway, I am more of a wet sponge.
;)
East Level 2
Well-Known Member
OK, but my objection has always been the simple premise that anybody without experience at running a top level club could have the wool pulled over their eyes by unscrupulous directors and/or owners. And that those with top level experience, which has to include dealing with UEFA as the regulator is for the top five divisions, are likely to be connected with teams having extensive European experience. Obviously this now includes City, but we've seen both UEFA and the PL have a go at our club egged on by the old G14 and other suspects.No, but you’ve gone from the general to the particular.
In the end a regulator is just window dressing unless they can control the PL, the EFL and the National League. And they may have to exert some control over the FA, but that organisation also oversees football below the level at which the regulator will operate.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,088
I do think it’s an issue actually, and the move from the ex post system where there were notional adjustments for accounting purposes to the ex ante system where you need prior approval from the PL before you can even enter into a contract with a third party seems to me to infringe fairly basic rights.
However the tribunal disagrees so that’s that.
Fucking lawyers. Couldn't you just have said that in the first place? \O/
Everton will have no s/h loans - the existing ones are equity in all but name. Arsenal have lots of capacity as do Brighton. Which leaves some smaller levels of shareholder loan which can easily be converted to equity if need be.Thanks. Maybe not so irrelevant for those with big loans and sailing close to the wind on permitted losses.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,088
No, but you’ve gone from the general ( a regulator with any football experience) to the particular, a rag ref. After all, it was an Arsenal member that chose our panel. Despite some objections here, the panel was decent.
The parties chose the arbitrators, didn't they?
Thanks, Stefan.Everton will have no s/h loans - the existing ones are equity in all but name. Arsenal have lots of capacity as do Brighton. Which leaves some smaller levels of shareholder loan which can easily be converted to equity if need be.
I think it is worth highlighting clear evidence of a lack of objectivity. But I absolutely take your point.Not sure why you bother tbh. You may as well engage with an ironing board.
No, the PL nominee, an Arsenal member, chose all three. Them’s the rules.The parties chose the arbitrators, didn't they?
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
They apparently chosee one each and the two then chose the third.The parties chose the arbitrators, didn't they?
citizen_maine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 May 2011
- Messages
- 14,191
I thought Arsenal had to loan Raya last season because they were too close to breaching to buy him?Everton will have no s/h loans - the existing ones are equity in all but name. Arsenal have lots of capacity as do Brighton. Which leaves some smaller levels of shareholder loan which can easily be converted to equity if need be.