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

[red 2 hats]

Indeed. Everton's credit rating is likely to be junk, so they'd be paying over 10% interest on a commercial loan

Ocean Finance on the phone, oh shit, that was united wasn't it :)

 

[Bluewonder]

Ocean Finance on the phone, oh shit, that was united wasn't it :)

Even Ocean Finance wouldn't touch the rags

 

[Scoobz3]

Even Ocean Finance wouldn't touch the rags

Perhaps they could do spomething around a sponsorship deal - nice synergy - between their name and Unitied's roof !

 

[BerkshireBlue]

I think what they mean is that you'll need to include the loans immediately, but there will be a grace period in which the loans will be an acceptable excuse for breaching the PSR limit i.e. if the loans are the only reason you would have breached, you'll be ok

there's no way they should be ok. That's the whole point, it's unfair on other clubs that have no loans to their owners if that happens.

 

[citizen_maine]

there's no way they should be ok. That's the whole point, it's unfair on other clubs that have no loans to their owners if that happens.

Then those clubs will presumably vote against it

edit: I agree with you though

 

[Chris in London]

Law a complete mystery to me, as you can frequently tell.

If the rules are unlawful because they currently don't include shareholder loans, we are saying the new rules will still be unlawful in the grace period, but the law doesn't care because it's wholly reasonable to have a grace period? Or that they will be lawful during the grace period just because it's a grace period, despite the treatment of shareholder loans in the grace period being the same as the treatment when they were found to be unlawful. Pretty circuitous logic?

I mean it's not like they are implementing new lawful rules with a grace period, which at least makes sense to me, a confused non-lawyer.

At present there are no rules against interest free shareholder loans.

There will be soon.

The new rules will apply to all loans whether or not agreed before the new rules come into force.

But.

Those rules will come into effect immediately for all new loans.

They will only come into effect after a grace period for existing loans.

It’s a bit like saying all cars must be fitted with catalytic converters. If you buy a new car it must have one immediately but for existing cars you have a year to fit them.

 

[halfcenturyup]

At present there are no rules against interest free shareholder loans.

There will be soon.

The new rules will apply to all loans whether or not agreed before the new rules come into force.

But.

Those rules will come into effect immediately for all new loans.

They will only come into effect after a grace period for existing loans.

It’s a bit like saying all cars must be fitted with catalytic converters. If you buy a new car it must have one immediately but for existing cars you have a year to fit them.

Thanks for trying.

Still struggling with how you can have a grace period to correct something that has been previously found to be unlawful, tbh, but that is my problem and it will become clear soon enough, I guess :)

Appreciate your explanations as always.

 

[Stockton Heath Blue]

Why not Bank of England rates? (I’ll be honest I’m over my head with most of the discussions on this one)

That’s just the cost of funds. The margin also needs to be factored in, which would differ depending on the credit risk.
Generally, a fair few lenders wouldn’t lend against football clubs because they are a poor risk or are scared of reputational risk - wouldn’t want to be seen foreclosing and have angry supporters camped at the front door of Head Office

 

[citizen_maine]

Thanks for trying.

Still struggling with how you can have a grace period to correct something that has been previously found to be unlawful, tbh, but that is my problem and it will become clear soon enough, I guess :)

Appreciate your explanations as always.

It's also a bit like when UEFA FFP first came in. There were exceptions/exemptions for player contracts prior to the date the rules were brought in to mitigate against clubs failing solely due to existing contracts.


Of course, they moved the goalposts on that to catch us out, but that's another story

 

[halfcenturyup]

It's also a bit like when UEFA FFP first came in. There were exceptions/exemptions for player contracts prior to the date the rules were brought in to mitigate against clubs failing solely due to existing contracts.


Of course, they moved the goalposts on that to catch us out, but that's another story

I understand that for new (lawful) rules, you can have introductory concessions.

But to maintain rules that have been found to be unlawful, even for a grace period, seems to my simple brain to be having unlawful rules again (for the grace period).

Of course, I am happy to accept I know nothing about any of this. It wouldn't be the first time :)