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

[bigA]

Why can't they apply it retrospectively?

They've been after us since 2008 and are continually going back years and years to find some dirt on us.

Because the other clubs are not Manchester City. Simple as that. There is an ongoing agenda against the club fuelled by envy, greed and self protection/preservation by certain clubs who shall remain nameless but it shouldn't be to hard to ascertain their identities. We let it ride for so long that those clubs became emboldened and threw the collective shit at us hoping it will stick. Today's rapid vote and decision is more proof of that.

Now we have had enough and have decided to fight back against these tyrants of the majority and although 4 clubs sided with us, remember at least 2 others had to go against us simply because they had to because they would have been punished if they didn't. Call it collusion, call it coercion, call it bullying or call it blackmail, call it whatever you wish to call it, the red cartel has thrown its collective weight around again but now know that there are other clubs willing to stand up against them. The cracks may be appearing in their entitled ivory towers, time for some one to bring the whole stinking, fetid edifice down once and for all.

 

[ninjamonkey]

The narrative that its city(plus the fee that side with us) against the league is the lowest form of media bullshit spin going. it's not city against anybody, it's the league against the law, how are these dumb fuckrrs not understanding that?

If City, presumably with the help of villa, Newcastle and Forest, challenge this again and it's once again found to be unlawful, I hope we thsn go after the clubs who voted for it. They have been told it's unlawful, they should be culpable for their decisions if they decide to ignore that.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

This claimed “victory” for the PL was enabled by the IC not yet providing its further guidance which has been “imminent” for a little while. This allowed the PL to craft the revised rules, and by offering relief to certain clubs exposed on shareholder loans, to swing the vote.
Could the IC be delaying its ruling to aid the PL or is this just coincidence ?

Surely this ammendment could be challenged further by City legally?

Also any reason provided by the IC for not providing its further guidance in a timely manner? If there are timescales for them to provide it?

Surely they will have to release it sooner rather than later, and if it is undoctored then the PL are back to square 1.

 

[Manc in London]

I do wish sports journalists wouldn't describe every thing as a win, loss, or draw. It's simplistic, naive, condescending to readers and often wrong anyway.

First word that came to my mind was 'disingenuous'.

 

[Tb1981]

Who actually cares about this latest vote.
The same clubs who voted this in are the ones who voted the last set of ‘unlawful’ rules in
Means fuck all really

I imagine lots of back channel promises from premier league
Can’t wait till the next independent’ panel rule against them

 

[bigA]

I'd hardly call it a defeat if City go on to successfully challenge them again. Fucking stupid slap-headed ****!

He'll be tossing himself off something chronic with that news. He'll be getting treated soon for friction burns to his cock.

 

[TheKippaxM14Blue]

Everton, Arsoles and BHA I heard about, there maybe more?

2022-23 Premier League Shareholders Loans Table
Rank	Club	Money Owed
1.	Everton	£451m
2.	Brighton	£373m
3.	Arsenal	£259m
4.	Chelsea	£146m
5.	Leicester	£132m
6.	Bournemouth	£115m
7.	Liverpool	£71m
8.	Wolves	£65m
9.	Brentford	£61m
10.	Crystal Palace	£38m
11.	Nottingham Forest	£23m
12.	Aston Villa	£10m
13.	Fulham	£1m
14.	Southampton	£0
15.	Manchester City	£0
16.	Manchester United	£0
17.	Newcastle United	£0
18.	Tottenham Hotspur	£0
19.	West Ham United	£0
20.	Ipswich Town	Unknown

 

[Gone for a Burton]

Yes but where should we put away fans?

Khaldoon is moving on to it next.

He & the Sheikh are amused by the thought of away fans, particularly those from the cabal clubs, getting piss wet through at the bottom of ESL1/SSL1 whilst City fans are as snug as bugs in rugs under the roof in SS3/SS2.

These guys are not unlike myself, they can see all the benefits in this common sense move.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

the full wording - https://www.premierleague.com/news/4172030

At a Premier League Shareholders’ meeting today, clubs approved changes to the League’s Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules​

At a Premier League Shareholders’ meeting today, clubs approved changes to the League’s Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules.

The amendments to the rules address the findings of an Arbitration Tribunal following a legal challenge by Manchester City to the APT system earlier this year.  

The Premier League has conducted a detailed consultation with clubs - informed by multiple opinions from expert, independent Leading Counsel - to draft rule changes that address amendments required to the system.

This relates to integrating the assessment of Shareholder loans, the removal of some of the amendments made to APT rules earlier this year, and changes to the process by which relevant information from the League’s "databank" is shared with a club’s advisors.

The purpose of the APT rules is to ensure clubs are not able to benefit from commercial deals or reductions in costs that are not at Fair Market Value (FMV) by virtue of relationships with Associated Parties. These rules were introduced to provide a robust mechanism to safeguard the financial stability, integrity and competitive balance of the League.

Shareholder Loans​

- The new rules seek to ensure that there is appropriate parity between the treatment of shareholder loans and other APTs going forward, with transitional rules clarifying the treatment of existing shareholder loans within that framework.
- Shareholder loans entered into after 22 November 2024 will be required to be submitted as an APT and subject to an FMV assessment. If the Premier League Board determines the loan to evidently not be at FMV, the club in question shall be required to terminate or vary the loan to reflect FMV and pay any identified shortfall in interest.
- Any Shareholder loan that was entered into before 22 November 2024 and which is replaced with other forms of financing (e.g. by way of conversion to equity or repayment) within 50 days (i.e. by 11 January 2025) will not be required to be submitted as an APT or assessed for FMV.
- Any Shareholder loan that was entered into after 14 December 2021 but before 22 November 2024 and remaining in effect on 11 January 2025 must be submitted as an APT. If the Premier League Board determines the loan is evidently not at FMV,  the club is permitted to retain the Shareholder loan on its existing terms, though adjustments must be made to its Annual Accounts for 2024/25 onwards as if, from 22 November 2024, the loan was at FMV.
- Any Shareholder loan that was entered into prior to 14 December 2021 and remaining in effect on 11 January 2025 must be submitted as an APT and be subject to an FMV Assessment upon any drawdown taking place after the 22 November 2024. If the Premier League Board determines the loan is evidently not at FMV,  the club is permitted to retain the Shareholder loan on its existing terms, though adjustments must be made to its Annual Accounts for 2024/25 onwards as if any drawdowns made after 22 November 2024 were at FMV.

That's a fair stitch up & back covering with enough loop holes for the 'majority' to get away with murder.

 

[Oldham Exile]

I'm a few pages behind - so this may have already been raised

If it is the case that Everton have voted with the PL because otherwise their interest on shareholder loans made have seen them fail PSR and be subject to a further penalty................

Would it mean that Luton - who finished 4 points behind Everton and got relegated - not have a possible claim against the PL. This because if - at the time - Everton were benefitting from unlawful loans they may have been sanction by at least 4 points and they would have been relegated rather than Luton?