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

[TonyColemansbagofapples]

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

There are more. I was just being bone idle not looking it up.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

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.

Can City, or any member for that matter, ask the IC to publish its decision ?

As there has been a determination by the IC already, surely it is not unreasonable for the findings to be made public.

In so doing, the validity or otherwise of any of the PL's proposals can be determined by any interested party ?

Seems as though the tardiness of the publishing of the IC findings is merely helping cause much angst and frustration for a number of interested parties.

 

[TonyColemansbagofapples]

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

Thanks

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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.

Why have they capitalised ‘Leading Counsel’ in that statement? Beyond pompous.

 

[Ric]

Thought Steffan was on TalkSport this morning but not heard it

He's on in a minute:

 

[cookster]

Does anyone know when we can expect to hear from the tribunal.
Differing dates are being reported.

 

[billblu]

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?

I asked something similar a few pages back one of the smart people on here told me they would just appeal against it like leicester and it would be deemed procedulary unfair

 

[Cobwebcat]

As others have said, this vote is almost irrelevant. The only thing that really matters is the tribunal’s final deliberation. Hopefully we will get that soon.

I just hope it’s clear this time one way or another.

 

[oakiecokie]

Yes but where should we put away fans?

Jail ?? ;)

 

[Cobwebcat]

That's weird. So the club was bluffing with their letters to the PL and the clubs? I may be wrong, but I am not so sure Mansour and Khaldoon try to bluff their way out of situations ...

I don’t read it that way. If the rules are illegal they will have to withdraw them again instantly.