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

[halfcenturyup]

didn't see that - are these now banned going forwards? (but not retrospectively)

New shareholder loans have to have market rates of interest, yes.

 

[johnny crossan]

didn't see that - are these now banned going forwards? (but not retrospectively)

We still don't know whether they will be folded in retrospectively as I understand it.

 

[Matt Diablo]

New shareholder loans have to have market rates of interest, yes.

Fantastic fuks the arse ends & co up

 

[halfcenturyup]

Fantastic fuks the arse ends & co up

Doesn't really fuck them up, more of a nuisance. They just have to take some action to comply with the new rules (assuming they are actually lawful, of course).

 

[No One Understands]

Why is there a 5% threshold? Seems like a way to circumvent rules. Shareholder loans should be treated the same regardless of ownership level.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Why is there a 5% threshold? Seems like a way to circumvent rules. Shareholder loans should be treated the same regardless of ownership level.

I am assuming 5% is the limit for APTs because otherwise any transaction between the PL and any club, or between clubs, or for that matter directors of them, or family of owners or directors of them, would have to be reported as an APT and subject to the FMV assessment rules, as each club has a 5% shareholding in the PL.

No chance for dodgy payments or corruption if that was the case :)

 

[I'm With Stupid]

We still don't know whether they will be folded in retrospectively as I understand it.

I feel like you'd at least have to allow some time for compliance, because teams will have based their entire budgeting around a certain set of costs. Having said that, it didn't stop UEFA retrospectively applying their rules to a bunch of contracts we signed before their rules came in. But it was wrong then and it'd be wrong now.

 

[cheekybids]

Any idea when the panel will make clear the findings. Imagine if blue collar workers were like this, you’d think there would be a way to speed up the process.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I feel like you'd at least have to allow some time for compliance, because teams will have based their entire budgeting around a certain set of costs. Having said that, it didn't stop UEFA retrospectively applying their rules to a bunch of contracts we signed before their rules came in. But it was wrong then and it'd be wrong now.

I think the issue is that if you don't apply the shareholder loan amendment retrospectively, you are effectively knowingly and deliberately cementing in place a period in which rules that have been determined to be unlawful by object have been applied by the PL to the benefit of clubs that had such loans, and so to the detriment of clubs that had none.

Seems unusual to me if that will be a solution that is acceptable to the tribunal, but I am no lawyer, thank God.

And it may be a reasonable and sensible compromise but when did that ever have any place in discussing the law?

 

[cheekybids]

I think the issue is that if you don't apply the shareholder loan amendment retrospectively, you are effectively knowingly and deliberately cementing in place a period in which rules that have been determined to be unlawful by object have been applied by the PL to the benefit of clubs that had such loans, and so to the detriment of clubs that had none.

Seems unusual to me if that will be a solution that is acceptable to the tribunal, but I am no lawyer, thank God.

And it may be a reasonable and sensible compromise but when did that ever have any place in discussing the law?

But if you were you would have provided an answer by now ;)