Yeah I guess you're right in the sense that if it's unlawful, it's unlawful, so it would be difficult to justify it not being immediately banned, even if it's not fair to the teams that followed the rules in good faith. Another example of how all of these regulations have fucked things up more than they've helped. I miss the days when the best signing you could make was a top striker, not a top accountant.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 ;)
Yeah I guess you're right in the sense that if it's unlawful, it's unlawful, so it would be difficult to justify it not being immediately banned, even if it's not fair to the teams that followed the rules in good faith. Another example of how all of these regulations have fucked things up more than they've helped. I miss the days when the best signing you could make was a top striker, not a top accountant.
Going forward. 5% of, see below, is still a substantial amount if the Yank billionaire owners ever decide to prop up their clubs again financially.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 :)
Going forward. 5% of, see below, is still a substantial amount if the Yank billionaire owners ever decide to prop up their clubs again financially.
The likes of Arsenal and Liverpool, who owe their owners £259 million and £137 million respectively, now face being beholden to commercial interest rates on such loans under those rules.
An ambiguous or non-committal answer that could be interpreted either way depending on the outcome :)
Are we talking the same thing? 5% is the minimum shareholding to be taken account in determining an APT isn't it?
Unless I have misunderstood, which is entirely possible, the interest rate applied is considered case by case?
i think this is what triggered City into action, if City ( mansoor ) wont allow themselves to get into interest charged loans we need to find another way to put money into the club , if we choose sponsorship then PL expect to cap what we can get from this option while allowing unlimited ( interest free ) owner loans& once that’s agreed we jump in with Shariah banking where it’s against Islam to charge interest :)