PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Bald fraud said:
Had talksport on this morning. Dean Saunders was singing the Wrexham ownership from the rooftops. They want to build a 55 thousand seater stadium. (Wrexham population 44 thousand) he was saying it was amazing their owner pumping his own money into the club and what a fantastic story it was. So why aren’t we hearing the Wrexham project is cheating. Sports washing? Think we all know the answer! They’ll be in the prem soon but it will all be fine as it’s a Hollywood story
Click to expand...
You can more or less spend what you want until you get to the Championship. Then the financial rules kick in.
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
After reading the entire APT ruling I was struck by the witness statements of the PL executives Mai Fyfield and Jamie Herbert. All very defensive and not too accusatory, just about justification of the APT framework and the process used to reject our sponsorship deals. Fyfield got to mention how hard she had worked to ensure our FMVs were rejected, sometimes she even started work at 6am, bless, and one night she worked till after midnight. What martyrdom.
The contrast with the 115/130 hearing will be stark, because the same people will be 100% on the attack. It will be mind blowing if Fyfield and Herbert gave witness statements where they accuse the owners, executives and employees of City of a criminal conspiracy lasting over nine years. Will they accuse City's CAS2020 witnesses of committing perjury and will they tetsity that HHSMs affidavit also submitted at CAS2020 was false. This going to get very very serious.
Click to expand...
Fyfield clearly was well received by the panel members............

"Ms. Fyfield was a good witness. She was candid and engaged with the crossexaminer."

Supports what has been said by others that witness statements trump documents
 
Xhavenjoe said:
Have you any John Bishop?
Click to expand...
HJTfJz.gif
 
Oldham Exile said:
Fyfield clearly was well received by the panel members............

"Ms. Fyfield was a good witness. She was candid and engaged with the crossexaminer."

Supports what has been said by others that witness statements trump documents
Click to expand...
I refer you to the bolt in the sausage!
As a footnote to that, when we returned back from that case a colleague asked “Did you ask to see his Equity card?”
 
Last edited:
lasereyes said:
I dont follow this. Man City has substantial Equity injections - Sheikh Mansour owns 81%, Silver Lake 18%, etc. I assume the reason shareholders make loans is they can withdraw these at their behest (or subject to some finite term) vs Equity which is permanent capital. it is also highly beneficial for the club/company as debt is cheaper than Equity - particularly if you are paying minimal interest.
Click to expand...
From what I can understand from the PSR bullshit, equity injection doesn't count as income and there can only be used to fund infrastructure such as stadium improvement and stuff like that. You can't fund the playing side via that route.

Its one of those 'rules' that they came up with to stop us and the likes of Newcastle.

This is why soft loans are used, not equity so therefore can be used to fund the football side of things. This is the reason why income in the form of sponsorship deals etc is the key to growing/improving the football side of the club.

This is why soft loans as APT's is important. Even if they get converted to equity the picture gets changed massively from a PSR angle.

It is of course... all corrupt bollocks cooked up to help the cartel clubs.
 
ShedDweller said:
From what I can understand from the PSR bullshit, equity injection doesn't count as income and there can only be used to fund infrastructure such as stadium improvement and stuff like that. You can't fund the playing side via that route.

Its one of those 'rules' that they came up with to stop us and the likes of Newcastle.

This is why soft loans are used, not equity so therefore can be used to fund the football side of things. This is the reason why income in the form of sponsorship deals etc is the key to growing/improving the football side of the club.

This is why soft loans as APT's is important. Even if they get converted to equity the picture gets changed massively from a PSR angle.

It is of course... all corrupt bollocks cooked up to help the cartel clubs.
Click to expand...

Naah. Equity or loans makes no difference to PSR in principle because you can only spend what you earn as income whether you are funded by equity or loans.

That's why sponsorship is important. The more you earn, the more you can spend.

The APT thing about loans is that they must now have fmv interest charged against them. Presumably for PSR as well, although that hasn't been challenged yet, so clubs with loans (rather than equity) will have less to spend on players and the like.
 
ShedDweller said:
From what I can understand from the PSR bullshit, equity injection doesn't count as income and there can only be used to fund infrastructure such as stadium improvement and stuff like that. You can't fund the playing side via that route.

Its one of those 'rules' that they came up with to stop us and the likes of Newcastle.

This is why soft loans are used, not equity so therefore can be used to fund the football side of things. This is the reason why income in the form of sponsorship deals etc is the key to growing/improving the football side of the club.

This is why soft loans as APT's is important. Even if they get converted to equity the picture gets changed massively from a PSR angle.

It is of course... all corrupt bollocks cooked up to help the cartel clubs.
Click to expand...
We just about got under the fence in time and the Sheiks money funded the first splurge on players. Then the redshirts brought in their rules, but they were too late.
 
Tolmie scores said:
D

oes Seem strange why City just didnt follow suit at issued £500m of interest free shareholder loans like the rest. Although unethical it was in tge rules. If we did inflate sponsorship just to match the dodgy loan investments well that's fraud on a big scale = why do it? Modern football is sh*te at top level. Fancy having more time devoted to discussing shareholder loans, governence and finance regs than whose playing right wing on a Saturday! Miss those days
Click to expand...

There is a relatively simple answer to this. In Islam it is forbidden* to provide loans, even at interest free. You have to gift it. Islamic financing is a bit more complicated In what they can and can’t do compared to our capitalist system, I’m sure the yanks et-al knew this when concocting these rules.

In many ways Islamic financing rules are a far more equitable system than we have. Yet apparently they are the bad guys in all this with their alleged corruption!!!!

*There are ways they can structure transactions to circumvent this but generally it’s easier to not to do it.
 
metalblue said:
There is a relatively simple answer to this. In Islam it is forbidden* to provide loans, even at interest free. You have to gift it. Islamic financing is a bit more complicated In what they can and can’t do compared to our capitalist system, I’m sure the yanks et-al knew this when concocting these rules.

In many ways Islamic financing rules are a far more equitable system than we have. Yet apparently they are the bad guys in all this with their alleged corruption!!!!

*There are ways they can structure transactions to circumvent this but generally it’s easier to not to do it.
Click to expand...
Nail on the head.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Naah. Equity or loans makes no difference to PSR in principle because you can only spend what you earn as income whether you are funded by equity or loans.

That's why sponsorship is important. The more you earn, the more you can spend.

The APT thing about loans is that they must now have fmv interest charged against them. Presumably for PSR as well, although that hasn't been challenged yet, so clubs with loans (rather than equity) will have less to spend on players and the like.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that Dir Loans can fund working capital including wages (tbh there's a few clubs that would have gone under recently without that facility) so they are effectively treated as income.

I agree that this is an area where the APT change is going to have quite an impact.
 
ShedDweller said:
My understanding is that Dir Loans can fund working capital including wages (tbh there's a few clubs that would have gone under recently without that facility) so they are effectively treated as income.

I agree that this is an area where the APT change is going to have quite an impact.
Click to expand...

Loans are never treated as income, nor is equity. They are both simply ways to finance a company, making funds available for working capital or investments or anything.

But you can only spend on operating costs as much as you earn as income, however you fund the company, so that you don't make a loss (with some exceptions).
 
yes
metalblue said:
There is a relatively simple answer to this. In Islam it is forbidden* to provide loans, even at interest free. You have to gift it. Islamic financing is a bit more complicated In what they can and can’t do compared to our capitalist system, I’m sure the yanks et-al knew this when concocting these rules.

In many ways Islamic financing rules are a far more equitable system than we have. Yet apparently they are the bad guys in all this with their alleged corruption!!!!

*There are ways they can structure transactions to circumvent this but generally it’s easier to not to do it.
Click to expand...
i thought it was a usury (riba) issue - but surely that could have been presented to the EPL when they analysed the competitive model..i.e. where are clubs getting their funding from. Surely that would have been part of the due diligence!!! Also, if it was not possible to compete with other clubs legally - don't enter the market - it's crazy no other company would do that would they? I am sure if they said to prem, right we want to invest in the local area to the tune of £100m's and have a team that is funded at the same level as other clubs with wealthy shareholders - then can you look at your rules EPL? EPL= Answers ermm no...then the investors move on..surely that's the logical process. Why wasn't this done in all honesty - staggering.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top