PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Invisible Man's Bandage said:
It's not looking good for us so don't build your hopes up.

Click to expand...


Bloody typical City!!

Fuming about this, I’m no lawyer but even I could have brought a defence.

These lawyers we have got are paid millions and they cannot think of a defence despite being give irrefutable evidence from the club.

Amateur hour!!
 
ShedDweller said:
No that's wrong. City have challenged the idea that 'soft' shareholder loans (be they zero or low interest or market rate interest) are not currently considered an APT when they clearly are.

What this means is that clubs like Arsenal will have to have the value of those soft loans assessed (and that's a separate thing to what level of interest they are paying) and that value will then be included in the PSR calculation.

Another interesting thing is people saying 'oh they'll just convert to equity' - well apparently equity can't be directly injected by owners otherwise City & Newcastle would just blow everyone else out of the water anyway.

PSR is only calculated on earnings generated, its going to take some financial gymnastics by the cartel clubs to get rid of those loans from a PSR perspective.

Also, bear in mind that the only reason Arsenals soft loans are done at interest level they are is to satisfy UEFA's PSR rules which don't allow zero interest loans.
Click to expand...
I think its interesting too that Everton have an opportunity to wipe the slate clean wrt to these loans when the takeover happens.

From what I've seen its pretty much only when ownership changes that equity can flow into the club so if Everton's new owners take the opportunity to clear the debt they will be OK, Its hard to see retrospective action being taken when some of the cartel clubs have much to lose so they won't vote for that.

Arsenal and Brighton (smug cunts) are a different situation. I think this might hurt them.

Utd less so as they have real loans, not soft ones and so they do actually pay for that money and their income covers it (for now). The Glazers might be cunts but from a financial point of view they have been very clever.

The INEOS thing is interesting, there's a good article on the athletic about the demise of the Team SKY cycling team post INEOS takeover. Also NICE have done fuck all under INEOS so I don't see why Utd fans saw that deal as a panacea.
 
bridgeno1 said:
I think this is one of the fundamental misunderstandings that's happening. Arsenal, Everton, Brighton etc haven't done anything wrong re shareholder loans as the current rules (that City voted for btw) state that shareholder loans don't bear interest.

City have subsequently challenged this (and had this challenge upheld) meaning that moving forward this rule is likely to be amended. At that points clubs will need to comply with it but that's only after an amendment is made. At the present moment it's perfectly legal - I suspect it won't be after the rules get amended (assuming 60% of PL clubs vote for it - they may also decide not to of course).
Click to expand...
So our charges can be backdated to prehistoric times but yours can just be dismissed? Sounds fair.
 
bridgeno1 said:
We could end up in a doomsday scenario where City get done on the 115 and get points deducted, Arsenal and Liverpool get done for Shareholder loans and likewise get points taken off, Villa, Spurs, Newcastle etc get done for not properly accounting for commercial revenues and also get a points deduction and the Rags end up winning the PL by default!

#Sireriktenhag
Click to expand...
With their 900m debts
 
bridgeno1 said:
City have subsequently challenged this (and had this challenge upheld) meaning that moving forward this rule is likely to be amended. At that points clubs will need to comply with it but that's only after an amendment is made. At the present moment it's perfectly legal - I suspect it won't be after the rules get amended (assuming 60% of PL clubs vote for it - they may also decide not to of course).
Click to expand...
My takeaway is there are no APT rules now, they are unlawful and therefore all null and void. If still wanted they will have to be reworked to be non discriminatory (i.e. not fit for cartel purpose in targeting City & Newcastle) and also fold shareholder loans into PSR from 2021 at a cost of millions to said cartel.
 
Whatever happens, this whole financial governance system needs to be torn apart. Forcing clubs to chase revenue so they can compete, only leads to exploitation of fans. From the day these rules were introduced, the financial burden on us as fans has increased exponentially. No one in the press seems bothered about that.
 
bridgeno1 said:
I think this is one of the fundamental misunderstandings that's happening. Arsenal, Everton, Brighton etc haven't done anything wrong re shareholder loans as the current rules (that City voted for btw) state that shareholder loans don't bear interest.

City have subsequently challenged this (and had this challenge upheld) meaning that moving forward this rule is likely to be amended. At that points clubs will need to comply with it but that's only after an amendment is made. At the present moment it's perfectly legal - I suspect it won't be after the rules get amended (assuming 60% of PL clubs vote for it - they may also decide not to of course).
Click to expand...
You think the PL would allow rules that fall apart under legal scrutiny to be passed by 60% of clubs?
 
City Raider said:
Whatever happens, this whole financial governance system needs to be torn apart. Forcing clubs to chase revenue so they can compete, only leads to exploitation of fans. From the day these rules were introduced, the financial burden on us as fans has increased exponentially. No one in the press seems bothered about that.
Click to expand...

They couldn't give a fuck they get the best seats in the house and free food. Have you seen our press seats? Halfway line, padded, luxury. They will only pretend to care if there was no fans again like the covid period.
 
www.telegraph.co.uk

Man City rivals line up damages claims over Premier League charges

Exclusive: Six-year limitation on breach of contract claims could force clubs to open legal proceedings in search of damages
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

Rehash of old news. Connected to the six year limitation period. Clubs need to reserve their right to bring damage claims. If true perhaps they will send in two letters. One to us and one to Prem?
 
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