PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[the blue panther]

Wasn't the Leicester decision around the same time as ours, but our decision was delayed being made public for 12 days

The Leicester decision was announced on 3rd September, so, as our decision was published this week and was delayed by 12 days, we were 2/3 weeks behind Leicester's case.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

My understanding is that City "Didn't take them to court" the PL took City to a tribunal

From the ruling, we challenged the PLs use of APTs after they refused to approve our sponsorship deals.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

From the ruling, we challenged the PLs use of APTs after they refused to approve our sponsorship deals.

View attachment 134565

We wanted those 2 APT decisions to be 'set aside' ie cancelled and they were. However we don't know until the 2nd hearing if the PL will use an updated process to come up with same decisions, or the APT framework will have to be replaced. The question is do the sponsorships get waved through, hopefully yes, because they are probably 10 year deals. The PL are doing absolutely everything they can to stop those sponsorships, we are doing everything to force the PL to approve them, and pay us compensation for the delayed start of our revenue.
My guess is the deal we wanted was for £75m/year but the PL said no, it has to be £25m/year. So over a decade we would lose £500m in revenue. I'd also guess the PL will make an improved offer around £35m/year.
The question is, how much would it hurt us to not have that guaranteed £40m every year. Maybe we should wait until they approve the value but then in a years time say the deal ended prematurely due to bona fide clause, and then reapply but asking for £50m/year.

 

[cookster]

Here's what they've been paying in interest vs what BOE base rates were at the time. Note the loan was given as a way of refinancing existing debt for the stadium as opposed to being used to buy players.

I'd say any independent auditor may query why the interest % paid in 2022-23 was lower vs previous periods when the BOE base rate was higher TBH. I doubt Arsenal were offered a 0% balance transfer deal on their credit card.

View attachment 134521

That's literally been knocked up on some gooners laptop ;)

 

[BerkshireBlue]

We wanted those 2 APT decisions to be 'set aside' ie cancelled and they were. However we don't know until the 2nd hearing if the PL will use an updated process to come up with same decisions, or the APT framework will have to be replaced. The question is do the sponsorships get waved through, hopefully yes, because they are probably 10 year deals. The PL are doing absolutely everything they can to stop those sponsorships, we are doing everything to force the PL to approve them, and pay us compensation for the delayed start of our revenue.
My guess is the deal we wanted was for £75m/year but the PL said no, it has to be £25m/year. So over a decade we would lose £500m in revenue. I'd also guess the PL will make an improved offer around £35m/year.
The question is, how much would it hurt us to not have that guaranteed £40m every year. Maybe we should wait until they approve the value but then in a years time say the deal ended prematurely due to bona fide clause, and then reapply but asking for £50m/year.

a mickey mouse club like Arsenal that have less fans and less trophies just got £50m a year for only shirt sponsorship and stadium naming rights. City should be at least at £75m given ours includes training ground, the women stadium sponsorship and a bunch of other things. Plus we were the champions of Europe, champions of the world and champions of the premier league and the most watched team in the premier league. I think we went for £85m which wouldn't have been far off FMV

 

[Stoned Rose]

Update to this.

I've checked Arsenal's ultimate UK-based holding company and Arsenal do not declare the loan from KSE as a Related Party Transaction.

One of the driving forces behind the introduction of APT rules was the belief by the cartel that Etihad was a related party to City (it isn't) and we weren't declaring it as such. So why don't Arsenal declare their owner loan as an RPT (which it is) and why aren't the PL charging them with a failure to provide accounts properly prepared under current reporting standards?

Further update: They don't have to declare any RPT which is solely within the group of companies, but they should state that in their accounts, which they don't.

No doubt if every other ****’s accounts were scrutinised to fuck like ours there’d be all kinds of shit going on.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

The two key PL executives in the APT tribunal were these two, fyi Dharmash Mistry is a life long supporter and executive box owner at Arsenal. It was Fyfield who was responsible for the decision to refuse the sponsorships.

Premier League confirms reappointment of Board Members Mai Fyfield and Dharmash Mistry

Clubs confirm further three-year terms for the two Independent Non-Executive Directors first appointed in October 2021

www.premierleague.com

 

[Stoned Rose]

Saying that you didn't use the loan for players and only for the stadium makes no sense - It's like your parents loaning you £100 for a pair of trainers but you spent it on food shopping and paid for the trainers out of your own money.

There’s no way this applies.

The Tarquin gets his trainers from Decathlon for £17.

 

[There is a Light]

No doubt if every other ****’s accounts were scrutinised to fuck like ours there’d be all kinds of shit going on.

Exactly this. Strangely only one club has been the victim of an international hacker - I wonder why that would be.

As Billy Meredith said about the 1900’s financial scandal, “clubs are not punished for breaking the law – they are punished for being found out”

 

[cheekybids]

Update to this.

I've checked Arsenal's ultimate UK-based holding company and Arsenal do not declare the loan from KSE as a Related Party Transaction.

One of the driving forces behind the introduction of APT rules was the belief by the cartel that Etihad was a related party to City (it isn't) and we weren't declaring it as such. So why don't Arsenal declare their owner loan as an RPT (which it is) and why aren't the PL charging them with a failure to provide accounts properly prepared under current reporting standards?

Further update: They don't have to declare any RPT which is solely within the group of companies, but they should state that in their accounts, which they don't.

Cheating cunts!

It’s their rules & they still don’t follow them.