Jackie Broon

And not really accurate, the amendments were significant to us, more than Man City, because they would have really hampered our ability to grow sponsorship revenues as we grow. The amendments have been completely thrown out and it's going to be very difficult if not impossible for the PL to make PSR and APT any more stringent than it was before the amendments again.

The judgment found that it was legitimate to change the rules in response to our takeover and the rules not being sufficient at that time to prevent us, and other clubs, from exploiting associated party transactions. It was instigated by our takeover but the arbitration panel found that was acceptable for the PL to do that in the circumstances.

Coincidental background? https://www.newcastleunited.com/en/news/newcastle-united-appoint-roger-thornton-to-board-of-directors

I doubt the likes of Arsenal would be willing to sacrifice PSR altogether to avoid interest on their loans. I don't know whether UEFA include interest on shareholder loans or not, if not they might also need to consider amending their rules as a result of this.

I've skimmed though the decision in more detail. Here's some stuff I've gleaned that's not apparent from the summary. The bad: In relation to whether the changes to the rules were unfairly targeted at gulf state own clubs and unfairly made in response to our takeover, they found that was not the case and it was appropriate for the PL to change the rules. They fundamentally found that the PSR and APT are lawful in principle in terms of competition law. This seems to make it unlikely that PSR and APT are going anywhere. The good: The amendments to the APT rules were found to be unlawfully anti-competitive pretty much in their entirety (other than around changes to deadlines for making FMV decisions). The changes in the wording and reversal of the burden of proof from the PL to the club was found to be unlawfully anti-competitive. Basically, PSR and APT are here to stay but Man City did exactly what they set out to do, get rid of the amendments to the rules, and as a bonus they fucked over some of their main rivals with the shareholder loans stuff.

It's pretty likely they've been doing the same with us as well.

That's not my reading of the decision, it is clear that the rules are only unlawful on limited grounds: (i) that the APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 because they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and for no other reason; (ii) that the Amended APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 as they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and because of the pricing changes in Appendix 18 of the Amended APT Rules and for no other reason; (iii) that APT Rules and the Amended APT Rules are unlawful on account of being procedurally unfair because a club is unable to comment upon the comparable transaction data relied upon by the PL before the PL determines whether a transaction is not at FMV and for no other reason;

Yeah, they do it as a way of putting money into the club in a way that means they can get it back in the future with much lower personal risk.

Probably not, it probably just takes the rules back to where they were this time last year. Other than the interest free loan stuff.

Briefly reading the conclusions of the decision it does seem pretty limited in scope, more about procedural matters of not giving Man City the opportunity to respond to rejection of their sponsorship deals and not giving decisions in time. They haven't made a decision on compensation yet though, which will be interesting for us because we might be able to get some too if they have rejected some of our deals.

Not explicitly, but it probably should have been because any transaction should have been at fair market value.

No, but we did under Ashley if they do backdate (which I doubt).

No, but the point is that they should have been paying interest on the loans at fair market rate and that would count as expenditure.

Maybe lessend a bit but it would still be a factor in how close the stadium can be to them.

The residential properties to the north West are also a constraint, there will need to be sufficient distance from them not to unacceptably impact on light. But there probably would be layout that would work, with the stadium turned 90 degrees and closer to Barack Road.

My point is there is absolutely no rbenefit to building it partially on the footprint of the current stadium. There is room to move the new stadium a bit further back (without any additional impact on Leazes Park) so we can stay at St James' while it is built, or move it even further onto Castle Leazes and have much less of an impact on Leazes Park. I think the only reason it is shown in that way, as a phased construction, is because it makes a more interesting video.

But pointless, there's absolutely no reason to do it that way other than it making an interesting render.

Why bother when that would not really be on the current site, be more impact ful on Leazes Park and would be incredibly disruptive having to find somewhere else to play, when we could just build a couple of hundered meters away and avoid all of that. I can't see us chosing that option.

That ties in with my 'educated guesswork' and other stuff.

I agree with that, it was that it would be a weighty amount that I was questioning, it would be likely to be pennies in relation to the overall cost of the development.

It's unlikely that such a S106 contribution would be weighty in relation to the overall cost of any development. They can't be used to 'buy' a permission, they can only be directly relevant and commensurate to the scale of impacts of a development. Replacing an area of and/or restoring the rest of Leazes Park isn't going to be a weighty cost in the context of a new stadium.

Not necessarily, it could potentially be in Man City's interest to keep it confidential in terms of using it as leverage.

It depends on what is proposed but yes, probably. Who is going to bring a challenge? Do you think the Friends of Leazes Park have a spare £20k+ lying around? I doubt Historic England would either for Grade II park, unless it's complete destruction of the park. And there would also need to actually be a point of law to bring a challenge on, a decision can't just be challenged because someone doesn't agree with it.