Jackie Broon

It wasn't actually MBS who the PL regarded as a director, it was the state of Saudi Arabia. In the letter released in the court case it was actually the state of Saudi Arabia they were saying should be subject to the owners and directors test, not MBS. And it wasn't that there was a rule against states owning clubs, the state of Saudi Arabia refused to make themselves subject to the owners and directors test so there was a stand-off over that. In the end, the PL dropped that subject to unknown "legally binding assurances". It's a non-story as you say because MBS in his role as chairman of PIF is bound to have input into PIF's decision making around Newcastle.

Bainbridge's

Nothing compared to Daley Thompson's Decathlon on rubber spectrum keys.

It doesn't make any difference, owners can only put £105m over 3 years in to cover losses on the PSR balance sheet, loans aren't a way around FFP. Our owners have been putting in money by issuing shares, around £400m so far. This is effectively giving the club money that can only be got back if they sell the club for £400m more than they bought it. Other owners have done the same by giving interest free loas to the club. Which the club could be made to pay back at some point, like what happened to Portsmouth.

In that case I think we could argue that we paid above FMV interest on his loans in kind through free sponsorships, worth possibly £100m+.

I think that was his point to be fair.

It only relates to the powers the tribunal have to amend the rules in their final decision. The PL can amend them however they like (subject to a vote and risk of furgher challenge, obviously).

Unless they completely wipe the PSR slate clean for everyone I don't see how they can avoid doing it retrospectively, PSR is retrospective over the previous 3 years. If they don't take into account FMV interest on shareholder loans retrospectively over that period the clubs with them would have an unfair and unlawful advantage for the next three years. But then if they do that they'll run into a situation similar to the Leicester case. So I think they will probably have to start again with a clean slate for everyone.

They have been voting in their interest, PSR maintains the gulf between the promoted clubs and the mid-table clubs as well as pulling up the ladder to clubs wanting to break away from them into the top 6.

The Vlachodimos - Anderson deal etc.

Possibly, but that's probably not the best way to go about it because that would put us at potential risk of consequences if we're wrong, and submitting deals for ratification puts the PL is a very sticky position that if they do try to block or delay them we could potentially claim damages.

The thing is that as they stand the APT rules are possibly void, which means as if they never existed, which means a free for all until they bring in something new (although still subject to the UEFA rules).

The answer to expanding St. James' Park has been sitting under our noses since 1991:

Man City are claiming for damages as part of the arbitration.

I think the change in the APT rules that resulted in Man City bringing the arbitration were proposed and pushed through by a group of clubs, rather than the board, and the board advised against those changes. Masters is an easy scapegoat but he's not really the problem.

So they've rejected three of Man City's sponsorship deals in the past 12 months, but you're betting that they haven't rejected any from us, the club the changes were actually designed to restrict?

Realistically, I don't think there is any way that any club outside of the big 6 could ever bridge the financial gap to them with organic growth alone.

My reading of the decision is that it is likely to be important for us in that respect. In their evidence the PL said that the APT FMV rules before the amendments made in February had an inflationary effect, that APTs could be increased over time under the pre-amemdment rules and so the changes were necessary. They essentially wanted to completely restrict our ability to grow our revenue over time. The PL lost that argument. Whilst this isn't going to lead to us being able to instantly catch up to the big 6 it reopens a mechanism for us to do that in the long term.

Only in the context of PSR not being challenged. Essentially the decision says that PSR hasn't been challenged and so the principle of PSR is accepted, in that context APT control is necessary for PSR. 192. We agree that the move to an ex ante regime with a freeze on monies being used until there has been a determination that the APT is evidently not above FMV is a more intrusive market intervention than the previous ex post regime. However, as we have found, the evidence referred to at [180] above, indicates that there were difficulties in the speedy and effective investigation of potential breaches under the ex post regime. RPTs were not being declared, and any restatement would be made long after the money had been done. As a result, the PSR was not effective. There has been no challenge to the PSR or to the principle of detecting and eliminating subsidies by way of RPTs with the clubs.

After hearing about the planned meeting with of PL clubs with her I wrote to Lisa Nandy about this yesterday. Not that it will make any difference but I felt I had to say something.

I think the burden of proof and other changes to the wording in the amendments being found to be unlawful is a big thing too. It seems it's going to be very difficult for the PL to change the APT and FMV rules in future to make them any more stringent than they were before February's amendments.

But, will the APT rules at that time stand up to scrutiny? Essentially what the charges seem to relate to are Man City making APTs without disclosing that, if rules were unlawful or badly drafted so they can show they didn't breach the rules at the time, then they would probably get away with it.

The ultimate aim is probably to force some kind of settlement of the 115 charges I think. They're in a position now where PSR benefits them, so I don't think they will want to see PSR completely ripped up, just a system that allows them to keep doing what they're doing.

Exactly, and that's one of the points in Man City's letter to the other clubs.

Nope, could be months more.