Jackie Broon

Except the tribunal in Man City's case considered that point and concluded that it was legitimate for the PL to change the rules in response to our takeover: 187. We accept that the acquisition of Newcastle United by an investment group led by the Saudi Arabian public investment fund on 7 October 2021 was the catalyst for the consultation process leading up to the APT Rules which led to the setting up of FCAG on 21 October, and the imposition of a moratorium on APTs agreed at the shareholders’ meeting on 11 November 2021. The consultation process ran from 21 October to mid-December 2021, as set out at [27-47] above. 188. We do not, however, find that the APT Rules were targeted specifically at clubs owned by companies in the Gulf region but were rather intended to apply to any club that might use APTs. REDACTED was called to give evidence by the PL and was cross-examined. Although his email dated 12 October 2021 was said by counsel on behalf of MCFC in closing submissions to be evidence that the APT Rules were targeted at certain clubs, in particular, those in “the Gulf region”, it was clear from his evidence that it was not so targeted save in the sense that at the time the email was sent there was concern that Newcastle United might be about to enter into APTs with entities in Saudi Arabia. REDACTED considered that “any club that benefits from a transaction not at fair market value should be subject to the same rules, just as we would expect that.” He explained that “if, for example, we were talking about a takeover of another club by an American consortium who had links to lots of American companies” he would have expressed the same concerns. He said that “there had been concern for a number of years about related party transactions, associated party transactions taking place at above market value”. He explained that “the takeover of Newcastle United heightened those concerns again and encouraged the clubs to seek action.” We were satisfied that, whilst it was the takeover of Newcastle United which caused him to send his email when he did, ’s concern related to any club that might use APTs. 189. In conclusion, we find that there was a sufficient evidential basis for the PL and the clubs to conclude that the ex post PSR rules were ineffective in controlling APTs, and that it was necessary to move to ex ante regime. This was the objective of the APT Rules (and later the Amended APT Rules).

This vote was never about whether to get rid of PSR, clubs were voting against it because it's not fair and probably not lawful in how it deals with the shareholder loans issue. If anything, the vote for it is a greater risk to the future of PSR because the tribunal could end up going in dry on the PL in their final judgment.

Not surprising, clubs that would otherwise be anti-PSR Chelsea, Everton, Forest and Leicester have huge shareholder loans on the books and so were never going to vote against it.

The rules basically just go back to what they were before the amendments in February, we're still hamstrung by them but not as hamstrung as we were in our ability of inflate our sponsorship income over time.

I just can't see how it can be lawful, not applying FMV to shareholder loans has been determined to be unlawful and the accounts for the past three years PSR is assed on won't have FMV applied to shareholder loans. I'm sure the PL will have legal arguments to say it is but it is hard to see what they would be other than just saying it would be unfair to apply it retrospectively.

Because the status quo also helps to keep the gap between the mid-table PL team and the promoted team growing ever wider, and helps to keep £100m a season rolling in for just passing go.

Stuff like that happens all of the time, for example council committees going against professional advice, that's how people with power often act.

Because the the only alternatives are too unpalatable to the clubs who hold the power. Their only lawful options seem to be to apply FMV to shareholder loans retrospectively over the current three year PSR cycle (which would screw the likes of Chelsea and Everton) or wipe the PSR slate clean and start again. But the majority of clubs just won't accept either of those options.

I don't think there's much chance of it not being voted through. Half of the PL have shareholder loans of more than £30m, that includes otherwise anti-PSR clubs Everton, Leicester and Chelsea.

They already have before, when the stadium was planned there in 1997.

Unless I've missed something he has been pretty tight lipped about what he does or doesn't know. Stuff I've heard and stuff in the press has suggested that the club has been in contact with the Freemen about buying land. We don’t know Castle Leazes is what they're going for, it's just the most obvious option.

The punishment hasn't been determined yet, the PL have essentially been found guilty but haven't had their sentencing hearing yet. There's a good chance that, in addition to Man City's costs for the points the PL lost on, they will end up having to pay Man City for the loss of income from the sponsorships they delayed and/or blocked with unlawful rules. That will be tens of millions, at least. That could also possibly lead to claims for any other deals they have blocked or required to be reduced since 2021.

I'd rather it go through because I'm pretty sure it will still be unlawful due to not retrospectively applying FMV to shareholder loans and the PL will put themselves even deeper in the shit.

Which I think seeds have possibly deliberately been planted for.

I think the decision (a new stadium on Castle Leazes) has possibly been made for a while and work towards that is happening in the background.

It's a big gap though, £430m vs. £105m covering allowable of losses in the three years since the takeover. Maybe part of it was clearing the loan that transferred from Ashley? But that's still a big difference. It would be interesting to understand how the difference is accounted for because I doubt our infrastructure, women's team and youth spending is anywhere near that.

I doubt the charges will stick, the PL's profit and sustainability rules were clearly badly drafted and full of holes, and the charges relate to before the amendments were brought in after our takeover to strengthen the disclosure and control over related party transactions.

I don't think the PL will be in a position to sign off on any deals until new rules are in place. There might well be a number of deals the PL are just sitting on.

No one knows for sure, including Man City's or the PL's legal teams, until the tribunal makes it's final decision and/or it's played out in other challenges.

That takes into account the cost of building a larger stadium, in theory that is not an issue for us. Depending on how PIF actually see us we might only be looking to maximise revenue with the cost not really being a factor. I understand that there'd also be an element of scarcity driving demand, with a point where the balance tips and more availability could actually result in less demand. But I think that could probably be overcome to a large extent with big variations in pricing.

"Credit to Steve Bruce"

They're in a catch 22, apply it retrospectively and it'll probably be unenforceable for similar reasons to the Leicester case, don't apply it retrospectively and FMV/PSR is probably still unlawful because there'll be 2-3 years in the PSR calculations where those clubs haven't had FMV applied to their loans. Probably the only way around it is to restart the PSR cycle from scratch.

To be fair, looks like he's acknowledged that he was going out too much when he was at Burnley "I was still going out when I was younger – drinking – and I wasn't looking after myself properly. He (Dyche) came in and sorted it all out. My career has totally changed. Burnley helped me get to where I am and I'll never forget that."

Yeah, unless they do it retrospectively over the past three years, which the clubs with shareholder loans will never vote for, they have what the tribunal has ruled is an unfair advantage baked in for the next three years.

We had up to £70m available to spend on Guehi, I can't believe we offered that if it would potentially leave us with another PSR deadline day scramble to sell players. The stuff about Gordon's contract changing things doesn't add up, as spoken about above.