Jackie Broon

Before our takeover the definition of a RPT in the PL's rules was this: “Related Party Transaction” means a transaction disclosed in a Club’s Annual Accounts as a related party transaction or which would have been disclosed as such except for an exemption under the accounting standards under which the Annual Accounts were prepared; Following our takeover they changed the term to Associated Party Transaction and this is the current definition: An “Associated Party” is a Person that is associated with the Club. In considering each possible Associated Party relationship, the League will direct its attention to the substance of the relationship and not merely the legal form. 1. A Person is associated with a Club if that Person or, where that Person is an individual, a close member of that individual’s family (i.e. those family members who may be expected to influence, or be influenced by, that individual in his dealings with the entity, including that individual’s parents, children, siblings and spouse or domestic partner, children of that individual’s spouse or domestic partner, and dependents of that individual or that individual’s spouse or domestic partner): (a) has Control or joint control over the Club; (b) holds a Holding in excess of 5% of Shares; (c) holds a loan interest or other debt or security interest of any kind in the Club or an entity in the same group of companies as the Club, with the exception of any such interest held: (i) as part of regulated banking services provided by a Financial Institution; (ii) in the form of bonds, notes or other securities held by professional investors; or (iii) pursuant to a debenture providing the holder with access to tickets to events at the Club’s Stadium; (d) has Material Influence over the Club or an entity in the same group of companies as the Club; or (e) is a Director or member of the key management personnel of the Club or of a Parent Undertaking of the Club. 2. A Person is also associated with a Club if any of the following conditions apply: (a) the Person and the Club are members of the same group of companies; (b) the Person and the Club are directly or indirectly controlled, jointly controlled, or Materially Influenced by the same government, public or state-funded body or by the same party; (c) the Person (or a Director or member of the key management personnel of the Person) has Material Influence over the Club (or vice versa); (d) the Person is an associate or joint venture of the Club (or an associate or joint venture of a member of a group of companies of which the Club is a member) (or vice versa); (e) both the Person and Club are joint ventures in which the same third party is a shareholder; (f) the Person is a joint venture in which a third party is a shareholder and the Club is an associate of the third party (or vice versa); (g) the Person is controlled or jointly controlled by a Person identified in paragraph 1; (h) an individual identified in paragraph 1(a) has Material Influence over the Person or is a member of the key management personnel of the Person (or of a parent of the Person); or (i) the Person, or any member of a group of which it is a part, provides key management personnel services to the Club; “Associated Party Transaction” means, in respect of any Club, a Transaction that is, whether directly or indirectly, between: (a) a Club and an Associated Party; (b) a Player registered to the Club and an Associated Party of that Club; or (c) a Manager or Senior Official of the Club and an Associated Party of that Club, with the exception of any Transaction pursuant to which the Club, Player, Manager or any Senior Official of the Club is exclusively a purchaser of goods or services (and does not receive any payment, fee or monetary equivalent) and the total value of any consideration either paid or to be paid by the Club or individual (as applicable), when added to any consideration paid or to be paid by the Club or individual (as applicable) in respect of other Transactions with the same party agreed in the preceding three years, is less than £500,000 (and subject to Rules E.70 to E.71). In considering whether a Transaction is an Associated Party Transaction, the League will direct its attention to the substance of the Transaction and not merely the legal form;

The fundamental principle of the PL controlling APTs and limiting them to fair market value was found to be lawful by the tribunal, it was only the exclusion of shareholder loans and some procedural stuff that was found to be unlawful.

The players can't cope with the stress of people asking them for cup final tickets, apparently.

Their rules do also require that related party transactions are at fair market value and have a process set out in the rules for assessing that. Although what constitutes a related party isn't as stringently definitely as the PL's associated party definition.

If we had put in a deal for sign-off before the current rules were in place there would possibly be nothing the PL could do to stop us going ahead with it now. If we were to put one in now we'd have to wait and see what happens with APT2. But, it would fall foul of UEFA's APT test if/when we get into Europe.

Called it.

Yes and no. We were definitely up against it last season and probably right on the limit the season before. But I don't think we are as hampered by PSR this season as has been made out. People in the club clearly felt that a 'Newcastle tax' was being applied when we tried to sign anyone because it was assumed that we had unlimited money to spend. I think they have been playing up the hampered by PSR message this season because of that.

If it is we're likely to be around break-even for this season and last.

I get that he is speculating from a place of knowledge, but if anyone else had posted speculative inferences like that he'd be the first to say they were reading too much into it and that no one really knows what the outcome will be.

Yes, which suggests that they have a final ruling which has found that the APT rules were void.

I don't think so, this is clearly to deal with the question of whether the amendments to the rules are sufficient to address what the previous tribunal found made them unlawful. One interesting point from the PL's letter is "Manchester City FC seeks a declaration that the amendments approved by clubs in November (and therefore the current APT rules in force) are unlawful and void." That suggests that it has now been established that the previous APT rules were void, which is not something that the PL accepted before.

Probably more that it isn't within the remit of the existing arbitration case to determine the lawfulness of the amended rules. If the prem had actually won on that point there would be nothing to arbitrate against.

Realistically I think Real Madrid is the only club that would be willing to pay what he would cost and he would potentially want to go to, PSG could afford him but I don't think he'd want to play there, Man City could afford him but I can't see them being in the market for him while they have Haaland. He's played himself way out of Arsenal's league.

I suppose they would say that it's about preventing a situation where clubs need to spend beyond their means to keep up with the bankrolled clubs, and the potential inflationary effect of bankrolled clubs increasing tranfer fees and wages across the board.

In relation to the arbitration rather than the 115 charges, apparently they've just had another round of hearings on the remaining issues.

The people involved will be guessing too, with more information, but still mostly educated guesswork.

I agree, although it seems less likely to end up getting called-in by the SoS under this government.

I don't think that's right because the losses in our accounts won't be the actual PSR position, there would be additional deductions for youth, women's team and infrastructure spending. I think a ballpark figure of £10m per season. To work out what we needed to be within the £105m threshold in 23/24 it's probably more accurate to look at 20/21, because we have those accounts and the profit we made in 20/21 was enough for us to be within the £105 threshold together with 21/22 and 22/23, so the same profit in 23/24 must also put us within the £105 threshold. 20/21 Profit (loss) = (£13.7m) Covid allowances = £25.9m Other allowances = £10m Deduction for extension of accounting period = (£12.7m) = £9.5m PSR profit So, unless I've got something completely wrong from our 20/21 accounts (which is quite possible) a £9.5m profit in 23/24 should have seen us safe. There were stories last week that we'd made a £27m profit in 23/24 (which would be more like £37m for PSR with allowances), so from that it seems that we didn't actually need all of the money from Minteh and Anderson to meet the £105m threshold, although one or the other might not have been quite enough, or we might just have set up both deals just in case and decided to go through with both?

We are almost certainly not significantly restricted by PSR this window, I just think the right players at the right price haven't been avalible and we're setting ourselves up for a squad refresh in the summer.

Italians really do do bureaucracy like no one else, it took 2 years for my wife to get her Italian passport renewed and we're currently stuck in a Kafkaesque nightmare of trying to sort out inhering her late Dad's house.

It's not difficult to estimate, of course no one can know exactly, but the accounts for 21/22 and 22/23 are available, Swiss Ramble and Deloitte have produced probably reasonably accurate estimates for 23/24, from that a reasonable guesstimate can be made for 24/25. Our PSR position is dragged down hugely by 21/22 and 22/23, we will be in a far better position once they are off the books.

It has significantly changed this season because 21/22 has dropped off the PSR books. That was a season where we had a turnover of only £180m and costs before player trading of £226m, where we lost £70m after player trading and our owners had to inject £168m into the club. We are in a significantly better financial position this season, by my estimation we probably have around £30-50m of PSR headroom. Next season even better, by my estimation we could have £100m+ headroom. Squad cost rules could change that, but we don't know what they will be yet or even i they will definitely come in.

New contracts are generally neutral, or even a beneficial, in terms of yearly cost. Isak's amortisation currently costs the club around £12m per year and his wages are around £6m. If he signs a new 5 year contract now his yearly amortisation cost will drop to £6m, so we could double his wages without any additional yearly cost.

I was responding to you saying they are "passive investors". Of course the CEO runs the club day to day, but PIF having meetings to decide on transfer targets and negotiations, as was seen in the documentary, are not the actions of "passive investors".

That's clearly not the case from what we've heard and seen in the documentary, PIF are heavily involved and have final say on everything.