SteV Posted Monday at 12:41 Share Posted Monday at 12:41 1 hour ago, WilliamPS said: Not really. He runs assets on behalf of Jamie Reuben, NUFC is an asset part owned by Jamie Reuben. With Staveley gone the Board was maybe a bit light on numbers. Obviously he’s a Reuben pick/recommendation, but he sounds like he’s got an extensive background in property development and regeneration, just at the point the board are about to make a decision on a billion pound property development. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic Posted Monday at 13:23 Share Posted Monday at 13:23 Man city victory Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunk Moreland Posted Monday at 13:25 Share Posted Monday at 13:25 1 minute ago, vic said: Man city victory Geed up Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronson333 Posted Monday at 13:25 Share Posted Monday at 13:25 Probably our biggest win of the season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted Monday at 13:26 Share Posted Monday at 13:26 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joelinton7 Posted Monday at 13:27 Share Posted Monday at 13:27 #Cans sponsored by Aramco Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufcjb Posted Monday at 13:27 Share Posted Monday at 13:27 In simple layman's terms, what does that help us with in the near future? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Spaceman Posted Monday at 13:28 Share Posted Monday at 13:28 This is huge...right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodneyCisse Posted Monday at 13:29 Share Posted Monday at 13:29 This means, if a pif company want to sponsor our training gear for £50m no one can say boo? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted Monday at 13:29 Share Posted Monday at 13:29 Quote Within the ruling it also emerged that Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool, and West Ham gave evidence in favour of the Premier League, along with Brentford, Bournemouth, Fulham, and Wolves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted Monday at 13:30 Share Posted Monday at 13:30 Quote It was concluded that “was a sufficient evidential basis for the Premier League to conclude . . . that the [old] rules were ineffective in controlling APTs”. The panel stated that “fair market value”, while “not an exact science” was an “inherent” part of PSR Sounds like they are not abolishing FMV completely, not surprising Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixelphish Posted Monday at 13:30 Share Posted Monday at 13:30 Are we rich again? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted Monday at 13:30 Share Posted Monday at 13:30 "The key facts: Rules deemed unlawful because they did not take into consideration interest-free loans from shareholders to clubs Likely change in the regulations could lead to City striking more lucrative deals and seeking damages from the Premier League Clubs with high levels of borrowing now in danger of breaching of Profitability and Sustainability Rules Arsenal, City's title rivals, have borrowing of more than £200million made up entirely of shareholder loans Premier League's stance was backed by Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool, West Ham United, Brentford, Bournemouth, Fulham, and Wolverhampton Wanderers" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted Monday at 13:30 Share Posted Monday at 13:30 Just now, Shearergol said: This is key, 14 votes needed for any rules and as we can see a nice cosy cartel of 8 love these restrictions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack j Posted Monday at 13:31 Share Posted Monday at 13:31 I thought this happened last week? Is this just the same news again? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted Monday at 13:32 Share Posted Monday at 13:32 1 minute ago, jack j said: I thought this happened last week? Is this just the same news again? This is the official news, lots more detail. Last week it was just rumours. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted Monday at 13:32 Share Posted Monday at 13:32 Quote An independent panel of three retired judges concluded that the rules were unlawful because they did not take into consideration interest-free loans which shareholders lend to clubs. The decision will spark huge concern among a number of City’s Premier League rivals — who rely heavily on such loans — and is likely to lead to the rules being changed. The panel states that, of the £4billion in total borrowing across the Premier League, £1.5billion is in loans from club owners and shareholders. If the rules are altered and commercial loan rates are now applied to these interest-free loans and have to be included in a club’s profitability and sustainability calculation, many clubs could find they are in breach of Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR). City had argued that such payments were unfair and not at market value because they were interest-free and, in some cases, did not have to be repaid at all. For a club such as Arsenal, with borrowing of more than £200million made up entirely of shareholder loans, that is a potentially seismic development. I think their argument here is that if you're applying FMV to sponsorship deals from APs then you should do the same to loans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpTheToon Posted Monday at 13:32 Share Posted Monday at 13:32 Not sure this will do much for us? They still back the need for fair market rules in the verdict. It’s all centred on the process of how “fair” is decided and this central database. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronson333 Posted Monday at 13:33 Share Posted Monday at 13:33 This rule in particular has been winding me up l, why are Man Utd allowed to have a billion dollars worth a debt yet that was seen as fine: Clubs with high levels of borrowing now in danger of breaching of Profitability and Sustainability Rules Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpTheToon Posted Monday at 13:35 Share Posted Monday at 13:35 Just now, Ronson333 said: This rule in particular has been winding me up l, why are Man Utd allowed to have a billion dollars worth a debt yet that was seen as fine: Clubs with high levels of borrowing now in danger of breaching of Profitability and Sustainability Rules Man U are actually fine under the proposed change. It’s clubs who are getting free loans who are targeted. Manure have famously spent a fortune servicing their debt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted Monday at 13:35 Share Posted Monday at 13:35 I love this, so they created rules to stop ourselves and Man city and the net outcome of said action is harder financial rules for themselves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunk Moreland Posted Monday at 13:40 Share Posted Monday at 13:40 Man City statement: https://www.mancity.com/news/club/club-statement-rule-x-arbitral-tribunal-award-63863904 Quote - The Club has succeeded with its claim: the Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules have been found to be unlawful and the Premier League’s decisions on two specific MCFC sponsorship transactions have been set aside - The Tribunal found that both the original APT rules and the current, (amended) APT Rules violate UK competition law and violate the requirements of procedural fairness. - The Premier League was found to have abused its dominant position. - The Tribunal has determined both that the rules are structurally unfair and that the Premier League was specifically unfair in how it applied those rules to the Club in practice. - The rules were found to be discriminatory in how they operate, because they deliberately excluded shareholder loans. - As well as these general findings on legality, the Tribunal has set aside specific decisions of the Premier League to restate the fair market value of two transactions entered into by the Club. - The tribunal held that the Premier League had reached the decisions in a procedurally unfair manner. - The Tribunal also ruled that there was an unreasonable delay in the Premier League’s fair market value assessment of two of the Club’s sponsorship transactions, and so the Premier League breached its own rules. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted Monday at 13:44 Share Posted Monday at 13:44 Can we self-sponsor the shit out of everything whilst this legal wrangle ensues? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sibierski Posted Monday at 13:45 Share Posted Monday at 13:45 BIG SPONSORSHIP ANNOUNCEMENT NOW Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE27 Posted Monday at 13:47 Share Posted Monday at 13:47 Imagine just a glut of sponsorship now, the club been edging for 3 years and now it's ready to blow its load. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now