mattypnufc Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 1 minute ago, timeEd32 said: We are mentioned 15 times in the full decision. The speed at which things went into motion following the takeover is pretty incredible. Its actually a disgrace really when you look at it. If I was our top brass, now would be the time to get those legal teams assembled. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 How do the shareholder loans sit with FFP? Surely they can't count as income and be used to offset any loses? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 3 minutes ago, FCB said: Both sides won and lost, as @timeEd32 said FMV rules remain but some stuff about fair market valuation for sponsorships as well as loans etc are changing Do we have any shareholder loans ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Spaceman Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 I mean the PL lost so it's likely to be good news for us given they're the ones blocking our progression at every opportunity Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 1 minute ago, Jack27 said: do you have a link for the full decision? https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2024/10/07/898efab9-9f51-449b-a393-1a0c05b48824/Manchester-City-and-Premier-League-Partial-Final-Award-071024.pdf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 Just now, Ben said: Do we have any shareholder loans ? No Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCB Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 1 minute ago, Ben said: Do we have any shareholder loans ? I don't believe so - I know Arsenal and Brighton currently rely on a lot of shareholder loans though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufc123 Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 So we can upgrade the Sela deal with some, and add other places without being questioned by the PL police? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 The PSR contained (a) a £105 million limit on the aggregate loss a club may suffer over a three-season period (if covered by sufficiently secure funding – principally equity but not debt) and (b) an ability for the Board of the PL to restate the consideration in the club’s accounts from any RPTs to fair market value (“FMV”) RPT was defined as “any transaction disclosed in a company'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.” (Rule A 1.173 of the Rules in the form in which they appeared in the PL Handbook for the 2021/22 season.). Although there was no definition of what substantively was meant by a RPT, we understand it to have included not just sponsorship agreements but also shareholder loans. Thus the PSR covered not just revenue received by clubs but also costs expended by them. FMV was defined as “the amount for which an asset could be sold, licensed or exchanged, a liability settled, a service provided between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm’s length transaction.” (Rule A 1.71 of the same edition of the Rules). So Arsenal and Brighton broke the rules but Chelsea didn't, why weren't they sanctioned like Everton and Nottingham Forest Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 The Premier League's General Counsel, after obtaining legal advice, said "the proposals were not without risk and that a challenge was conceivable." Later they obtained legal advice on related party transactions and the recommendation was it has "at least a good prospect of resisting any sustained legal challenge." Speed was the name of the game following our takeover. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCB Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 1 minute ago, nufc123 said: So we can upgrade the Sela deal with some, and add other places without being questioned by the PL police? Pretty much until the new rules are tweaked, we could in theory sue for loss of money if any sponsorship valuation was rejected Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 Just now, Adam said: How do the shareholder loans sit with FFP? Surely they can't count as income and be used to offset any loses? 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 2 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said: 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. So that was already in the rules but never enforced ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 (edited) Panel have said it's unlawful as was always the case, Premier League can bleat on as much as they want, as anything they try which goes against UK law will be challenged immediately in the courts. How can they assess what is fair market value in Saudia Arabia. Newcastle and City are going to have a field day for any decision that the Premier League try to stop. Edited October 7 by et tu brute Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 11 minutes ago, Ben said: Do we have any shareholder loans ? No, but we did under Ashley if they do backdate (which I doubt). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufc123 Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 5 minutes ago, FCB said: Pretty much until the new rules are tweaked, we could in theory sue for loss of money if any sponsorship valuation was rejected Quite big for us if true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 1 minute ago, Ben said: So that was already in the rules but never enforced ? Not explicitly, but it probably should have been because any transaction should have been at fair market value. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 5 days is all it took for the snowball to start. I wonder who that email came from... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 Wait, are you telling me TheBrownBottle has been talking shit all this time..? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 Just now, timeEd32 said: 5 days is all it took for the snowball to start. I wonder who that email came from... Lots of it indicates that they targeted us and Man City. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRC Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 Everton were a witness for Cities defence, but also possibly getting shafted for their interest free loan? That is fantastic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandy Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 (edited) Can someone do a link to a readable version of this Martin Samuel article? https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football/article/manchester-city-unlawful-legal-martin-samuel-cv7l7x72v#:~:text=Wrapped up in legalese is,may wish to spin it. Edit : found one.... https://archive.ph/NndOh Edited October 7 by Wandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 (edited) Bloke on Talksport just now seems to think the shareholder loans could be huge for Arsenal and Everton who currently owe hundreds of millions Edited October 7 by Ben Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE27 Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 Lot of fans on each side claiming some kind of victory here. Feels the biggest takeaway is the PL is not fit for purpose when it comes to self regulation. They have clearly pushed rules through asap to stop a potential Saudi version of Abu dhabi group, but yet aren't applying the same rules against clubs who currently fall foul of them by using a different method? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 The only clear thing to me is that Richard Masters is goosed 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