Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability - Some Associated Party Transaction Rules Found to be Unlawful in Man City vs. Premier League Case

[Dr.Spaceman]

27 minutes ago, Ben said:

 

However ....the person at the top of the pile is just a stooge for the SKY6 clubs he has no power at all

 

You're not wrong, he's just a glorified postman.

[timeEd32]

The general idea of FMV and it being a necessary component for PSR to function as intended was upheld. So, I don't think we'll be seeing the Aramco Corner Flags at £25m per flag per season. And it's primarily on that basis and a lot of smaller things (like not targeting Gulf clubs) that the PL is claiming victory.

 

However, in the absolute worst case scenario there are now some clubs or owners who are a bit worse off financially due to the shareholder loan change (the least impactful version of this will be if all owners are fine turning those into equity injections, but we'll see if that actually happens), the burden of proof has been rolled back, and clubs can now review and respond to the PL's FMV analysis and ruling. 

 

I'm not smart enough to decipher if this actually requires a larger re-write of the rules or if there's a short term window to drive some more advantageous deals through. There's definitely a possibility of knock-on effects here though.

 

It's not #cans, but it's not nothing either.

[Chris_R]

As things stand, all this does is shaft Everton, Arsenal, Brighton etc who have shareholder loans interest-free. It doesn't help us, it just harms them. Though you could argue (with good reason) that hurting many other clubs in turn helps us, it just doesn't directly allow us to open a cheque book now.

 

What will happen is the rules must be re-written as there's no way they can say that the clubs listed above now have a PSR deficit of £50-80m each, PER YEAR, just from those loans. Easy way is for the "allowed losses" that are what, £105m/year, to increase to £150m or even more per year instead. That would help us.

 

Of course a real cunt's trick would be to split the allowed losses so that clubs can lose £105m on the things outside loans, and then allow a loss of £50m/year on loans separately. I don't know the law enough to say that would be illegal, but it feels like it should be, though I'd not be remotely surprised to see it tried because it would pretty-much allow the status quo to continue without bankrupting Arsenal, Everton and Brighton and also not allow us any more spending power.

 

[Ben]

2 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

How does that make sense? If you don’t need to justify it, can’t you just inflate the deals? Genuine question btw as I am completely clueless with all this stuff.

 

I think its very ambiguous as to who the justification should be made, the Saudis have given single golfers as much as our whole club, so a billion investment would be Fair to them especially with the coverage and exposure it would provide leading up to 2030.

 

Personally I reckon we can do what we want and the EPL wont say a dickie bird to avoid any more time in court.

[Stifler]

The loans thing is going to fuck up quite a few clubs. Even if they aren’t using that avenue, it’s now been taken away from them. They won’t be happy. So far they have tried to block our takeover, block us from buying, and selling players, block us from sponsorships, and all they have done is blocked their own clubs from accessing a source of revenue, or cheat code.

 

I can’t see how Masters survives much longer. He’s not done anything any of the clubs have wanted him to do, he’s now put them in a weaker position. On top of this he has presided over the only Premier League broadcast deal to not increase on the previous one, when the likes of the NFL, and even the EFL are increasing theirs. He’s also lost long term supplier/sponsor Nike.

Every discussion about the Premier League now is either FFP issue, or a VAR issue, with Everton, and Forest having points deductions.

 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by Stifler

[Cronky]

6 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

So FMV stays but the clubs don’t need to justify it.  This is a win but a smallish one. 
 

The loan thing is a bigger win imo. It sinks a number of clubs. I assume some general rules will be relaxed. 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, the loan thing intrigues me.

 

The big question for me is - have these shareholder interest-free loans been used solely on infrastructure projects, which are exempt from PSR? Or have they been used to bolster spending in the transfer market? If the latter is the case, then surely they should always have been taken into account for PSR. An interest-free loan from an owner with no obligation to repay is effectively a spend, at least for the duration of that owner's tenure.

 

[Vaj]

Also, I am sure it won't be done, but the interest on the shareholders loans absolutely should be backdated to when the RPT rules came in. If it isn't backdated then what is the point in the ruling? 

[madras]

1 minute ago, Cronky said:

 

Yeah, the loan thing intrigues me.

 

The big question for me is - have these shareholder interest-free loans been used solely on infrastructure projects, which are exempt from PSR? Or have they been used to bolster spending in the transfer market? If the latter is the case, then surely they should always have been taken into account for PSR. An interest-free loan from an owner with no obligation to repay is effectively a spend, at least for the duration of that owner's tenure.

 

And why didn't we do it ?

[RodneyCisse]

Can anyone explain the loans side of things and who that impacts?

[Heron]

What happens if the BL goes bankrupt? I mean, could that be a thing? Would there essentially be no top flight? Or would it just become the First Divison of old?

[SUPERTOON]

1 minute ago, RodneyCisse said:

Can anyone explain the loans side of things and who that impacts?

Not sure how true but…

 

 

[Ben]

1 minute ago, RodneyCisse said:

Can anyone explain the loans side of things and who that impacts?

 

I think an interest free loan is not "Fair" so an interest fee should have been charged, apparently Everton have £400 million worth and Brighton and Arsenal have £200 million 

[Keegans Export]

5 minutes ago, Cronky said:

 

Yeah, the loan thing intrigues me.

 

The big question for me is - have these shareholder interest-free loans been used solely on infrastructure projects, which are exempt from PSR? Or have they been used to bolster spending in the transfer market? If the latter is the case, then surely they should always have been taken into account for PSR. An interest-free loan from an owner with no obligation to repay is effectively a spend, at least for the duration of that owner's tenure.

 

The interest on loans Everton took out to help pay for their stadium definitely counted, it's part of what got them into trouble in the first place.

 

As I understand it, the interest on loans counts towards your "losses" whether you spent the money on a stadium or a new striker. 

[Cronky]

6 minutes ago, madras said:

And why didn't we do it ?

 

I assume because it would have been in breach of PSR.

 

But it's confusing if that is the reason. The tribunal's intervention implies that these loans have been used for PSR type issues such as transfers. If they had only been used for infrastructure projects, then that is out of the scope of PSR.

[SteV]

9 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Not sure how true but…

 

 

Which begs the question why were Everton and Chelsea offering supporting evidence on behalf of Man City?

[JLC]

59 minutes ago, Memphis said:

That is an absolutely first class article from Samuel. Brilliantly written and expertly argued. 

Totally. I don't always agree with him, but he's nailed it there.

[andycap]

Every club that has been taking over by a mega rich owner have had the chance to splurge there money about and have a crack at getting too the top. 

We haven't which is bollocks man utd arsenal Liverpool have all had there time at the top with wealthy owners now we should. 

[Superior Acuña]

4 minutes ago, SteV said:

Which begs the question why were Everton and Chelsea offering supporting evidence on behalf of Man City?

 

I suppose cos they think they'd also benefit from no restrictions on sponsorship? - and now that the loans have been brought into play too, the majority of the PL would rather no restrictions at all than restrictions on both loans and sponsorship. 

 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by Superior Acuña

[Heron]

17 minutes ago, Cronky said:

 

Yeah, the loan thing intrigues me.

 

The big question for me is - have these shareholder interest-free loans been used solely on infrastructure projects, which are exempt from PSR? Or have they been used to bolster spending in the transfer market? If the latter is the case, then surely they should always have been taken into account for PSR. An interest-free loan from an owner with no obligation to repay is effectively a spend, at least for the duration of that owner's tenure.

 

Is that not to some degree irrelevant though as the expenditure made on such developments would have had to be made directly from their "transfer funds" thus not enabling them to spend it on players, etc.?

 

It's all very complicated. The PL have embarrassed themselves...again.

[Keegans Export]

2 minutes ago, Cronky said:

 

I assume because it would have been in breach of PSR.

 

But it's confusing if that is the reason. The tribunal's intervention implies that these loans have been used for PSR type issues such as transfers. If they had only been used for infrastructure projects, then that is out of the scope of PSR.

I don't think that's true, the interest on the loan still counts.

 

Lets say you take a £100m loan to build a new training ground and it costs you £15m/year in interest. The £100m doesn't get included because it's infrastructure but the £15m does.

 

If you take the same loan and buy two players with it, both the amortisation & wages get included plus the £15m interest on the loan.

[andycap]

Anyone got the Samuel article archive? I couldn't open the one a few pages back. 

[Chris_R]

1 minute ago, andycap said:

Anyone got the Samuel article archive? I couldn't open the one a few pages back. 

 

Just stick 12ft.io/ in front of the link.

 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by Chris_R

[The College Dropout]

Ashley had a 50m loan with us at some point. I think it was repaid as part of the sale?

 

That might be why other clubs do it.  
 

 

To raise funds we seem to put funds into the shares 

[80]

2 hours ago, TRC said:

Just because your owners are rich, you shouldnt beable to put unlimited money into something that is a competitive sport imo. Success should be on sporting achievement not luck of having a rich owner.

 

Just my opinion.

This hasn't been the case since the late 1800s though. Your best chance of achieving it would be something like only allowing clubs to sign players born within a catchment area of their stadium - otherwise there's always going to be an issue with the best sportsmen choosing to gather together in one place to win more. It's been showbusiness before sport for a long time.

 

2 hours ago, TRC said:

It is, but a team shouldnt be allowed to do what City did really they went from a nothing club, to the best club in the world just because they had unlimited funds. There has to be some rules in place to stop that, while also allowing teams to grow.

 

Either way the whole thing is a mess now.

Why were the best clubs, before Man City were the best club, the best clubs, though?

 

Things like sports science have developed to where they are largely because rich clubs wanted to know how and why less rich clubs occasionally can come along and upset the applecart. Success in the game was much more evenly distributed when players were fueled by a full English on the morning and a skin full the night prior. It made almost anything feel possible with enough dedication. But we are where we are.

[bobbydazzla]

Also interesting in that Samuel article that he says the PL delayed making any decisions on whether to approve Man City's recent sponsorship deals, effectively just kicking a decision down the road and hoping it'd go away

 

Which was their exact approach to PIF's attempts to buy NUFC, didn't knock it back but also wouldn't approve it

 

It wasn't until our lawyers battered them in the CAT hearing on 29th Sept 2021 that the PL finally had no option but to set the wheels in motion for the takeover to happen 

 

Today's documents once again show the PL to be proper sketchy, a corrupt organisation who will do whatever the cartel clubs want, in order to keep those clubs in the strongest possible position

 

 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by bobbydazzla