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

[mattypnufc]

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. 

[Adam]

How do the shareholder loans sit with FFP? Surely they can't count as income and be used to offset any loses? 

[Ben]

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 ?

[Dr.Spaceman]

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

[timeEd32]

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

[timeEd32]

Just now, Ben said:

 

Do we have any shareholder loans ?

 

No

[FCB]

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.

[nufc123]

So we can upgrade the Sela deal with some, and add other places without being questioned by the PL police?

[Ben]

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 

[timeEd32]

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.

[FCB]

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

[Jackie Broon]

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.

[Ben]

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 ?

[et tu brute]

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 15 hours ago by et tu brute

[Jackie Broon]

11 minutes ago, Ben said:

 

Do we have any shareholder loans ?

 

No, but we did under Ashley if they do backdate (which I doubt).

[nufc123]

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.

[Jackie Broon]

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.

[timeEd32]

5 days is all it took for the snowball to start. I wonder who that email came from...

 

 

[Unbelievable]

Wait, are you telling me TheBrownBottle has been talking shit all this time..?

[Stifler]

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.

[TRC]

Everton were a witness for Cities defence, but also possibly getting shafted for their interest free loan? That is fantastic.

[Wandy]

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 15 hours ago by Wandy

[Ben]

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 15 hours ago by Ben

[NE27]

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?

[Jack27]

The only clear thing to me is that Richard Masters is goosed