Abacus Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago 3 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. And that fair market rate is easier to prove than the fair market value of a sponsorship. Not that they'll go back and do something about the first one, because that opens all sorts of other challenges. Though it does mean less PSR headroom in the future for a lot of clubs with preferential loans, or else a lot of loans capitalised, assuming they want to keep the APT rules and vote for that, which would sting. But on the second, the burden of proof re APTs shifts back to the PL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbandit Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago Fuck this shit into the Sun. So sick of football being a legal playground. Something needs to change very very soon to make football less corrupt otherwise it will destroy itself Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBG Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago *Adidas Blaydon Races tune playing* We ride at dawn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCB Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago 7 minutes ago, timeEd32 said: 5 days is all it took for the snowball to start. I wonder who that email came from... Daniel Levy I reckon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbydazzla Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago (edited) 14 minutes ago, timeEd32 said: 5 days is all it took for the snowball to start. I wonder who that email came from... 5 calendar days, but 2 of those 5 days were a Saturday and Sunday. And the takeover went through on the evening of the 7th, so that day doesn't count either. So it actually only took 2 working days from NUFC takeover to an email request on behalf of 11 x clubs for a vote to ban related party transactions There's only one thing that's "anti-competitive" and it's the desire from 11 x PL clubs and the PL itself to put rules in place that were purely to stop NUFC from being competitive Edited 15 hours ago by bobbydazzla Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloGeordio Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago But what does it all mean? Can we go large on sponsorship now? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack27 Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago 1 minute ago, PauloGeordio said: But what does it all mean? Can we go large on sponsorship now? yes no maybe delete as you see fit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaztoon Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago 3 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said: 5 calendar days, but 2 of those 5 days were a Saturday and Sunday. And the takeover went through on the evening of the 7th, so that day doesn't count either. So it actually only took 2 working days from NUFC takeover to an email request from 11 x clubs for a vote to ban related party transactions There's only one thing that's "anti-competitive" and it's the desire from 11 x PL clubs and the PL itself to put rules in place that were purely to stop NUFC from competing Cowards the lot of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiotes Witch Doctor Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago 15 minutes ago, timeEd32 said: 5 days is all it took for the snowball to start. I wonder who that email came from... Is there no way we can pursue a legal challenge ourselves based on this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloGeordio Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago 2 minutes ago, Jack27 said: yes no maybe delete as you see fit Thanks for clearing that up I'm going with "to da moon" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggies Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago This is genius. The rulings aren’t major, but the impact of those could well be. - APT and FMV being fairly applied would screw up Arsenal, Brighton and a few other clubs - Rules need to be re-drafted - Legal challenges galore now expected Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago 2 minutes ago, Tiotes Witch Doctor said: Is there no way we can pursue a legal challenge ourselves based on this? I have no idea if this opens any legal doors for us, but... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggies Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago 2 minutes ago, Tiotes Witch Doctor said: Is there no way we can pursue a legal challenge ourselves based on this? I suspect if Premier League have blocked any of our sponsorship deals - yes as APT and FMV have not been applied fairly to shareholder loans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christ Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago I reckon there’ll be some hasty drawing up of sponsorship deals to stress test the PL’s new approach. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago 1 minute ago, timeEd32 said: I have no idea if this opens any legal doors for us, but... I think we could use that as leverage to get a mother fucker of a deal from ARAMCO, "let it go through or we sue" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty66 Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago Oh look. What a surprise who's backing with the PL... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago Brilliant article from Martin Samuel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Charlton Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football/article/manchester-city-unlawful-legal-martin-samuel-cv7l7x72v “What it does mean is that these cannot be tailored to negate the growth of Newcastle United, City or any specific club.” Lovely https://archive.ph/hU8cK Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago 3 minutes ago, timeEd32 said: I have no idea if this opens any legal doors for us, but... Yeah, they think it is a defence that they were always going to do this, but actually it’s incriminating that they actually were never going to implement them. In the space of 3 years before we were taken over, and 2 years before our takeover was proposed, they would have done it. They clearly ignored it, hoping the team taken over by Saudi or equally similarly rich countries/individuals was one of Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, or Spurs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbydazzla Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago (edited) 6 minutes ago, timeEd32 said: I have no idea if this opens any legal doors for us, but... Who else thinks it's Daniel Levy that's been redacted..... Edited 15 hours ago by bobbydazzla Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaztoon Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago Just now, bobbydazzla said: The ink wasn't even dry on the contract to sell us to PIF and the PL and 11 x other clubs were already ganging up to change the rules, before NUFC Who else thinks it's Daniel Levy that's been redacted..... Of course it's levy.. he's the mouthpiece for the cartel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloGeordio Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago Just now, bobbydazzla said: The ink wasn't even dry on the contract to sell us to PIF and the PL and 11 x other clubs were already ganging up to change the rules, before NUFC Who else thinks it's Daniel Levy that's been redacted..... Didn't Amanda say Spurs and 'pool were the biggest objectors? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggies Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago (edited) 4 minutes ago, Scotty66 said: Oh look. What a surprise who's backing with the PL... Luke is missing the point. Shareholder loans now have to be included in PSR calculations at fair market value. This change screws up several clubs from a PSR perspective. The very rules clubs put in place to stop us, are about to bite them in the backside. So while the rules have not changed today. The impact of this ruling will likely result in a change. Edited 15 hours ago by Maggies Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago Briefly reading the conclusions of the decision it does seem pretty limited in scope, more about procedural matters of not giving Man City the opportunity to respond to rejection of their sponsorship deals and not giving decisions in time. They haven't made a decision on compensation yet though, which will be interesting for us because we might be able to get some too if they have rejected some of our deals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago 1 minute ago, Jackie Broon said: Briefly reading the conclusions of the decision it does seem pretty limited in scope, more about procedural matters of not giving Man City the opportunity to respond to rejection of their sponsorship deals and not giving decisions in time. They haven't made a decision on compensation yet though, which will be interesting for us because we might be able to get some too if they have rejected some of our deals. Again eating into the prize pot, which only pushes all other clubs closer to failing psr. Glorious. 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