Jump to content

Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability


Recommended Posts

  On 07/10/2024 at 14:30, 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. 

Expand  

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

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

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

  On 07/10/2024 at 14:39, nufc123 said:

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

Expand  

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

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 by et tu brute

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...