Did we side with City or abstain altogether? Either would surprise me given City's attack on clubs that borrow from their owners.
Did we side with City or abstain altogether? Either would surprise me given City's attack on clubs that borrow from their owners.
But I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be able to back date that ruling.The court ruled that APT rules should extend to interest-free loans made by club owners, which could mean us being charged commercial rates, with all the accompanying consequences for our PSR standing.
Where does it say that they have to be charged at commercial rates? Surely all they are saying is that the loans, along with APTs should be considered the same. City's case was that the APTs don't have to be at commercial rates and therefore why would commercial rates apply to loans?The court ruled that APT rules should extend to interest-free loans made by club owners, which could mean us being charged commercial rates, with all the accompanying consequences for our PSR standing.
I didn't say they will necessarily be charged at commercial rates, only that it's a possibility. From the Times' article:Where does it say that they have to be charged at commercial rates? Surely all they are saying is that the loans, along with APTs should be considered the same. City's case was that the APTs don't have to be at commercial rates and therefore why would commercial rates apply to loans?
An independent panel of three retired judges concluded that the rules were unlawful because they did not take into consideration interest-free loans which shareholders lend to clubs. The decision will spark huge concern among a number of City’s Premier League rivals — who rely heavily on such loans — and is likely to lead to the rules being changed. The panel states that, of the £4billion in total borrowing across the Premier League, £1.5billion is in loans from club owners and shareholders. If the rules are altered and commercial loan rates are now applied to these interest-free loans and have to be included in a club’s profitability and sustainability calculation, many clubs could find they are in breach of Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR). City had argued that such payments were unfair and not at market value because they were interest-free and, in some cases, did not have to be repaid at all. For a club such as Arsenal, with borrowing of more than £200million made up entirely of shareholder loans, that is a potentially seismic development.
But isn't City's argument that the rules stated that APT have to be at market rates but not shareholder loans. City shoot themselves in the foot if they are suggesting the shareholder loans have to be at market rates because then that would then also apply to APT which is not what they want. I think the Times are jumping to conclusions and haven't taken into account what the money has been used for.I didn't say they will necessarily be charged at commercial rates, only that it's a possibility. From the Times' article:
Sure but both sets of transactions being subject to PL scrutiny could become an unintended consequence of City's challenge and besides it's not out of the question that City are prepared to cut off the nose to spite the face given one of the clubs most vulnerable to restrictions on shareholder loans are Arsenal. Recall that City explicitly alleges that the APT rules are designed to stifle its performances on the pitch.City shoot themselves in the foot if they are suggesting the shareholder loans have to be at market rates because then that would then also apply to APT which is not what they want.
No expert knowledge of this but it would seem extraordinary if Albion could be penalised under PSR when it has abided by the rules as they exist. The club has operated in a manner that has been widely lauded as an exemplary model for smaller clubs. Hopefully you're right - no backdated issues and no need for big loans going forward.Surely old loans must be grandfathered? And I don't think more loans in the near future is the plan anyway - the TB&PB has said the club want to be self-financing and this may well be the case now given the value of this gigantic squad. Or am I missing something?
Changing the way the rules are enforced would surely leave the Premier League open to further legal action ( which is exactly what City want).No expert knowledge of this but it would seem extraordinary if Albion could be penalised under PSR when it has abided by the rules as they exist. The club has operated in a manner that has been widely lauded as an exemplary model for smaller clubs. Hopefully you're right - no backdated issues and no need for big loans going forward.
A win for Man City against the PL.
This isn't good news for BHA. It is very problematic for clubs relying on shareholder loans.
Well don't.Literally reading back the headline on the SSN ticker.
I believe that is an ongoing issue between Everton and the Premier League (that wasn't addressed when Everton received their points deduction last season).I assume any part of the loan for infrastructure is exempt?
Pretty sure we were nowhere near £105m over 3 years.
So the £30 -£60m we might be liable for probably wouldn't be an issue, even if they were able to back date it.
That thought occurred to me too. The common outside misconception is that Tony Bloom has spent a fortune on the team when, in fact, he was rebuilding an entire club virtually from scratch. While he was subsidising the playing side in the Championship years, hopefully almost all transfer spending in the Premier League has been funded by TV money and the sale of players. The argument you’d think will be how much exactly has gone on infrastructure.I assume any part of the loan for infrastructure is exempt?
Pretty sure we were nowhere near £105m over 3 years.
So the £30 -£60m we might be liable for probably wouldn't be an issue, even if they were able to back date it.