Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 12,084
Presumably with this ruling, the club can pay 5% interest to Tony Bloom (£20m), and Star Lizard can become the club's official Data provider sponsor and pay us £20m for the privilege..
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Associated Party Transactions (APT) ruling
- Thread starter crodonilson
- Start date
When the Premier League clubs voted on this issue it was 19-1 in favour of owners being able to lend to clubs interest free.
if a commercial rate (say 8%) was charged on TB’s loans to the Albion over the three year PSR period then it would reduce profits/increase losses by £106 million.
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
Well yes. That is City's argument. But they don't shoot themselves in the foot because APTs at market rate is already the rule. So either the law is changed to get shareholder loans treated at market rates, which hurts their competitors, like us, or they get more freedom with APTs, which benefits them.
I don't believe it matters what the money is used for, if it is used for infrastructure then that doesn’t count towards PSR, sure, but the interest charged on the loan will count towards PSR regardless.
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 12,084
Presumably that can't be retrospective though can it?
Also the judgement seems to contradict itself, APT being measured at market rates are unlawful , but the Premier league excluding Shareholder loans from market rate calculations is also unfair.
Which one is it?
Are we scrapping market rates on Sponsorship, or enforcing them on Shareholder loans?
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
I didn't think that APT measured at market rates was found to be unlawful? The conclusion was that giving an exemption to shareholder loans wasn't consistent with the ruling on APTs, that's it.
Have we been funded by interest free loans since Covid? As for our overall interest free loans surely all Bloom has to do is turn them into shares? Maybe then increase what we pay for starlizard to counter any loss he would have made. (if that ever got voted through)
We can all do that. No need to start a thread.
Much as it pains me to admit reading something in the Telegraph, Sam Wallace says, “The rules will not be backdated. From the moment that these additions are made, PSR likely only has around nine months to run until it is replaced by the new so-called squad cost financial controls. Interest on shareholder loans is not currently planned to be included.”
Interestingly, The Times takes an entirely different view - basically it’s the death of football and City now have carte blanche to do whatever they want. To me, it feels like they’ve fallen for City’s interpretation hook, line and sinker. Martin Samuel relishing the chance to claim victory - the latest in a long line of articles slating PSR.
Reading various reports of the key aspects, seems to me that broadly speaking the principles City want removed were actually upheld. Some procedures need tweaking, that’s all. Hope so.
Interestingly, The Times takes an entirely different view - basically it’s the death of football and City now have carte blanche to do whatever they want. To me, it feels like they’ve fallen for City’s interpretation hook, line and sinker. Martin Samuel relishing the chance to claim victory - the latest in a long line of articles slating PSR.
Reading various reports of the key aspects, seems to me that broadly speaking the principles City want removed were actually upheld. Some procedures need tweaking, that’s all. Hope so.
Last edited:
crodonilson
He/Him
- Thread starter
- #49
We can all do that. No need to start a thread.
There are, or may be, ramifications for all of the teams in the PL including ourselves on this judgement, it was a big news story from the very league we play in. Apologies you didn't feel it was worthy of a thread.
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 12,084
Thanks
Probably shouldn't get my interpretations of the ruling from Twitter....
I can't see the Premier League looking to apply this retrospectively.
Presumablythe Premier League just need to rewrite the rules and apply them fairly and it's job done.
Manchester City’s claim of legal win over Premier League aimed at wider war | Barney Ronay
It isn’t immediately clear why the club thinks it has won such an obvious victory over associated party transactions
www.theguardian.com
Apology accepted.
Papa Lazarou
Living in a De Zerbi wonderland
I know, it's a true heartwarming David v Goliath story this.Manchester City’s claim of legal win over Premier League aimed at wider war | Barney Ronay
It isn’t immediately clear why the club thinks it has won such an obvious victory over associated party transactions
City doubling down on their assessment that it's a magnificent victory by writing to all PL clubs saying the Premier League is misleading them. Will take more legal action if rules are revised in a way they don't like. It's going to be very messy. Wise advice or threatening letter?
“We will be writing separately about this to the PL but in the meantime, given the findings in the award, this is the time for careful reflection and consideration by all clubs, and not for a knee-jerk reaction,” he writes. “Such an unwise course would be likely to lead to further legal proceedings with further legal costs. It is critical for member clubs to feel that they can have trust in their regulator.”
As an aside, I think it might be a neat touch if fans of all the clubs not on City's side turned their back on them pre-match for future games.
“We will be writing separately about this to the PL but in the meantime, given the findings in the award, this is the time for careful reflection and consideration by all clubs, and not for a knee-jerk reaction,” he writes. “Such an unwise course would be likely to lead to further legal proceedings with further legal costs. It is critical for member clubs to feel that they can have trust in their regulator.”
As an aside, I think it might be a neat touch if fans of all the clubs not on City's side turned their back on them pre-match for future games.
A couple of things struck me: why did Chelsea support City's action? I'd have thought that the club, without the support of a state wealth fund to support it, but bolstered by shareholder investment is exactly the sort of club that will be hit by this judgment: what am I missing?
The other thing: I've not seen any statement from the Albion about how it will affect (or not affect) the club. I don't think any club has put out such a statement. Isn't that a bit strange,a full day after the ruling? I imagine all supporters will be wondering what this means for their club.
The other thing: I've not seen any statement from the Albion about how it will affect (or not affect) the club. I don't think any club has put out such a statement. Isn't that a bit strange,a full day after the ruling? I imagine all supporters will be wondering what this means for their club.
Gazwag
5 millionth post poster
If they are lawful
I'm not sure that's entirely fair...
1. This ruling came out mid-afternoon yesterday so, in terms of business hours, we're some way short of a day.
2. Have any Premier League clubs released statements on the back of the ruling? (I'm not going to try and check!)
I would thought it more pragmatic for clubs to wait for the newly-scheduled Premier League meeting for the clubs and see what comes out of that.
pigmanovich
Good Old Sausage by the Sea
When did the club last issue an independent statement on a matter affecting the PL as a whole, be it a contentious vote or an internal dispute? It usually just publishes collective PL statements on its website.
Well, Man City did because they were the ones challenging the FA.
What about the other 19?