[Albion] Associated Party Transactions (APT) ruling

[crodonilson]

A win for Man City against the PL.

Independent panel finds EPL's rules on associated party transactions is unlawful. Huge potential repercussions.

 

[Han Solo]

If sports follow the same laws as rest of society, it can't function as a business or people's movement (imagine ending up in court any time you kick someone on the shin in a pub league), and now when the sport is run by people who have no interest in football other than the commercial/PR aspects, we could expect a whole lot more of these things. In 50 years football will only exist in virtual realities.

 

[Titanic]

A win for Man City on behalf of the clubs against the PL.

Independent panel finds EPL's rules on associated party transactions is unlawful. Huge potential repercussions.

Typically twattish wind-up attempt... here is what actually happened...

Verdict announced in Man City's Premier League legal case​

​

The verdict has been announced in Manchester City's legal case against the Premier League over its associated party transaction (APT) rules.​

City had some complaints upheld, with two aspects of the APT rules deemed unlawful by a tribunal.

But the Premier League says the tribunal rejected the majority of Manchester City's challenges and "endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system".

APTs are aimed at the value of sponsorship deals with companies linked to clubs' owners.

This case is not directly related to the Premier League disciplinary commission which will hear 115 charges against City for allegedly breaching its financial regulations, some of which date back to 2009.

Perhaps you should stick to shit TV threads?

 

[crodonilson]

Typically twattish wind-up attempt... here is what actually happened...

Verdict announced in Man City's Premier League legal case​

​

The verdict has been announced in Manchester City's legal case against the Premier League over its associated party transaction (APT) rules.​

City had some complaints upheld, with two aspects of the APT rules deemed unlawful by a tribunal.

But the Premier League says the tribunal rejected the majority of Manchester City's challenges and "endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system".

APTs are aimed at the value of sponsorship deals with companies linked to clubs' owners.

This case is not directly related to the Premier League disciplinary commission which will hear 115 charges against City for allegedly breaching its financial regulations, some of which date back to 2009.

Perhaps you should stick to shit TV threads?

Literally reading back the headline on the SSN ticker.

 

[38Red]

This isn't good news for BHA. It is very problematic for clubs relying on shareholder loans.

 

[pigmanovich]

Premier League’s stance was backed by Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool, West Ham United, Brentford, Bournemouth, Fulham, and Wolverhampton Wanderers.

https://archive.ph/hU8cK#selection-1551.0-1551.153

Did we side with City or abstain altogether? Either would surprise me given City's attack on clubs that borrow from their owners.

 

[The Mole]

This isn't good news for BHA. It is very problematic for clubs relying on shareholder loans.

Anyone know a football finance DULLARD who could shed some light on this?

suspect he’s a bit busy talking to the media

 

[drew]

This isn't good news for BHA. It is very problematic for clubs relying on shareholder loans.

Care to explain why?

Regarding Associate Party Transactions, not sure we have any deals with businesses associated with our owners! Our principle deal being with Amex.

 

[drew]

Literally reading back the headline on the SSN ticker.

Perhaps a little more attention to detail then and more people might not just think you're just attention seeking like most of your threads.

 

[pigmanovich]

Care to explain why?

Regarding Associate Party Transactions, not sure we have any deals with businesses associated with our owners! Our principle deal being with Amex.

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.

 

[Blue3]

Having just read the BBC breaking news regarding Man City I can confirm
I have absolutely no idea what that means

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

https://archive.ph/hU8cK#selection-1551.0-1551.153

Did we side with City or abstain altogether? Either would surprise me given City's attack on clubs that borrow from their owners.

Pasted from BBC

In this arbitration process, Chelsea, Newcastle, Nottingham Forest and Everton all acted as witnesses for City.

Witnesses for the Premier League included Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham, Brighton and West Ham.

It's always good to know who is taking what side.

And gives lie to the notion we wanted City to win this case so we could continue to offer shareholder loans

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Witnesses for the Premier League were Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham, Brighton and West Ham.

 

[pigmanovich]

Pasted from BBC

In this arbitration process, Chelsea, Newcastle, Nottingham Forest and Everton all acted as witnesses for City.

Witnesses for the Premier League included Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham, Brighton and West Ham.

It's always good to know who is taking what side.

And gives lie to the notion we wanted City to win this case so we could continue to offer shareholder loans

If anything City appear to have succeeded in getting the court to force the PL to crack down on shareholder loans.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

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.

Is it that we would actually be charged at commercial rates, or PSR calculations would assume commercial rates?

 

[38Red]

Care to explain why?

Regarding Associate Party Transactions, not sure we have any deals with businesses associated with our owners! Our principle deal being with Amex.

See post #10

 

[pigmanovich]

Is it that we would actually be charged at commercial rates, or PSR calculations would assume commercial rates?

Better Ask a Dullard™

 

[Happy Exile]

Pasted from BBC

In this arbitration process, Chelsea, Newcastle, Nottingham Forest and Everton all acted as witnesses for City.

Witnesses for the Premier League included Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham, Brighton and West Ham.

It's always good to know who is taking what side.

And gives lie to the notion we wanted City to win this case so we could continue to offer shareholder loans

Imagine looking at your 'colleagues' in this being Everton, City, Chelsea and Newcastle. Blimey.

 

[Han Solo]

This isn't good news for BHA. It is very problematic for clubs relying on shareholder loans.

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?

 

[Withdean South Stand]

This is a win for massive budgets. The FA were understaffed and that has directly resulted in this loss based on the procedure followed. City have all the money in the world and can staff their case to the hilt. This is not a win for football at all, but an opening victory for a vacuous corporation intent on operating however it wants, whenever it wants.

Any football fan wanting City to win this is an idiot.