Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 12,395
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..
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.Better Ask a Dullard™
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.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.
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.
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.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?
We can all do that. No need to start a thread.Literally reading back the headline on the SSN ticker.
We can all do that. No need to start a thread.
ThanksI 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.
Some City supporters online were already celebrating the fact their club will no longer be bullied by the sheer owner-led financial power of the likes of Brighton and Hove Albion, so a relief there for the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund.
Apology accepted.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.
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 transactionswww.theguardian.com
If they are lawfulTo a certain extent, I just don't get this. Surely a competition can set its own rules and if you don't like them, don't bother being in it? I
I'm not sure that's entirely fair...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.
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.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.
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.
Well, Man City did because they were the ones challenging the FA.