Generic small time football blather thread FOREVER

[LondonBlue 815]

12 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

If you don't already have loans that they would be replacing (at zero interest), there's no benefit to you because your spending is still curtailed by all the other rules around allowable losses, etc. 

 

The benefit comes from the avoidance of material interest charges. These clubs should have a nominal 6% (or higher!) applied to their loans and that should factor into their allowable loss calculation. Currently it doesn't factor in at all. 

 

so if no future loans can be at 0% and must be at an agreed rate then thats a win, just not as big a win as we'd have liked.

 

[Gemmill 46048]

1 minute ago, LondonBlue said:

 

so if no future loans can be at 0% and must be at an agreed rate then thats a win, just not as big a win as we'd have liked.

 

 

Is that one of the changes? I've been struggling to find a decent article that actually describes the changes that have gone through. 

 

If so, yeah that's better, but all they have to do is not make any further loans. Their existing loans, some of which are significant will continue to just not be factored into calculations. 

[LondonBlue 815]

response from @slbsn  

 

[Dazzler 10380]

1 minute ago, LondonBlue said:

 

so if no future loans can be at 0% and must be at an agreed rate then thats a win, just not as big a win as we'd have liked.

 

I don't think it is, because effectively all of them have had the benefit of those loans already - either the loans replaced external debt saving them X% in interest charges or they used those 0% loans to fund infrastructure improvements. Their PSR calcs were improved by those loans in many cases, which by their very existence makes them unfair.

 

If the point of the tribunal is that it was illegal to exclude the loans, I don't think amending the rules to only include future shareholder loans will pass the sniff test, personally. I still think there is scope that the interest charges could be back dated which fucks quite a few of the clubs that have them.

[LondonBlue 815]

2 minutes ago, Dazzler said:

I don't think it is, because effectively all of them have had the benefit of those loans already - either the loans replaced external debt saving them X% in interest charges or they used those 0% loans to fund infrastructure improvements. Their PSR calcs were improved by those loans in many cases, which by their very existence makes them unfair.

 

If the point of the tribunal is that it was illegal to exclude the loans, I don't think amending the rules to only include future shareholder loans will pass the sniff test, personally. I still think there is scope that the interest charges could be back dated which fucks quite a few of the clubs that have them.

 

 

the historic shareholder loans stuff feels way to complex for a satisfactory resolution all round.  and i agree it was unfair.

 

but pointing the brakes on this happening again seems like a win to me.

 

I bow down to Stefan's knowledge in all this, as posted above. He might not be 100% correct but he'll be a damn sight closer than most of us.

 

 

[LondonBlue 815]

the full wording - https://www.premierleague.com/news/4172030

 

At a Premier League Shareholders’ meeting today, clubs approved changes to the League’s Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules

At a Premier League Shareholders’ meeting today, clubs approved changes to the League’s Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules. 

The amendments to the rules address the findings of an Arbitration Tribunal following a legal challenge by Manchester City to the APT system earlier this year.    

The Premier League has conducted a detailed consultation with clubs - informed by multiple opinions from expert, independent Leading Counsel - to draft rule changes that address amendments required to the system.  

This relates to integrating the assessment of Shareholder loans, the removal of some of the amendments made to APT rules earlier this year, and changes to the process by which relevant information from the League’s "databank" is shared with a club’s advisors.  

The purpose of the APT rules is to ensure clubs are not able to benefit from commercial deals or reductions in costs that are not at Fair Market Value (FMV) by virtue of relationships with Associated Parties. These rules were introduced to provide a robust mechanism to safeguard the financial stability, integrity and competitive balance of the League.   

 

Shareholder Loans 
- The new rules seek to ensure that there is appropriate parity between the treatment of shareholder loans and other APTs going forward, with transitional rules clarifying the treatment of existing shareholder loans within that framework. 
- Shareholder loans entered into after 22 November 2024 will be required to be submitted as an APT and subject to an FMV assessment. If the Premier League Board determines the loan to evidently not be at FMV, the club in question shall be required to terminate or vary the loan to reflect FMV and pay any identified shortfall in interest.
- Any Shareholder loan that was entered into before 22 November 2024 and which is replaced with other forms of financing (e.g. by way of conversion to equity or repayment) within 50 days (i.e. by 11 January 2025) will not be required to be submitted as an APT or assessed for FMV. 
- Any Shareholder loan that was entered into after 14 December 2021 but before 22 November 2024 and remaining in effect on 11 January 2025 must be submitted as an APT. If the Premier League Board determines the loan is evidently not at FMV,  the club is permitted to retain the Shareholder loan on its existing terms, though adjustments must be made to its Annual Accounts for 2024/25 onwards as if, from 22 November 2024, the loan was at FMV.
- Any Shareholder loan that was entered into prior to 14 December 2021 and remaining in effect on 11 January 2025 must be submitted as an APT and be subject to an FMV Assessment upon any drawdown taking place after the 22 November 2024. If the Premier League Board determines the loan is evidently not at FMV,  the club is permitted to retain the Shareholder loan on its existing terms, though adjustments must be made to its Annual Accounts for 2024/25 onwards as if any drawdowns made after 22 November 2024 were at FMV.

[wykikitoon 20748]

16 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

response from @slbsn  

 

 

Can someone put this into mong language for me?

[LondonBlue 815]

2 minutes ago, wykikitoon said:

 

Can someone put this into mong language for me?

 

it means you can clock off early and go to the pub

 

 

i think

 

[wykikitoon 20748]

9 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

 

it means you can clock off early and go to the pub

 

 

i think

 

[Dazzler 10380]

25 minutes ago, wykikitoon said:

 

Can someone put this into mong language for me?

[Gemmill 46048]

38 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

the full wording - https://www.premierleague.com/news/4172030

 

At a Premier League Shareholders’ meeting today, clubs approved changes to the League’s Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules

At a Premier League Shareholders’ meeting today, clubs approved changes to the League’s Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules. 

The amendments to the rules address the findings of an Arbitration Tribunal following a legal challenge by Manchester City to the APT system earlier this year.    

The Premier League has conducted a detailed consultation with clubs - informed by multiple opinions from expert, independent Leading Counsel - to draft rule changes that address amendments required to the system.  

This relates to integrating the assessment of Shareholder loans, the removal of some of the amendments made to APT rules earlier this year, and changes to the process by which relevant information from the League’s "databank" is shared with a club’s advisors.  

The purpose of the APT rules is to ensure clubs are not able to benefit from commercial deals or reductions in costs that are not at Fair Market Value (FMV) by virtue of relationships with Associated Parties. These rules were introduced to provide a robust mechanism to safeguard the financial stability, integrity and competitive balance of the League.   

 

Shareholder Loans 
- The new rules seek to ensure that there is appropriate parity between the treatment of shareholder loans and other APTs going forward, with transitional rules clarifying the treatment of existing shareholder loans within that framework. 
- Shareholder loans entered into after 22 November 2024 will be required to be submitted as an APT and subject to an FMV assessment. If the Premier League Board determines the loan to evidently not be at FMV, the club in question shall be required to terminate or vary the loan to reflect FMV and pay any identified shortfall in interest.
- Any Shareholder loan that was entered into before 22 November 2024 and which is replaced with other forms of financing (e.g. by way of conversion to equity or repayment) within 50 days (i.e. by 11 January 2025) will not be required to be submitted as an APT or assessed for FMV. 
- Any Shareholder loan that was entered into after 14 December 2021 but before 22 November 2024 and remaining in effect on 11 January 2025 must be submitted as an APT. If the Premier League Board determines the loan is evidently not at FMV,  the club is permitted to retain the Shareholder loan on its existing terms, though adjustments must be made to its Annual Accounts for 2024/25 onwards as if, from 22 November 2024, the loan was at FMV.
- Any Shareholder loan that was entered into prior to 14 December 2021 and remaining in effect on 11 January 2025 must be submitted as an APT and be subject to an FMV Assessment upon any drawdown taking place after the 22 November 2024. If the Premier League Board determines the loan is evidently not at FMV,  the club is permitted to retain the Shareholder loan on its existing terms, though adjustments must be made to its Annual Accounts for 2024/25 onwards as if any drawdowns made after 22 November 2024 were at FMV.

 

I still don't see how Everton refinances its loans by 11 Jan 2025.

 

But everyone else is very clearly gonna get out of this without a single penny of interest being applied to their PSR calcs. You know this because they just voted for these very specific dates and timescales to fix it all in their favour. 

 

Some of them would have failed historical PSR tests, whilst we're selling players to meet our requirements. It stinks. 

[ewerk 31212]

 

Tony Bloom will probably write off his debt but I can’t see Arsenal’s (or Bournemouth’s) owners doing the same.

 

Assuming a 6% interest rate then that’s another £7.5m on Everton’s PSR calculations. Why the fuck would they vote for that?

[Dazzler 10380]

10 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

 

I still don't see how Everton refinances its loans by 11 Jan 2025.

 

But everyone else is very clearly gonna get out of this without a single penny of interest being applied to their PSR calcs. You know this because they just voted for these very specific dates and timescales to fix it all in their favour. 

 

Some of them would have failed historical PSR tests, whilst we're selling players to meet our requirements. It stinks. 

Brighton are probably going to struggle too, they owe £300m+ in shareholder loans. This is the one that fucks me off. They got to "do us a favour" by taking a promising youngster off our hands and help us beat a points deduction and were only able to do that because their owner has funded them interest free. Brighton wouldn't even be in this league had the loans been fairly treated from day dot.

[Gemmill 46048]

2 minutes ago, Dazzler said:

Brighton are probably going to struggle too, they owe £300m+ in shareholder loans. This is the one that fucks me off. They got to "do us a favour" by taking a promising youngster off our hands and help us beat a points deduction and were only able to do that because their owner has funded them interest free. Brighton wouldn't even be in this league had the loans been fairly treated from day dot.

 

Exactly. Where's our free pass?.

 

At the very least, in recognition of the PSR credit these other teams have been handed, there should be a one time adjustment applied to the upcoming PSR calc of all the clubs who aren't benefiting this free pass on shareholder loans.

 

Make it the average of the interest avoided for the last three years or something. 

[Dazzler 10380]

9 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

Tony Bloom will probably write off his debt but I can’t see Arsenal’s (or Bournemouth’s) owners doing the same.

 

Assuming a 6% interest rate then that’s another £7.5m on Everton’s PSR calculations. Why the fuck would they vote for that?

Because they desperately need the rule to not be applied retrospectively. Which this vote kind of sorted (albeit temporarily - and could easily be reversed by the tribunal anyway).

[Gemmill 46048]

They also served as a witness FOR Man City at the tribunal, where City were pushing for shareholder loans to be included in APTs. 

 

They're all over the shop. 

[Dazzler 10380]

1 minute ago, Gemmill said:

 

Exactly. Where's our free pass?.

 

At the very least, in recognition of the PSR credit these other teams have been handed, there should be a one time adjustment applied to the upcoming PSR calc of all the clubs who aren't benefiting this free pass on shareholder loans.

 

Make it the average of the interest avoided for the last three years or something. 

That would be fair, in the truest sense of the word - which is exactly why it would never be afforded to us.

 

This whole thing is about stopping the gate crashers not enabling them.

 

How dare Nottingham Forest and Villa (both objectively and historically bigger clubs than Spurs) show a shred of ambition - and don't get me started on those state owned bastards in the north east.

[Kid Dynamite 7174]

Another hat-trick for Kane tonight. Just the 80 goals for club and country since he moved to Bayern 18 months ago. Mental that people reckon he shouldn't be starting for England 

[RobinRobin 11584]

4 hours ago, Kid Dynamite said:

Another hat-trick for Kane tonight. Just the 80 goals for club and country since he moved to Bayern 18 months ago. Mental that people reckon he shouldn't be starting for England 

Does he have a manager who tells him not to go wandering off into his own half and to stay closer to goal? 

[wykikitoon 20748]

10 hours ago, Kid Dynamite said:

Another hat-trick for Kane tonight. Just the 80 goals for club and country since he moved to Bayern 18 months ago. Mental that people reckon he shouldn't be starting for England 

 

He was clearly injured in a major tournament and not playing to his strengths with options on the bench that had been scoring all season. So you think it's right he was still given a fuck tonne of game time because he scored a hat trick v Bochum or some other shite? 

[Dr Gloom 22165]

He’s still a great goal scorer and has lots to offer the England squad. I don’t think he should remain England captain. He’s a lot like Shearer was at the end of his career. Not the most mobile and should be rotated and rested against certain opposition depending on how England set up. 

[Dr Gloom 22165]

Southgate was in awe of him, afraid to drop or sub him during the euros when he wasn’t performing. That was a massive problem. But it wasn’t the only reason Southgate got it wrong - the midfield balance and left back issue plagued him all tournament too. Plus he was far too cautious and reactive when he has players available to play a front foot game. 

[Kid Dynamite 7174]

He's one of the most prolific strikers in world football. Should he fuck be getting dropped for Watkins or Solanke.

 

The Summer was all Southgate's doing. Persisting with a pedestrian midfield, shoehorning Foden onto the left wing, Trippier incapable of putting a ball into the box, starting TAA and Gallagher in midfield but giving Palmer and Southgate zero game time. 
 

Nailed on that Tuchel actually plays to our strengths and Kane gets back to smashing them in for England 
 

 

Edited November 23 by Kid Dynamite

[Kid Dynamite 7174]

He did this last night btw

 

https://x.com/Klip11com/status/1860078357540667811

 

 

[wykikitoon 20748]

47 minutes ago, Kid Dynamite said:

He's one of the most prolific strikers in world football. Should he fuck be getting dropped for Watkins or Solanke.

 

The Summer was all Southgate's doing. Persisting with a pedestrian midfield, shoehorning Foden onto the left wing, Trippier incapable of putting a ball into the box, starting TAA and Gallagher in midfield but giving Palmer and Southgate zero game time. 
 

Nailed on that Tuchel actually plays to our strengths and Kane gets back to smashing them in for England 
 

 

 

So you're saying if he's having absolutely zero impact on the game and playing like Stephen Hawking with a dead wheel chair battery, we still keep him on the pitch?