Generic small time football blather thread FOREVER

[Gemmill 49830]

Everton must not have read the section of City's* case that referred to shareholder loans. 

 

*I'm not writing Man every time when we all know which City I'm talking about, so FUCK. OFF. 

[thebrokendoll 10241]

10 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

Everton must not have read the section of City's* case that referred to shareholder loans. 

 

*I'm not writing Man every time when we all know which City I'm talking about, so FUCK. OFF. 

 

sky boy.

[Howmanheyman 36502]

14 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

Everton must not have read the section of City's* case that referred to shareholder loans. 

 

*I'm not writing Man every time when we all know which City I'm talking about, so FUCK. OFF. 

 

 

🎵

Man, I feel like a City."

🎶

[LondonBlue 1021]

Verdict announced in Man City's Premier League legal case

[LondonBlue 1021]

funny how 

1 minute ago, LondonBlue said:

Verdict announced in Man City's Premier League legal case

Stefan Borson references Newcastle a fair bit so posting here

[LondonBlue 1021]

 

"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".

 

As far as i was aware all that city were challenging was the legality of some aspects of APT (as per the first quote), they were not challenging APT itself. 

The second quote looks to be about making it look like the PL won a significant victory, even though that wasn't the challenge.

 

not heard anything on compo yet.

[LondonBlue 1021]

MCFC - Club statement

 

reads like a full on victory to me. 

 

the judgement can be downloaded from the city website

[Dazzler 11716]

3 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

MCFC - Club statement

 

reads like a full on victory to me. 

 

the judgement can be downloaded from the city website

 

Man City are dragging the Premier League naked through the streets like Cersei Lannister

[Dr Gloom 23591]

5 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

MCFC - Club statement

 

reads like a full on victory to me. 

 

the judgement can be downloaded from the city website

cut to the chase then, what does it mean for us? Can we legally start spending Saudi dollars off the back of this? 

[LondonBlue 1021]

Just now, Dr Gloom said:

cut to the chase then, what does it mean for us? Can we legally start spending Saudi dollars off the back of this? 

 

how the heck would i know. i do see something about interest free shareholder loans. but not looked long enough to see if its allowed or not. someone said arsenal have £250m in shareholder loans and they might be in trouble. but i'm too dumb to know why. for that read still scanning for easy to read headlines.

 

[LondonBlue 1021]

3 minutes ago, Dazzler said:

 

Man City are dragging the Premier League naked through the streets like Cersei Lannister

 

 

or the Premier League have stripped themselves naked and run through the streets of their own accord.

 

 

 

[LondonBlue 1021]

9 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

MCFC - Club statement

 

reads like a full on victory to me. 

 

the judgement can be downloaded from the city website

 

so you don't have to sully your browser visiting our site... 

 

Following today’s publication of the Rule X Arbitral Tribunal Award, Manchester City Football Club thanks the distinguished members of the Arbitral Tribunal for their work and considerations and welcomes their findings:
-          The Club has succeeded with its claim: the Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules have been found to be unlawful and the Premier League’s decisions on two specific MCFC sponsorship transactions have been set aside

-          The Tribunal found that both the original APT rules and the current, (amended) APT Rules violate UK competition law and violate the requirements of procedural fairness.

-          The Premier League was found to have abused its dominant position.

-          The Tribunal has determined both that the rules are structurally unfair and that the Premier League was specifically unfair in how it applied those rules to the Club in practice.

-          The rules were found to be discriminatory in how they operate, because they deliberately excluded shareholder loans.

-          As well as these general findings on legality, the Tribunal has set aside specific decisions of the Premier League to restate the fair market value of two transactions entered into by the Club.

-          The tribunal held that the Premier League had reached the decisions in a procedurally unfair manner.

-          The Tribunal also ruled that there was an unreasonable delay in the Premier League’s fair market value assessment of two of the Club’s sponsorship transactions, and so the Premier League breached its own rules.

Click here to download page 164 of the judgment, which summarises the Tribunal’s decision.

 

 

[LondonBlue 1021]

6 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

 

so you don't have to sully your browser visiting our site... 

 

Following today’s publication of the Rule X Arbitral Tribunal Award, Manchester City Football Club thanks the distinguished members of the Arbitral Tribunal for their work and considerations and welcomes their findings:
-          The Club has succeeded with its claim: the Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules have been found to be unlawful and the Premier League’s decisions on two specific MCFC sponsorship transactions have been set aside

-          The Tribunal found that both the original APT rules and the current, (amended) APT Rules violate UK competition law and violate the requirements of procedural fairness.

-          The Premier League was found to have abused its dominant position.

-          The Tribunal has determined both that the rules are structurally unfair and that the Premier League was specifically unfair in how it applied those rules to the Club in practice.

-          The rules were found to be discriminatory in how they operate, because they deliberately excluded shareholder loans.

-          As well as these general findings on legality, the Tribunal has set aside specific decisions of the Premier League to restate the fair market value of two transactions entered into by the Club.

-          The tribunal held that the Premier League had reached the decisions in a procedurally unfair manner.

-          The Tribunal also ruled that there was an unreasonable delay in the Premier League’s fair market value assessment of two of the Club’s sponsorship transactions, and so the Premier League breached its own rules.

Click here to download page 164 of the judgment, which summarises the Tribunal’s decision.

 

 

 

page 164 of the judegment

 

FOR THE ABOVE REASONS WE, SIR NIGEL TEARE, CHRISTOPHER VAJDA KC AND LORD DYSON HEREBY AWARD ABD DECLARE: 
(i) that the APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 because they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and for no other reason; 
(ii) that the Amended APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 as they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and because of the pricing changes in Appendix 18 of the Amended APT Rules and for no other reason; 
(iii) that APT Rules and the Amended APT Rules are unlawful on account of being procedurally unfair because a club is unable to comment upon the comparable transaction data relied upon by the PL before the PL determines whether a transaction is not at FMV and for no other reason; (iv) that the PL’s decision with regard to the EAG Transaction was reached in a procedurally unfair manner and must be set aside because the PL did not give MCFC an opportunity to respond to the  Benchmarking Analysis prior to reaching its decision and for no other reason; 
(v) that the PL’s decision with regard to the FAB Transaction was reached in a procedurally unfair manner and must be set aside because the PL did not provide MCFC, prior to the PL’s Final Determination, with the  Databank transactions entered into by other clubs, which the Board referred to in its Final Determination and for no other reason; 
(vi) that in making its decision with regard to the FAB Transaction there was an unreasonable delay of about 3 months and thereby a breach of Rule E.64; 
(vii) that in making its decision with regard to the EP Transaction there was an unreasonable delay of about 2 months and thereby a breach of Rule E.64. 

 

 

[Dazzler 11716]

So basically, why is it fine for owners to give interest free loans to the club but it’s not okay for a club to receive money from a related party for sponsorship?

 

Solid argument tbf.

[Dazzler 11716]

The former is a propping up exercise and the other is a legitimate exchange of goods and services for cash.

[NJS 4560]

So not as complete a takedown of the APT rules as first thought. 

 

Theyll have to include the shareholder loans for them to continue though. 

[LondonBlue 1021]

 

1 minute ago, NJS said:

So not as complete a takedown of the APT rules as first thought. 

 

Theyll have to include the shareholder loans for them to continue though. 

 

don't think City were ever challenging the rules in full. it was just certain aspects. but you know the press "oh its the end of the world, woe is us"

 

[LondonBlue 1021]

Matt Lawton in the Times...

 

It opens the door for the English champions, majority-owned by Abu Dhabi, to strike significantly higher sponsorship agreements with associated parties than previously allowed — including with Etihad, their stadium and shirt sponsor — and to pursue compensation and costs from the Premier League for abusing its position. Other clubs could also now seek damages should they believe they have been impacted.

 

 

Martin Samuel in the Times ...   link

 

It’s a mess. Complex, perhaps incalculable. It always was. If Saudi Arabia are trying to get on the map with the Neom City project — estimated cost $1.5trillion — what is it worth to them to bring it to the world on the front of a football shirt or in a stadium naming-rights deal? And how can that investment be measured against Newcastle’s previous sponsors such as Fun88, Wonga or McEwan’s Lager? “This means more” used to be an advertising slogan around Anfield — but sponsorship does, to some companies. And fair market value was always a dubious, debatable concept, for that reason.

Edited October 7, 2024 by LondonBlue

[LondonBlue 1021]

 

shareholder loans are to be judged related-party deals

 

everton have a 450m loan, arsenal 250m loan.   oops.

[Dr Gloom 23591]

29 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

 

shareholder loans are to be judged related-party deals

 

everton have a 450m loan, arsenal 250m loan.   oops.

 

[Dazzler 11716]

31 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

 

shareholder loans are to be judged related-party deals

 

everton have a 450m loan, arsenal 250m loan.   oops.

Arteta is taking it well:

 

Dyche is taking it worse:

[LondonBlue 1021]

29 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

Matt Lawton in the Times...

 

It opens the door for the English champions, majority-owned by Abu Dhabi, to strike significantly higher sponsorship agreements with associated parties than previously allowed — including with Etihad, their stadium and shirt sponsor — and to pursue compensation and costs from the Premier League for abusing its position. Other clubs could also now seek damages should they believe they have been impacted.

 

 

Martin Samuel in the Times ...   link

 

It’s a mess. Complex, perhaps incalculable. It always was. If Saudi Arabia are trying to get on the map with the Neom City project — estimated cost $1.5trillion — what is it worth to them to bring it to the world on the front of a football shirt or in a stadium naming-rights deal? And how can that investment be measured against Newcastle’s previous sponsors such as Fun88, Wonga or McEwan’s Lager? “This means more” used to be an advertising slogan around Anfield — but sponsorship does, to some companies. And fair market value was always a dubious, debatable concept, for that reason.

 

Martin Samuel...

 

- “The tyranny of the majority,” City argued, and everybody sneered. It’s called democracy, they chorused. Well, yes and no. First past the post is democracy too, yet the tyranny of the majority is why your vote will never count if you are a Labour voter in a safe Conservative seat, or vice versa.

 

- It’s the ruination of football, the destruction of the English game, that will be the argument. No, it’s not. City’s dominance is still scheduled to end pretty much the year Pep Guardiola walks out the door

 

- as of 2023, Brighton held shareholder loans of £302.8million. Charging interest at between eight and ten per cent would put £66-84million on their PSR calculation and will now have to be factored in going forward.

 

- Everton, for instance, have £451million in shareholder loans, equating to as much as £104million on their PSR calculation. Arsenal have £258million, working out to a potential addition of £62.5million. 

 

- it was three judges, not City, who studied it and saw through it

[LondonBlue 1021]

 

bottom line.  the ruling shows that the premier league have been using underhand tactics.

[LondonBlue 1021]

interest free shareholder loans it transpires, are a form of financial doping. so thats, everton, arsenal,  livarpool, brighton, bournemouth all cheating thanks to the tyranny of the majority. embarassing.

[Howmanheyman 36502]

Just caught ten minutes of that Kavel knacker on sky sports slowly explaining what happened but not actually saying anything. Stealing a living that lad.