City Launch Legal Challenge Against PL Charges & Barrister

[salford city]

Can we officially label Arsenal 'cheats' with their dodgy shareholders fiddling?

As for Brighton best run club in the country 'my arse'!

It does show just how much corruption and favoritism the PL afford to the red shite cartel though doesnt it? Get the benefit of the shareholder loans twice whilst trying to outlaw our and any other deals? What are they going to do now this has been exposed- they will have to go at the shareholder loans surely

[john@staustell]

......Masters.......courtroom winner on a par with Rebekah Vardy.

I like that bit

[Indianablue]

Superb Python analogy from Samuel. I get the feeling he is loving being proved right. For years a lone voice in the media

[nottsblue]

Absolutely nailed on the money, the article from Samuel. Long may he and his typewriter be a voice for truth

[Harry Dowd scored]

Apologies if you have heard this podcast but it’s worth a look if you haven’t

https://www.youtube.com/

[Mase]

Anyone got an email for Samuel?

[Scatman]

In two separate Daily Telegraph articles this morning they have quoted "approximately 130" charges instead of the usual 115. Apart from 115 being approximately 130, does anybody know the reason for this?

[salford city]

In two separate Daily Telegraph articles this morning they have quoted "approximately 130" charges instead of the usual 115. Apart from 115 being approximately 130, does anybody know the reason for this?

New one on me - but I'm expecting this to ramp up in media coverage around us. Reading the Txiki announcement from the gang over on ordsall quays, they still manage to get 115 into this news - bless em, they're consistent

[Im_Spartacus]

So now the dust is settling, one wonders whether this does have implications on the other charges.

I can't help but wonder about the implications of the Shareholder Loans situation, and whether this will be used as a fundamental argument to trash the entire premise of PSR in the current case. As Martin Samuel has observed, the panel specifically referenced PSR arising from the situation of Portsmouth, a demise which was 100% brought about by the owner wanting his money back, and the club having no means to repay it.

So if the owners could have just put $1bn in the bank as a directors' loan and avoided any of PSR, it raises the question quite fundamentally, of why AD would go to the trouble it is alleged to have done to disguise revenue AND pay corporation tax on the revenue/profits, when the two funding approaches achieved exactly the same outcome - except that City were not bound by $1bn debt that would have collapsed the club like Portsmouth 'when the Sheikh gets board'

It's all rather curious - as this really now starts to strike at the heart of the anticompetetive nature of PSR, though it does make you wonder why AD didn't just deposit the money in the bank.

[Scatman]

So now the dust is settling, one wonders whether this does have implications on the other charges.

I can't help but wonder about the implications of the Shareholder Loans situation, and whether this will be used as a fundamental argument to trash the entire premise of PSR in the current case. As Martin Samuel has observed, the panel specifically referenced PSR arising from the situation of Portsmouth, a demise which was 100% brought about by the owner wanting his money back, and the club having no means to repay it.

So if the owners could have just put $1bn in the bank as a directors' loan and avoided any of PSR, it raises the question quite fundamentally, of why AD would go to the trouble it is alleged to have done to disguise revenue AND pay corporation tax on the revenue/profits, when the two funding approaches achieved exactly the same outcome - except that City were not bound by $1bn debt that would have collapsed the club like Portsmouth 'when the Sheikh gets board'

It's all rather curious - as this really now starts to strike at the heart of the anticompetetive nature of PSR, though it does make you wonder why AD didn't just deposit the money in the bank.

Aren't we alleged to have over-inflated revenue (and disguised costs) to enable greater spending while keeping inside FFP boundaries?

If AD just put the money in the bank and it not been a loan then it would have to have been shareholder funds or a gift rather than earnings for FFP and wouldn't both of those have been ignored in the calculation of earnings (seeing as it was designed to prevent clubs benefiting from wealthy benefactors)?

[belleebee]

So now the dust is settling, one wonders whether this does have implications on the other charges.

I can't help but wonder about the implications of the Shareholder Loans situation, and whether this will be used as a fundamental argument to trash the entire premise of PSR in the current case. As Martin Samuel has observed, the panel specifically referenced PSR arising from the situation of Portsmouth, a demise which was 100% brought about by the owner wanting his money back, and the club having no means to repay it.

So if the owners could have just put $1bn in the bank as a directors' loan and avoided any of PSR, it raises the question quite fundamentally, of why AD would go to the trouble it is alleged to have done to disguise revenue AND pay corporation tax on the revenue/profits, when the two funding approaches achieved exactly the same outcome - except that City were not bound by $1bn debt that would have collapsed the club like Portsmouth 'when the Sheikh gets board'

It's all rather curious - as this really now starts to strike at the heart of the anticompetetive nature of PSR, though it does make you wonder why AD didn't just deposit the money in the bank.

Aren't we alleged to have over-inflated revenue (and disguised costs) to enable greater spending while keeping inside FFP boundaries?

If AD just put the money in the bank and it not been a loan then it would have to have been shareholder funds or a gift rather than earnings for FFP and wouldn't both of those have been ignored in the calculation of earnings (seeing as it was designed to prevent clubs benefiting from wealthy benefactors)?

I’ve been having similar thoughts to the above, prompted as much as anything by an FT comments thread, where several contributors claimed that Arsenal could avoid the burden of interest payments on its debt, should commercial rates become obligatory, simply by the owners converting the debt to equity. If this were permissible, i.e. within the rules, FFP and PSR seem to be a complete charade and, as argued above, raise the question of why the Sheikh (and the Saudis, in relation to Newcastle) didn’t go down the same route.

[Bluemoon4610]

Can we officially label Arsenal 'cheats' with their dodgy shareholders fiddling?

As for Brighton best run club in the country 'my arse'!

It does show just how much corruption and favoritism the PL afford to the red shite cartel though doesnt it? Get the benefit of the shareholder loans twice whilst trying to outlaw our and any other deals? What are they going to do now this has been exposed- they will have to go at the shareholder loans surely

Shareholder loans have been a part of football for many years and are used by many clubs, not just in the PL, so these are not "dodgy shareholders fiddling" to go after. What City argued, and the tribunal agreed with 100%, is that these type of funding are the very definition of "associated party" transactions, and therefore should not have been left out of the PSR calculations. Interest on these loans should have been added "at market rates". Leaving them out helped teams like Arsenal, with over £250M in these loans, Liverpool, with over £70m of an original £100M loan from FSG, Brighton with about £230M as well as others pass PRS calculations. I read the other day that "market rate" interest of between 8% and 10% would have added between £20m and £25m onto the Arse's calculations, and that's assuming they could have got such huge loans at those sort of rates!

[john@staustell]

The Times reports that both sides have asked the tribunal for clarification and that the tribunal will be further expanding on it. Which is apparently what City were hinting at

It was on a Newcastle site but no copy link option. Newsnow

[blues2win]

The other consequence of the judgement is that at least some shareholders might be reluctant to put in equity rather than low or zero interest loans in the future.

[patrickblue]

In two separate Daily Telegraph articles this morning they have quoted "approximately 130" charges instead of the usual 115. Apart from 115 being approximately 130, does anybody know the reason for this?

The actual figure they are exaggerating is 129, which has been arrived at by the haters thus:

Seven (or 21…) charges of breaching profit and sustainability rules
The exact subject matter here is slightly less certain — it is based on information gathered during the Premier League’s investigation, rather than the leaked emails. The charges can be split into alleged breaches over three seasons — 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18.
*Arguably, this is where it is more accurate to use 129 charges rather than 115 to describe the total number of offences allegedly committed by City. The Premier League has charged them with breaching seven PSR rules in each of those three seasons — during early explanations of the case, these were grouped as a total of seven charges rather than added together to make 21.

[patrickblue]

So now the dust is settling, one wonders whether this does have implications on the other charges.

I can't help but wonder about the implications of the Shareholder Loans situation, and whether this will be used as a fundamental argument to trash the entire premise of PSR in the current case. As Martin Samuel has observed, the panel specifically referenced PSR arising from the situation of Portsmouth, a demise which was 100% brought about by the owner wanting his money back, and the club having no means to repay it.

So if the owners could have just put $1bn in the bank as a directors' loan and avoided any of PSR, it raises the question quite fundamentally, of why AD would go to the trouble it is alleged to have done to disguise revenue AND pay corporation tax on the revenue/profits, when the two funding approaches achieved exactly the same outcome - except that City were not bound by $1bn debt that would have collapsed the club like Portsmouth 'when the Sheikh gets board'

It's all rather curious - as this really now starts to strike at the heart of the anticompetetive nature of PSR, though it does make you wonder why AD didn't just deposit the money in the bank.

Aren't we alleged to have over-inflated revenue (and disguised costs) to enable greater spending while keeping inside FFP boundaries?

If AD just put the money in the bank and it not been a loan then it would have to have been shareholder funds or a gift rather than earnings for FFP and wouldn't both of those have been ignored in the calculation of earnings (seeing as it was designed to prevent clubs benefiting from wealthy benefactors)?

I’ve been having similar thoughts to the above, prompted as much as anything by an FT comments thread, where several contributors claimed that Arsenal could avoid the burden of interest payments on its debt, should commercial rates become obligatory, simply by the owners converting the debt to equity. If this were permissible, i.e. within the rules, FFP and PSR seem to be a complete charade and, as argued above, raise the question of why the Sheikh (and the Saudis, in relation to Newcastle) didn’t go down the same route.

This is the reason I believe City are innocent, the fact that what they are being accused of is not only unlikely to succeed due to so many parties by necessity being involved, but also not necessary. As you say, it would be far simpler for AD to give an interest free loan for the required amount.

[Scatman]

If we did artificially inflate out earnings it is because at the time we did not have the legitimate commercial revenues necessary to facilitate the spending that was needed to compete whilst remaining on the right side of the FFP line.

[Scatman]

On the debt to equity thing, it's easy to say that's what they'll do, but loans are a lot easier to call in than share capital and it can quickly go tits up for a football club

[Im_Spartacus]

So now the dust is settling, one wonders whether this does have implications on the other charges.

I can't help but wonder about the implications of the Shareholder Loans situation, and whether this will be used as a fundamental argument to trash the entire premise of PSR in the current case. As Martin Samuel has observed, the panel specifically referenced PSR arising from the situation of Portsmouth, a demise which was 100% brought about by the owner wanting his money back, and the club having no means to repay it.

So if the owners could have just put $1bn in the bank as a directors' loan and avoided any of PSR, it raises the question quite fundamentally, of why AD would go to the trouble it is alleged to have done to disguise revenue AND pay corporation tax on the revenue/profits, when the two funding approaches achieved exactly the same outcome - except that City were not bound by $1bn debt that would have collapsed the club like Portsmouth 'when the Sheikh gets board'

It's all rather curious - as this really now starts to strike at the heart of the anticompetetive nature of PSR, though it does make you wonder why AD didn't just deposit the money in the bank.

Aren't we alleged to have over-inflated revenue (and disguised costs) to enable greater spending while keeping inside FFP boundaries?

If AD just put the money in the bank and it not been a loan then it would have to have been shareholder funds or a gift rather than earnings for FFP and wouldn't both of those have been ignored in the calculation of earnings (seeing as it was designed to prevent clubs benefiting from wealthy benefactors)?

We're alleged to have disguised equity (free money) in commercial transactions via overinflation of sponsorship - but if it was as simple as making a loan, I just can't fathom why we didn't just do that. There has to be something more to it than has been explained

From an accounting perspective, shareholder funds/loan has an expectation of repayment at some point - which surely is the exact type of money PSR should be designed to prevent. It would only become a problem for PSR if the loan was written off by the shareholder whereupon its treated as earnings, taxable.

[blues2win]

We’re not accused of inflating sponsorships. We’re accused of massive fraud in that the sponsors did not pay all of the sums set out which were instead paid by City’s owners. So there is an alleged massive inter continental conspiracy over 10 years to present fraudulent accounts invlolving large numbers of very senior people. If you believe that you’ll believe anything.