The Great Big FFP Debate

GIBURROWS said:
And still don't understand just being friends with someone now gives the government the right to make you sell.
Click to expand...
They didn't make him sell. He chose to sell and the government were kind enough to allow that sale to go through after he was sanctioned. Had they not allowed the sale to go through then Chelsea would no longer exist.

And it's good to see that you're now acknowledging Abramovich's friendship with Putin. Obviously you still refute that he has any political or financial connection though, even after he attended peace talks with Ukraine and the leaked Cyprus documents revealed how he essentially gave away 10s of millions of $'s to Putin. I guess he was just helping a mate out.
 
BaZ87 said:
They didn't make him sell. He chose to sell and the government were kind enough to allow that sale to go through after he was sanctioned. Had they not allowed the sale to go through then Chelsea would no longer exist.

And it's good to see that you're now acknowledging Abramovich's friendship with Putin. Obviously you still refute that he has any political or financial connection though, even after he attended peace talks with Ukraine and the leaked Cyprus documents revealed how he essentially gave away 10s of millions of $'s to Putin. I guess he was just helping a mate out.
Click to expand...
Got any proof?
 
So the verdict for City's ATP case against the PL is in and despite some City propaganda claiming it as a victory for City, barring two fairly minor details, the panel dismissed all City's claims.

The amended rules have been deemed unlawful on the basis of the wording on one aspect of the rules but the biggest change that will need to be made to the rules is around interest free loans from owners. Essentially the panel have decided that these too need to be treated in the same way as other associated party transactions - long story short, Moshiri can't loan Everton £400m interest free anymore. Even if the money is not actually paid, for PSR purposes interest at a fair market value must be charged. Ultimately I don't see this being a big inconvenience for most (any) clubs as these loans can simply be converted to equity.
 
C Kent said:
Sky seem to be in agreement and are claiming it a city win :p
Click to expand...
They're clinging to the headline verdict that the rules were unlawful but not looking at exactly what parts of the rules were considered unlawful. City weren't successful in challenging the principle of APT rules - it's simply the wording around the recentish amendment (which puts greater emphasis on clubs to prove deals were at a fair value) and the exclusion of directors loans from APT rules.

Even if the PL doesn't look at rewording the amendment, APT's still need to be at FMV and the panel found that the PL's calculations (when deeming 2 of City's recent deals above FMV) to be reasonable. The biggest change is going to be with directors loans and barring clubs trying to bridge the gap with the top sides, I fail to see how that is going to impact anybody. For instance Liverpool have a £70m directors loan, that will now have to have a fair market interest applied to it - that will result in around £3-4m interest being applied to our PSR calculations when we're probably around £200m within the upper threshold. Everton with a £400m odd directors loan will now have an additional £20m interest applied to their PSR calculations. This assumes that owners don't convert these loans to equity of course, which is what they will do if needed to meet PSR.
 
robfosters said:
Why are they claiming it to be such a spectacular victory when they’ve only had 2 challenges upheld out of so many?
Click to expand...
They've been the biggest cheerleaders of man city for the past decade, they arent going to change tact now, I expect them to be wearing black armbands for a month once the verdict of the 130 charges comes out in the next 5 years or so :D

Anyway, not just sky seems to be all the 'big' publications, guess you tell where their bread is buttered.
 
Last edited:
PL statement below.

So clubs can now gain access to databases to see sponsorship for other clubs. Making it easier to prove their deals are fair market value?

The onus is no longer solely on the club to prove fair market value? That’s a pretty big deal if correct.

FMV still stands but having access to the database will make it easier to prove higher sponsorship deals.

www.premierleague.com

Premier League statement

www.premierleague.com www.premierleague.com
 
Last edited:
woppy101 said:
Here comes the Money
Click to expand...
in reality the 'win' is literally

- That Shareholder loans should not be excluded from the scope of the APT Rules. By way of background, the exclusion of Shareholder loans from the APT Rules was a choice by the majority of clubs who wished to encourage transparent investment and 19 of them (including Manchester City) voted in favour of this approach.
- Second, that a limited number of amendments introduced to the APT Rules earlier this year should not be retained. In particular, the Tribunal found that the removal of the additional word "evidently" from the basis on which the Board will find an APT not to be at FMV, amendments to the definition of FMV, and shifting the burden of proof to a Club to show a transaction is at FMV could, when considered together, increase the risk of an APT being restated when a restatement is not, in fact, warranted (referred to in the decision as "false positives").

Wow, huge win, the biggest win :cry:
 
Bigpig said:
Click to expand...
Was that in response to my question? The panel found that the PL should have handed over information earlier than they did (the PL did provide City with the database) but that their calculations for determining the deals were not FMV were not unreasonable.

Clubs having access to a database of commercial deals won't enable them to secure commercial deals above FMV - deals will still need to be FMV, clubs will just know what others are getting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom