Or maybe the PL/other clubs have put rules in place that could be considered illegal(which some of them have, and are not easy to rewritten to make them legal) and we’re yet to find out what happens in the other 115, so is he not correct on some of them points.
I'm not too sure what this means or the relevance to my views on Martin Samuel (and to a lesser extent Tony Cascarino)? If you want to listen to his views that's up to you but I find him a horrendous journalist who has shown a clear conflict in his reporting on all things City/Abu Dhabi and as such I'm more likely to listen to the opinions of my 2 year old nephew than his on this matter.
Can I just mention that yourself and others that are clearly on the Premier League’s side (which is absolutely fair enough) have linked articles that have a clear conflict in reporting the is skewed toward the premier League, with regards to both NUFC and MCFC, and are very quick to jump on people that just dismiss them out of hand ( looking at piggy here)
You can. I'd just like to put on the record that unlike Samuel, neither myself nor any relatives are employed by the PL though. And the only opinion piece I've linked to is that of a top sports lawyer, which comes back to my earlier comment. Regardless of my views of Martin Samuel as a football journalist, he like 99% of football journalists aren't qualified to discuss the details of this case. They have no financial or legal qualifications. He can have an opinion (which I believe is conflicted) but it carries little weight.
The clubs in support of Man City are either oil owned outright or make up a large %. Not really that surprising..
Masters/PL were shouting to anyone who would listen that the amendments would be swift and easy and trying to paint this entire case as a complete win, its a bit of an embarassing step down to now say 'oh yeah, we should actually do some due process before we get taken to court again, sorry lads, we will be back in touch'. I would imagine more than a handful of clubs will be frustrated seeing as these rules could impact future sponsorships and agreements they were planning.Bit of a nothing story isnt it? Quick summary being the PL taking its time to ensure the 'new' amendments are as thorough as possible with an update to follow next week.. oh the horrors of the delay
The clubs in support of Man City are either oil owned outright or make up a large %. Not really that surprising..
You should probably read what the PL said in their initial statement rather than what a City fan on twitter says because if you did then you would see that the PL clearly stated that they were conducting a process to enable them to make the required changes. The statement is still on the PL's website if you wanted to check.
The Premier League’s initial bravado about "quickly and effectively" fixing the APT rule issues now looks seriously misguided. Within just a couple of days, Richard Masters and the PL seem to be scrambling, backtracking, and communicating with the clubs in a way that suggests they’ve realized it's far more complicated than they first thought.
This was always going to be the case, the interest free shareholder loans now having to be seen as APT has really ****** the premier league hilariously.
Rather than repeat the same line with more added spin, you could have just admitted that you didn't read the PL's initial statement. Show me the backtracking from what the PL initially said to what they're now saying?
Despite being the main reason why the rules were classed as unlawful and the biggest tangible change, interest on shareholder loans is the least important aspect of the ruling. Clubs competing in Europe already have a FMV interest applied to their FFP calculations with UEFA so for 7/8 clubs there's no change but even for the others, if the interest charge on these loans ever became an issue regarding PSR then they'd simple convert them (or at least a proportion of them) into equity.
) and the PL rejected them under the old rules. One of City's challenges at the arbitration was this determination by the PL that they weren't evidently FMV and they failed.
sorry baz but it’s not that simple, if they are converted to equity it makes it far harder for the person/company giving the loan to get their money back if they require it and that would also change the rate of tax due, and it’s not as simple to just apply an interest rate that the PL sees fit to the shareholder loans in in a FMV sense, as in a “Fair market” Arsenal/Liverpool (being far more stable clubs) would attract a far lower market rate of interest than Everton/Crystal Palace (who are more susceptible to being relegated).
It doesn't make it hard at all
And what do you mean by changing the rate of tax due? Not that the answer to those questions really matters as I'm yet to see an owner put a loan into the club and withdraw it. History tells us these loans either remain in the club or are eventually converted into equity anyway.
You raise an interesting point regarding the timeframe of when the amendment on directors loans can be applied. I'm not sure changes midway through the season could be challenged - after all both the original APT rules and the amended rules were applied mid season and City didn't even attempt to challenge the rules on this basis. But using the existing APT rules as a guide, it was agreed (and again not challenged) that they wouldn't be applied to existing deals and only to new commercial agreements. Does that mean that existing directors loans would also not be subject to any rule change? As I mentioned above the whole directors loan thing is a bit of a red herring with many clubs already subject to APT rules on them and for all clubs, they can be worked around (if required) very easily.
The Premier League’s original statement used the word "quickly." So, I am clinging onto what they wrote, yes.
Ok, so your interpretation of quickly is that it would be done in 5 minutes? I now understand why you think there's been some backtracking now but I'd suggest that's down to your interpretation not as you say, what anybody with a brain interpreted.
