Jump to content
I will no longer be developing resources for Invision Community Suite ×
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

Footy - 2018/19 & 19/20 & 20/21 etc

Sir Tokyo Sexwale
 Share

Recommended Posts

stressederic

stressederic

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, Barnesy_10 said:

DeBruyne leaving at the end of the season 

expected but confirmed 

Injuries have wrecked him but it's interesting how little attention his contract has received across the season in comparison to our lads

Gethin

Gethin

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, stressederic said:

Injuries have wrecked him but it's interesting how little attention his contract has received across the season in comparison to our lads

Think it was clear that both sided knew that moving on was the best option. 

I can't believe he's only 33 though - he looks f***ing ancient. 

stressederic

stressederic

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Gethin said:

Think it was clear that both sided knew that moving on was the best option. 

I can't believe he's only 33 though - he looks f***ing ancient. 

I still think something has gone on between him and Guardiola too

  • Upvote 1
Gethin

Gethin

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Jarg Armani said:

Article doesn't seem to link?

Quote

MATT LAWTON

Man City accuse Premier League of distorting rules in Arsenal’s favour

Document also names Brighton, Everton and Leicester as beneficiaries of rules around shareholder loans that it claims affect league’s competitive balance

City, who are owned by Sheikh Mansour, left, have won the past four Premier League titles in a row, led by Pep Guardiola, centre. The club are locked in legal battles with the Premier League, led by its chief executive Masters, right

Manchester City have accused the Premier League of distorting the competition in favour of Arsenal and other rival clubs who have benefited from huge loans from their owners.

In the latest development in City’s prolonged legal battle with the Premier League, the club have issued an excoriating attack on the league’s attempt to amend sponsorship rules declared unlawful and void by an independent tribunal.

In a new statement of claim, issued by City to an independent tribunal at the end of last month, the champions complain that Arsenal, as well as Brighton & Hove Albion, Everton and Leicester City, have had an unfair advantage.

City claim that shareholder loans — where the owners lend clubs money — worth hundreds of millions of pounds at those four clubs have not been treated the same as other Associated Party Transactions (APTs), such as sponsorship deals with companies linked to club owners.

However, the tribunal — comprising three senior legal figures in Sir Nigel Teare, Lord Dyson and Christopher Vajda KC — concluded those APT rules were “void and unenforceable” and City now argue that there needs to be a return to the pre-2021 rules until these matters are fully resolved. They argue in their latest claim, which the Premier League sent, over the past 24 hours, to its 19 other clubs, that the amended rules continue to “discriminate”.

City argue that they “fail to meet the requirements of transparency, objectivity, precision and proportionality … and are liable to distort competition”.

Key to City’s claim is the argument that the Premier League’s attempt to change the APT rules after its latest legal defeat is unfair because they treat the shareholder loans differently, adding that the clubs who utilise that form of borrowing are benefiting from an unlawful exemption.

City, who launched their initial legal challenge last year after two Abu Dhabi-related sponsorship deals were blocked by the Premier League, make the broader point that the league should not change rules that have already been declared void, and was too hasty and slapdash in its response to the previous verdict.

Further to that, City have attacked the 50-day grace period given to clubs to convert shareholder loans into equity spending, while also criticising the league for claiming that shareholder loans do not need to be assessed for fair market value in the same way as other APTs.

The league sent the document to the other 19 clubs on Thursday

There is a detailed breakdown of the shareholder loans at other clubs, City’s point being that it gave them an unfair advantage in complying with Profitability and Sustainability Rules. 

City claim that Arsenal benefited from shareholder loans of approximately £259million in the 2022-23 season, Brighton from £406.5million in the 2021-22 season, Everton £450million in 2022-23 and Leicester £265million in 2021-22.

City say that the “differential treatment” means the rule changes “do not eliminate, but on the contrary perpetuate the discriminatory and distortive treatment previously found by the tribunal”. The club add: “This continued preferential and discriminatory treatment of shareholder loans has the object and/or effect of distorting economic competition between member clubs on affected markets.”

City also take aim at the “flawed and inadequate manner” that the Premier League has tried to retroactively assess the free market value of these shareholder loans. It is City’s view that independent experts should have been consulted. Instead the Premier League, City claim, is relying on two part-time, non-executive PL Board members to “carry out this technical and specialist task on their own”.

The same tribunal will rule on the latest challenge from City, with the Premier League potentially forced into making further changes to its financial rules while incurring yet more legal costs. The Premier League declined to comment when approached by The Times.

The issue remains separate to the 130 charges brought against City by the Premier League for alleged breaches of financial regulations, but it could further erode the robustness of the system in place. The same team of lawyers are fighting both cases for the Abu Dhabi-owned club.

At the time of the tribunal’s first award, Richard Masters, the Premier League chief executive, insisted it could resolve the matter by making a small number of amendments to the APT rules. 

Simon Cliff, City’s general counsel, urged the league to hold fire until the tribunal had ruled on whether all the rules, rather than some, were now null and void, with Aston Villa echoing that view. In February the tribunal declared all the rules “void and unenforceable”.

Still the Premier League argued, insisting the amendments were “valid and enforceable”. City disagree. “This voidness means that the amendments are themselves void, because it is not legally possible to amend rules that are themselves void,” it claims.

Here you go (not a subscriber but have access via someone else's) 

Bailo

Bailo

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, muleskinner said:

They live for litigation. f*** them off and go again with a new league.

The rest of the league need to move on from them, villa, Chelsea and Newcastle. Leave them to their own little oil league. 

Gethin

Gethin

Posted
Posted

I actually have a little bit of sympathy for the POV that shareholder loans and the way they're treated isn't consistent with the way they treat APTs.

I don't think either should be allowed - with an exception for shareholder loans for infrastructure projects paid back at fair market interest rates 

City must be gutted that they didn't go down that route themselves. Isn't shareholder loans how Abrahamovic-era Chelsea got away with it? 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Home

Notifications

PMs
×
×
  • Create New...