Man City's Special Treatment

Fantastic

 

Why not?

The King hasn't banned the lottery even though I might win millions and then blow it all in a couple of years on yachts and mansions and end up homeless.

 

Probably because every time fans cheer on an owner spending recklessly and it goes tits up, they all start crying with their begging bowls and plead that it's not fair and something needs to be done.

It's always fun until it isn't. Ask Derby fans.

 

Certainly, but at the same time it's not like the £1.5bn in shareholder loans is a more significant issue than the other £2.5bn that premier league clubs have in non-shareholder loans. Quite the opposite actually if the shareholder loans are interest free, even ignoring the fact that the non-shareholder loans are almost twice as much in total

I think we can all agree that in an ideal world the rules would take into account things like debt to stop owners loading clubs up with all the debt in the first place. Currently they don't however, and if clubs are going to get into debt it's probably better for it to be cheap/free owner funded debt rather than a crippling loan from a bank

If it's being used to fund day to day operations they'll be up shit creek either way when the money tap turns off. At least without interest payments they'll have more leeway to build themselves a paddle afterwards

 

They're interest free for as long as the owner decides they are, and you're not thinking about when an owner wants it back and stops the club's spending to ensure the money is coming back. Those secured against a bank loan aren't as dangerous as the bank will only loan you as much as they know you can pay back.

Which clubs went to the wall over bank loans, and which went to the wall over owner loans?

 

You seem to be missing the point.

The ruling doesn't say "owners can't loan money to the club". It says "money loaned by an owner to the club need to charge market interest rates" (or at least be accounted for as if it did under PSR calculations)

Literally all the problems you keep taking about regarding an interest free owner loan also apply to an owner loan with interest, and the ruling does nothing to stop a bad owner destroying a club with those loans. The only difference the ruling makes is to remove all of the potential benefits a good owner can bring to a club via low interest or interest free loans

It feels fairly ironic that the first point you've made here is "what if the owner decides to start charging interest on the loan". That's exactly the situation this ruling may create, so you seem to be saying the ruling is a good thing because the exact outcome it will result in is bad?

 

I'll ask again: which clubs have gone to the wall over bank loans, and which due to owner loans?

An owner literally can't get a bank to loan them more than the bank can see they can afford to pay back, so no, they can't do that. They give "interest free loans" because they cant get it from the banks, and then the club is at the mercy of the owner.

 

He's ITK obviously

 

I saw it on the BBC live text at the time, and when their article was first released - but it does appear that it doesn’t mention Forest anymore.

As you say, it wouldn’t be surprising if Forest were on the supporting list, given the way they’ve voted recently.

 

I'm not going to dig through the accounts of clubs that have gone into administration for you mate. Do it yourself if you're curious. It's not at all relevant to the point I'm making

Owners are allowed to charge interest on their loans to the club - they don't have to go via a bank to do so. If the bank won't loan them the money then the owner will instead, it's not like an owner willing to lend the club far too much money at 0% interest won't be willing to do the same thing at 5%.

Case in point here talking about liverpool: Liverpool borrowed £100m from FSG (at an interest of 1.24%) and £56m from a bank (at an interest of 2.24%).

In that same article in the section about west ham: "Under Gold and Sullivan West Ham have moved to the London Stadium after selling the Boleyn Ground. They lent the club money upon which interest of £18 million was charged over the years. The loan balance of £45 million is still outstanding... The owners argue that the interest rates they have charged, of between 4-6%, are lower than would have been charged by a bank and so the club has saved money"

Forcing owners to charge interest on the loans doesn't stop them loading up the club with owner debt if they want to spend and the banks won't lend them the money

 

Everton and Forest, Who's Hall and who's Nash?

 

The most interesting thing about this perfectly normal finding is the reporting.

You can really tell who city have paid off to report on their side.

 

Not strange at all, the BBC posted it earlier when the story broke. Although Forest have strangely been removed when I refresh the page.

I can send you a screenshot if you're sceptical.

 

They're not forcing them to charge interest, the market interest is being added to losses in regards to financial rules. They're not forcing interest ffs

Why the **** would owners lend the money themselves if they were forced to add interest? They'd just get it from the banka rather than risking their own money. Have you lost the plot?

 

The Daily Mail tweet that was posted earlier does seem typically hysterical for that publication but, regardless of how it's being reported, I don't think anyone can realistically deny that this is a bigger problem for the Premier League than it is for Manchester City. This is the second time in just a few weeks, following the Leicester case, that the Premier League's rules have been found to be legally deficient. Its very credibility in terms of the ability to regulate its affairs and members is now even more at stake in that case than it was already and, once again, the case for independent regulation is strengthened.

 

Ooh look, it's the arse licking apologist.