Premier League clubs attend emergency meeting

I can't find much new coverage of his yet, probably because it's still under way, or the cloak of Premier League 'confidentiality' has been invoked.

Watch this space…

I think the fact that the matter was only delayed for a week suggests the Premier League feel they are on the right side of this.

From what I read a few weeks ago, the issue is not loans but interest on those loans.

Arsenal and they who shall not be named received significant loans from their owner, all at 0% interest. The latter used it to build a pigeon loft or sandwich toaster on their main stand.

The rest of us have loans borrowed at commercial rates, some more punitive than others, which are included in PSR. Interest on loans for infrastructure (eg the new stadium) are excluded but I think the Premier Leaguewere trying to argue that not all our loans were for BMD and therefore a share should be put in PSR and we are arguing they are all for BMD.

As none of our loans were interest-free, I do not believe we are in the Dock, except the Bramley-Moore one!

What a shame they've said "tightening" the rules rather than reviewing them.

The former sounds as though they think they will fail in their action against Man City as things stand but should they be allowed to change the rules after the fact?

If they change these rules, surely they can only apply from the next accounting period, we are already 4 months into the current financial year. If they were to apply immediately that's a bit like saying from now for this season an away draw is worth 2 points!

Also re Alan's comment about the City charges, I don't believe the APT changes will significantly impact them. Most of the charges are about illegal payments to ex-managers and staff, false accounting, failing to co-operate with the Premier League, etc.

By way of a small update, The Irish Times is reporting this from PA News:

Two Premier League working groups met last Thursday to help further scrutinise proposals for rule amendments which were put to all 20 clubs – including City – at a hybrid meeting lasting around an hour on Tuesday.

Following feedback provided at the meeting, the league will now further update the proposals and recirculate them to clubs. It is understood the feedback was around amendments, rather than any suggestion the proposals be scrapped and taken back to the drawing board.

This has now been picked up and reported by The Echo:

Premier League to send new rule proposals after Man City challenge

Phil @3,

As none of our loans were interest-free...

I believe 'we' (Everton) have shareholder loans from Moshiri totalling an incredible £451M that are interest-free, with the intention that they would be converted to equity (shares).

If the Premier League were to now require that Fair Market Value interest be charged to the club books, we would be placed in a very very difficult position re PSR compliance, so I think this could be an extremely critical issue for us.

Micheal @6,

When Friedkin buys Everton, does that mean Moshiri's loans are void as they have been paid off with the sale?

Blimey, must be my day for trying to think... for the life of me I couldn't understand how the APT rules on shareholder loans had anything to do with owners in the first place, which was probably why it was excluded from the initial rulings.

However, a tribunal said not so and should have been in the mix..(why??) so hence Man City said all of the APT regulations were unlawful as a result...

Best description and analysis I could find is below:

Man City vs Premier League over APT rules: What to know

Bobby #7, I understand that to be the case.

Moshiri effectively "writes off" the debt.

John (#5);

Sorry about the late reply, I agree with you about the charges against Man City that are still outstanding but, if these changes are adopted, we may very well be hearing from the Premier League about their "moral victory".

An Executive with too much to lose but really should be reduced to just compiling fixtures and following instructions.