The tribunal ruled that shareholder loans should not be excluded from the scope of APT rules and that some amendments made in February should not be retained. I realise City are saying that as some parts were found to be unlawful that all of it is unlawful, but that doesn’t follow through.
City are trying to claim that as shareholder loans needs to be added, and as adding them in will be problematic for clubs that it is likely that they won’t backdate the rule – that seems fair (as you you can’t break a rule which didn’t exist and be retrospectively punished for it later). City think that as the PL won’t re-evaluate finances they should cancel all evaluations, but surely the common man would think if you have knowingly and wilfully broken the law that in one thing, but breaking a law which didn’t exist is another?
It’s a long shot by City to think the PL will have to drop the case against them unless they punish clubs (who stuck by the rules as they were written) with shareholder loans which retrospectively would make them breach new rules. Their only real hope is that the threat of further litigation puts the PL off of taking the case forward. Then City can claim total innocence, despite clearly not being the case.
What makes you think it was a real smack in the teeth for the PL?
_____________________________
React below 👇
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
