iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 13/06/2025

thanks. Wondered if it was too complicated so that is good to hear.

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 05/06/2025

stefanborson.substack.com/p/what-700m-... The players are rested - some of PSG’s Portuguese players even had a lie-in on Monday - and the long two week wait for club football to return is almost over.

stefanborson.substack.com

What $700m between the 12 European Club World Cup qualifiers means for the future of the game

As Newcastle scrimp, PIF lavishly fund their Champions League rivals

022

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 04/06/2025

With news in the Times that UEFA is set to announce the terms of settlements with various clubs in the next 2 weeks, here is my deep dive on it from April ICYMI stefanborson.substack.com/p/explained-...

stefanborson.substack.com

EXPLAINED: The UEFA tariffs that Villa and Chelsea are happy to pay

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more

043

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 13/04/2025

Not yet but some talk of streaming tariffs in Europe could impact it going forward

110

Reposted by slbsn

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 23/03/2025

Years before PSR ever existed, a London arbitration centre hosted the biggest Premier League litigation battle - Sheffield United v West Ham. stefanborson.substack.com/p/revealed-w... Here is a 2 parter deep dive...

182

Reposted by slbsn

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 05/04/2025

A new weekend long read... EXPLAINED: How Chelsea finally killed PSR open.substack.com/pub/stefanbo...

open.substack.com

EXPLAINED: How Chelsea finally killed PSR

Murder on the Bridge floor

02311

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 05/04/2025

A new weekend long read... EXPLAINED: How Chelsea finally killed PSR open.substack.com/pub/stefanbo...

open.substack.com

EXPLAINED: How Chelsea finally killed PSR

Murder on the Bridge floor

02311

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 23/03/2025

182

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 17/03/2025

United We Stand...for dubious economics New Old Trafford's £7.3bn Fantasy Football-land report stefanborson.substack.com/p/united-we-...

stefanborson.substack.com

United We Stand...for dubious economics

New Old Trafford's £7.3bn Fantasy Football-land report

296

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 11/03/2025

Is it a solution? A fundraising dinner is simply a bunch of fans paying for it rather than the club.

000

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 08/03/2025

The outside world has little public visibility on this save for this single report. [NB: Please link/credit where this analysis is used]

030

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 08/03/2025

Comparisons can be made for other teams but it is worth noting that Club accounts are not necessarily what solely comprises the regulatory submissions to UEFA and the Premier League.

110

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 08/03/2025

In other words, according to this UEFA report City declared to UEFA £89m of additional cost in 2023/24 alone. This will have been costs from both in and outside of the group.

110

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 08/03/2025

The clearest example is to look at the perimeter City submit to UEFA. It shows: - Slightly higher turnover - UEFA revenues unsurprisingly as reported in the Club accounts - Materially higher wages - Materially higher operating expenses

110

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 08/03/2025

Football activity is defined widely to capture all elements of the football costs.

110

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 08/03/2025

This is to prevent clubs hiding costs outside of their reporting perimeter. Clubs must sign a declaration of compliance. This reporting perimeter is replicated to an extent in the Premier League rules but largely only in respect of APTs (it appears - I think the drafting could be clearer).

110

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 08/03/2025

- any other entity included in the legal group structure which generates revenues and/or performs services and/or incurs costs in respect of any of the football activities

110

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 08/03/2025

This requires clubs not only to report the numbers published for the Club itself but also: - any entity, irrespective of whether it is included in the legal group structure, which generates revenues and/or performs services and/or incurs costs in respect of any of the football activities

110

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 08/03/2025

UEFA licensing is governed by what is known as the "reporting perimeter".

110

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 08/03/2025

💹 🤓EXPLAINED: How UEFA's European Club Finance and Investment Landscape report shows what clubs report to UEFA about their wider activities beyond the published club accounts

182

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 16/02/2025

The Premier League can surely not risk the APT 2 hearing going ahead.🚨

680

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 16/02/2025

🚨 It is hard to see how the PL can risk the embarrassment of the New APT Rules being declared null and void. It would signal a repeated failure and leave the PL with no APT rules for at least 21 days (and no doubt longer) whilst it re-drafts and arranges voting to implement the New, New APT Rules.

130

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 16/02/2025

Again, there must be a good arguable case that this change would be considered substantial enough to render the entire New APT Rules void rather than allowing severance.

120

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 16/02/2025

Reapplying the severability principles outlined in Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd, while it seems that the historic exclusions could be deleted, the question will again be whether removing the unlawful exclusion would result in a "major change" to the overall effect of the APT Rules.

110

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 16/02/2025

If the historic shareholder loans are found to be unlawful, then the question will be whether they can be severed from the New APT Rules to keep them otherwise in tact.

210

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 16/02/2025

It undermines the purpose of a 3 year rolling PSR test: The exclusion of shareholder loans constitutes a potential restriction by object because it undermines the objectives of the 3 year historic PSR test in treating parties differently.

110

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 16/02/2025

It is distortive of competition/market: Excluding historic shareholder loans but not other APTs creates an unfair advantage for certain clubs, violating this principle.

110

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 16/02/2025

There appears to be at least a good arguable case that the exclusion of historic shareholder loans is unlawful because it falls foul of the same key legal principles in APT 1:

110

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 16/02/2025

It appears (based solely on the press) that City's principal claim is that the exclusion of historic shareholder loans is unlawful and, as such, the whole of the New APT Rules are also unlawful and void. Such a finding would be very embarrassing for the PL.

110

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 16/02/2025

The PL say it is academic anyway because it passed wholly new rules (and not just amendments!) including new APT rules with shareholder loans in November 2024 (let's call them the New APT Rules).

110

slbsn @slbsn.bsky.social · 16/02/2025

This change was considered substantial enough to render the entire APT Rules void rather than allowing severance.

110