.png)
1 month ago
12 ARTICLE AD
The Manchester City v Premier League ruling has really warmed things up, for all Premier League clubs and especially Newcastle United.
Whilst not the 5-0 win hammering that many Manchester City and Newcastle United fans are wanting to believe it was, when the ruling was released on Monday, it was a defeat for the Premier League.
Maybe a single goal defeat rather than a five goal humiliation, however, the Premier League defence for sure is looking very suspect as we move on…
What has become clear as well, is that Manchester City are certainly not seeing Monday as the final scoreline.
Indeed, it has now been revealed by The Times (see below) that Manchester City very very quickly followed up the announcement of the tribunal ruling on Associated Party Transactions (APTs).
With Manchester City telling all of the other 19 Premier League clubs, that the have Premier League misled them over the lengthy published verdict/
The Manchester City general legal counsel, Simon Cliff, sending a letter sent to the 19 other clubs, saying that the top-flight’s statement and summary of legal dispute over Associated Party Transaction rules was inaccurate.
That Premier League statement was signed off by Richard Masters and Manchester City have accused the Premier League of misleading clubs with inaccuracies in its verdict on the legal dispute over the rules governing commercial deals between clubs and related companies.
The Manchester City statement on Monday following the ruling by the tribunal, contained the following – 7 October 2024:
‘Following today’s publication of the Rule X Arbitral Tribunal Award, Manchester City Football Club thanks the distinguished members of the Arbitral Tribunal for their work and considerations and welcomes their findings:
The Club has succeeded with its claim: the Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules have been found to be unlawful and the Premier League’s decisions on two specific MCFC sponsorship transactions have been set aside
The Tribunal found that both the original APT rules and the current, (amended) APT Rules violate UK competition law and violate the requirements of procedural fairness.
The Premier League was found to have abused its dominant position.’
Rather bizarrely, the Premier League when issuing their own statement, were claiming Monday’s ruling as a massive win for THEM!
(You can read the actual entire Tribunal ruling HERE. However, it is a ‘little’ lengthy and we have gone through it and picked out nine references to Newcastle United which you can view HERE)
Anyway, The Times have the inside track on what has happened now, reporting Manchester City following up and challenging the Premier League on what they are telling the other 19 PL clubs and indeed everybody else.
Manchester City claimed an important victory when an independent panel concluded that key elements of the rules on Associated Party Transactions (APTs) were “unlawful”, after it was found that the club were unfairly blocked from agreeing huge sponsorship deals with Etihad and First Abu Dhabi Bank.
The Premier League then issued that counter statement, signed off by Richard Masters, insisting it welcomed an independent tribunal’s findings because it had supposedly rejected the majority of Manchester City’s legal challenges. The Premier League saying it would continue to operate its rules with changes that “can quickly and effectively be remedied by the league and clubs.”
With an emergency meeting of all Premier League clubs now scheduled for next week, following Mnday’s tribunal ruling.
The Times now revealing that Manchester City general legal counsel, Simon Cliff, wrote on Monday night to the other 19 club, as well as the Premier League, with a detailed dismantling of the 1,200 word Premier League statement.
After seeing the letter, The Times say that Cliff has described the summary of the panel’s award as “not correct” and he has warned of further legal disputes if clubs bow to pressure to make some swift amendments to the rules on APTs, Cliff states that the Premier League’s “summary is misleading and contains several inaccuracies”
The Times picking out a number of quotes from this Manchester City letter to the Premier League and all of the other 19 PL clubs:
“Of even greater concern, is the PL’s suggestion that new APT rules should be passed within the next ten days.”
“When the PL consulted on and proposed the original APT rules in late 2021, we pointed out that the process (which took several weeks) was rushed, ill-thought-out and would result in rules that were anti-competitive. The recent award (conclusion of the panel) has validated those concerns entirely.
“The tribunal has declared the APT rules to be unlawful. MCFC’s [Manchester City’s] position is that this means all of the APT rules are void, and have been since 2021.
“In recent correspondence, the PL agreed with MCFC that this is an issue which will need to be resolved by the tribunal. It is therefore remarkable that the PL is now seeking to involve the member clubs in a process to amend the APT rules at a time when it does not even know the status of those rules.”
“We will be writing separately about this to the PL but in the meantime, given the findings in the award, this is the time for careful reflection and consideration by all clubs, and not for a knee-jerk reaction.
“Such an unwise course would be likely to lead to further legal proceedings with further legal costs. It is critical for member clubs to feel that they can have trust in their regulator.”
“The APT rules . . . have been found to be unlawful, as a matter of competition law and public law. This means that they are void and not capable of enforcement. This has very significant consequences for APTs that have been entered into to date and APTs that are currently being negotiated by clubs.”
“While it is true that MCFC did not succeed with every point that it ran in its legal challenge, the club did not need to prove that the APT rules are unlawful for lots of different reasons.
“It is enough that they are unlawful for one reason. In the event, the tribunal found the APT rules are unlawful for three different sets of reasons.”
“If any member clubs have any questions about the award, we would be very happy to assist them as best we can.”

 
