Jump to content
Join Talk Chelsea and log in to join the CFC discussion! ×

The English Football Thread

Steve

By Steve,
in Football Banter

 Share

Recommended Posts

Laylabelle

Laylabelle 9,420

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Reddish-Blue said:

Top 5 with no striker up front and zero depth.   I don't see that happening unless Palmer starts scoring for fun. 

Never know city have a tough run...then again we can't beat anyone soooo doesn't matter about those around us if we do sod all

Reckon 6/7th finish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 67.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vesper

    11065

  • Laylabelle

    4905

  • Jase

    2657

  • Special Juan

    2621

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Tomo
Tomo
bababoom
bababoom

I was bored...

Ankit
Ankit

Magic of FA cup

Posted Images

Vesper

Vesper 29,267

Posted
Posted

What does Premier League losing APT ruling mean for Manchester City and other clubs?

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6138205/2025/02/15/premier-league-apt-ruling-man-city/

GettyImages-1492268595-1024x683.jpg?widt

Manchester City may not have done too much winning on the pitch this season, but their victory over the Premier League in relation to the associated party transactions (APT) rules is a significant one.

A tribunal comprised of Lord Dyson, Christopher Vajda KC and Sir Nigel Teare concluded the APT rules in place between December 2021 and November 2024 were “unlawful” and “void and unenforceable” following a two-day hearing at the end of last month.

City have long argued the rules were unlawful and against competition law, while the Premier League maintained they were.

But the arbitration tribunal’s ruling makes clear without any doubt that they were not.

This decision has the potential to lead to other clubs claiming compensation for deals that were blocked or adjusted under APT rules between the end of 2021 and 2024, potentially causing many more headaches for the Premier League and its executive board.

The Athletic answers the key questions…

What did the sponsorship rules entail?

APTs were voted in by Premier League clubs in December 2021, following the sale of Newcastle United to Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund in October 2021.

Although it was never said explicitly, the prevailing feeling within multiple clubs was it was important to introduce a new set of rules that prevented clubs, such as Newcastle and City, from signing inflated commercial deals with companies linked to their owners in a bid to increase their revenues.

The idea behind the APT rules was to ensure any deal agreed by clubs with sponsors represented fair market value (FMV). Any deal that was submitted to the Premier League and deemed not to be FMV would be readjusted.

To determine FMV, clubs needed to confidentially submit their commercial agreements to the league, who would then upload them to a databank, giving them the means to determine what represented a fair deal or not.

GettyImages-1236479691-2048x1365.jpg
 
Newcastle’s then-co-owners Mehrdad Ghodoussi and Amanda Staveley flank Eddie Howe during his unveiling in November 2021 (Scott Heppell/AFP via Getty Images)

How significant is this for Manchester City?

The Premier League will argue that the amended APT rules in place, which were voted through 16-4 — City, Aston Villa, Nottingham Forest and Newcastle United voted against their introduction — in November, make this ruling redundant.

However, this is a huge win for City and a devastating blow for England’s top flight. A tribunal has called its APT rules “void and unenforceable”, as well as “unlawful”.

Both City and the Premier League claimed a victory after October’s initial ruling that found three aspects of the APTs were unlawful, most notably around the deliberate exclusion of shareholder loans, which is when a club borrows money from its ownership group, usually interest-free.

But now the full ruling is out, there is only one winner — the reigning Premier League champions.

What about the second legal case?

As it stands, the amended rules that were voted on in November are still in place and clubs need to comply with them.

At the time, City warned other clubs not to vote on the proposed changes until the tribunal released its full ruling, and they will at least feel vindicated by that stance given the previous version of the regulations have been deemed unlawful.

Strictly speaking, however, City’s win over the league does not impact the second case that was launched against the new rules last week.

The Premier League remains confident that the tribunal, which is being chaired by the same three-person panel that has just ruled in City’s favour, will determine the amended rules are legally sound.

City, though, will undoubtedly feel buoyant about their chances of getting the latest set of rules thrown out — and if that happens, the league will be plunged even deeper into crisis.

Does this have an impact on City’s 129 charges?

In short, no.

This case is entirely separate from the 100-plus charges the Premier League brought against its champions in February 2023 following a four-year investigation.

Those allegations include failing to provide accurate financial information and, among other charges, failing to provide accurate details for player and manager remuneration breaches of its financial regulations. They were also charged for not cooperating with the investigation.

City vehemently deny all of the charges, saying they have a “comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence”, and are confident they will be cleared of any wrongdoing.

The hearing began in September and concluded in December, meaning we could be weeks away from a ruling being delivered.

How might other clubs feel about this decision? Will some benefit?

The Premier League is now open to further legal challenges from clubs as they could claim compensation for deals agreed between December 2021 and November 2024 that had to be adjusted for not being considered fair market value.

And if a club chooses to initiate legal action against the Premier League, then considering the 2021-24 APT rules are “void and unenforceable”, you would expect them to have a good chance of receiving compensation.

Another element of this ruling that will likely irk clubs is the fact City’s legal costs will need to be covered by the Premier League, meaning the teams are ultimately paying for it.

Is there a wider-ranging impact on the Premier League?

Richard Masters, the Premier League’s chief executive, and Alison Brittain, the league’s chair, will no doubt have to answer difficult questions from clubs, especially if they are now going to be paying for City’s legal costs and further compensation claims.

If Premier League clubs believe Masters’ position is untenable — and it is not known whether that is a view commonly held across the league — then they have the powers to remove him from his position.

The league’s handbook spells out how clubs can oust Masters or any other director.

“The members may terminate the appointment of the chair or of any director by a resolution voted by a simple majority of members entitled to vote at a general meeting,” the clause reads.

For this to happen, 11 clubs would need to vote in favour of removing Masters.

GettyImages-2166634289-2048x1371.jpg
 
Richard Masters, the Premier League’s chief executive (Tom Dulat/Getty Images for Premier League)

Could City now push even further financially? Which deals were blocked?

As with other clubs who had a commercial deal blocked or adjusted between 2021-24, City could seek further legal recourse to claim compensation.

City had sponsorship deals with Etihad Airways, an Abu Dhabi-based airline, and First Abu Dhabi Bank, blocked under the APT rules in 2023.

This is what prompted them to launch their legal challenge against the APTs, which they deemed to be anti-competitive.

What did the Premier League say?

On Friday night, the Premier League released a statement in response to the arbitration tribunal’s ruling.

“The tribunal’s decision has found that the three narrow aspects of the old APT rules, previously found to be unlawful, cannot be separated from the rest of the previous rules as a matter of law,” it read. “The result, the tribunal has determined, is that the previous APT rules, as a whole, are unenforceable.

“However, the previous APT rules are no longer in place, as clubs voted new APT rules into force in November 2024. This decision expressly does not impact the valid operation of the new rules.

“The tribunal has made no findings as to the validity and effectiveness of the new rules. The tribunal states that whether its decision has any benefit to the club, therefore, depends on whether the new APT rules are found to be lawful as part of the second challenge issued by the club last month. The league continues to believe that the new APT rules are valid and enforceable and is pressing for an expeditious resolution of this matter.

“The new APT rules are in full force and clubs remain required to comply with all aspects of the system, including to submit shareholder loans to the Premier League for fair market value assessment.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

talk chelse forums

We get it, advertisements are annoying!
Talk Chelsea relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online because over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this website and help us by switching your ad blocker off.

KTBFFH
Thank You

Sure, let me in!
Enter