Man City

[Vegas Claret]

Man City win their first legal fight with Premier League

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/20 ... -reaction/

Manchester City have won their landmark legal battle with the Premier League over the associated-party transaction (APT) rules that govern commercial spending by state and multi-club ownerships.

The seismic verdict is viewed by clubs as a disaster for Premier League chief executive Richard Masters because it will change the direction of English football’s future financial governance.

It means the APT rules could, for example, make it easier for clubs to arrange lucrative sponsorship deals with companies closely associated with their owners. It may also become easier to buy and sell players between clubs who have the same owners.

Many see this case as significantly more consequential for the game than the separate 115-charge hearing against City, as the verdict has consequences for all of them.

Secret two-week hearing
Abu Dhabi-owned City launched an unprecedented arbitration claim of “discrimination” over rules governing market value on sponsors and transfers in February. A two-week arbitration hearing was heard in private in June, with some sources suggesting as many as 60 lawyers were seen in the room.

Telegraph Sport detailed a fortnight ago how a verdict was imminent and, in a signal that the ruling was at least partly City’s favour, the Premier League then shelved a proposal to amend certain APT rules.

City’s challenge was brought according to the league’s arbitration procedure, which does not contain any provision to publicly announce its findings.

Rules designed to ensure ‘fair market value’
APT rules were introduced in Dec 2021 shortly after the Newcastle United takeover and followed rules previously for ‘fair market value’ in respect of any ‘related-party’ transaction.

Proposals to update those rules were narrowly passed earlier this year after 12 of the 20 clubs voted in favour. Six clubs had voted against the changes and two abstained, meeting the threshold of two-thirds of those voting. The league argued that the amendments would “enhance the efficiency and accuracy of the system”.

There remains a major split between clubs over the rules, with sources telling Telegraph Sport on Monday that Everton, Nottingham Forest, Chelsea and Newcastle were celebrating City’s successful challenge.

City had argued they were being affected by a “tyranny of the majority” over APT rules and sought “damages for the losses which it has incurred as a result of the unlawfulness of the FMV [fair market value] rules”. The club is understood to have added that rival clubs are looking to “safeguard their own commercial advantages”.

According to page 135 of the Premier League rule book, the APT rules seek to ensure, “the long-term financial sustainability of clubs by extinguishing reliance on enhanced commercial revenues received from entities linked to the club’s ownership; and fairness amongst clubs, so that clubs are not able to derive an unfair advantage over domestic competitors by increasing revenues or reducing costs via arrangements with entities linked to a club’s ownership.”

[claretonthecoast1882]

I would be amazed if City don't end up beating the Premier League's over the 115 charges as well.

[Vegas Claret]

I would be amazed if City don't end up beating the Premier League's over the 115 charges as well.

same here

[bumba]

City will escape any punishment for the 115 charges and the game will never be the same again.
The premier league was great for a long time but now it doesn't belong to English fans

[Vegas Claret]

City will escape any punishment for the 115 charges and the game will never be the same again.
The premier league was great for a long time but now it doesn't belong to English fans

reading the article above it sounds like that's already happened. How long until Chelsea have a 500 million quid sponsorship deal with one of Boehly mates now ? Footy is finished

[IanMcL]

I foresee a sudden deal between the Prem and Man City, which will see no punishment in exchange for something towards equilibrium for the bigs clubs with the rest disconnected.

Perhaps it is time to lose those 6 to Europe and refuse to televise them.

[Winstonswhite]

So in a nutshell clubs can have unlimited funds because if it can’t, uk competition law is violated- is that correct? Therefore FFP is dead in the water, (if it ever was alive), and this sh!tshow of whole countries owning clubs will just get bigger and bigger each year.

What’s the point?

[gandhisflipflop]

Yeah but the bubble will burst and it’s unsustainable remember

[nonayclaret]

Will Notts F and Everton have grounds for appeal?

[Anonymous Claret]

It looks like City will escape without any serious punishment.

I am not fully aware of all the legislation etc by a long way but my understanding is that FFP/PSR was allegedly created to make it a far more even playing field for all clubs.

City, Newcastle and other clubs would argue it was set up to maintain the monopoly held by long established successful European clubs such as Real Madrid, Liverpool and Man Utd to prevent other teams challenging the old guard. The 3 clubs mentioned all had massive worldwide fan bases which meant teams like City and Newcastle would struggle to ever generate the same income on a global scale. I think that is unfair and I believe teams like City and Newcastle have a valid case.

The thing that annoys me about City is that rather than initially challenge the fairness of FFP they deliberately set out to cheat the system. For this they should be hammered but I doubt it will happen now.

If my simple understanding of what has happened is not accurate, please point it out because it is only something I have occasionally followed over the years.

[Darnhill Claret]

Don't think Everton and Nottingham Forest charges were related to sponsorship deals.

[bumba]

reading the article above it sounds like that's already happened. How long until Chelsea have a 500 million quid sponsorship deal with one of Boehly mates now ? Footy is finished

Exactly, don't forget Newcastle will have a whopping sponsorship now which will make me laugh non stop if they out do City for all the best players and start winning everything then City start whining.
I haven't liked the competitiveness of the premier league for years now but it's basically going to be the rich clubs and the rest making up the league.
English football was great through being competitive but that will now be gone. Let them leave to a pointless super league and create a better to watch league domestically

[ChorltonCharlie]

It looks like City will escape without any serious punishment.

I am not fully aware of all the legislation etc by a long way but my understanding is that FFP/PSR was allegedly created to make it a far more even playing field for all clubs.

City, Newcastle and other clubs would argue it was set up to maintain the monopoly held by long established successful European clubs such as Real Madrid, Liverpool and Man Utd to prevent other teams challenging the old guard. The 3 clubs mentioned all had massive worldwide fan bases which meant teams like City and Newcastle would struggle to ever generate the same income on a global scale. I think that is unfair and I believe teams like City and Newcastle have a valid case.

The thing that annoys me about City is that rather than initially challenge the fairness of FFP they deliberately set out to cheat the system. For this they should be hammered but I doubt it will happen now.

If my simple understanding of what has happened is not accurate, please point it out because it is only something I have occasionally followed over the years.

I think the governing bodies had their hearts in the right place when the idea of FFP/PSR came up. It was clear to most people though that it suited the bigger clubs, especially with the the amount of 'prize' money that was given out for qualification to tournaments/later rounds and high league table finishes. The rich get richer, but new money isn't allowed.

It's sad that the benefactors these days aren't local fans, and I don't think it's great for the game that you have clubs like PSG, Man City and Newcastle owned by oil states with dodgy human rights. Yet at the same time I don't like how the biggest clubs have been able to control the wealth of the game to their own means and I do take satisfaction from seeing a club like Man City irk the plastic fans of the traditional biggest clubs who think they have a right to win the top competitions year in, year out.

[FCBurnley]

He who has most money wins

[Jasper64]

I would be amazed if City don't end up beating the Premier League's over the 115 charges as well.

Hopefully they wont get off all 115 charges. But as some of the charges go back quite a few years, they probably will.
If there is any sort of punishment it will be just a slap on the wrist.
Can't see the Premier Leagues powers that be upsetting any of the "BIG" clubs. They will be more concerned about them joining a "European Super League", therefore decreasing worldwide TV companies financial interest in the Premier.
Why worry about doing whats right/legal when there's money to be made!

[Dyched]

Exactly, don't forget Newcastle will have a whopping sponsorship now which will make me laugh non stop if they out do City for all the best players and start winning everything then City start whining.
I haven't liked the competitiveness of the premier league for years now but it's basically going to be the rich clubs and the rest making up the league.
English football was great through being competitive but that will now be gone. Let them leave to a pointless super league and create a better to watch league domestically

The rich clubs sell what is the PL all over the world in return for huge sums that get filtered down to clubs like ours. We are now benefitting from it making us one of the biggest spenders in the Championship. Yes the PL isn’t competitive. But I’m sure there are plenty of clubs in the EFL that argue those leagues aren’t competitive either. We can’t really whinge about it because they’ve help grow our club.

[bumba]

The rich clubs sell what is the PL all over the world in return for huge sums that get filtered down to clubs like ours. We are now benefitting from it making us one of the biggest spenders in the Championship. Yes the PL isn’t competitive. But I’m sure there are plenty of clubs in the EFL that argue those leagues aren’t competitive either. We can’t really whinge about it because they’ve help grow our club.

Incorrect.
The premier league being created made those clubs a lot richer than they ever were, the league then got better for it but then rich foreign owners came in with more money than sense and spoilt the whole competitive edge that the league once had.
Would Manchester City be where they are now without the premier league? No chance. They wouldn't be owned by who they are if it wasn't for the premier league.
The league made these clubs, now the clubs wants to s**t all over the league because foreign owners want a super league for more money and games played abroad for more money and their people whilst the domestic fans aren't even thought about.

[Poulton-le-Claret]

Newcastle, Chelsea and Everton acting as witnesses for City, shock.

[bfcjg]

Stinks, the vast majority can forget about winning anything, football used to be better.

[Royboyclaret]

Stinks, the vast majority can forget about winning anything, football used to be better.

The "beautiful" game is finshed.

Reims, Hamburg, Eintracht Frankfurt, Napoli.....all on a level playing field.....all gone.

How grateful are we for the '60's and '70's.

[Goalposts]

So essentially if you choose to sponsor a team for a sum totally disproportionate to the objects perceived value. You are fully entitled to do so. Henceforth owners can invest to any levels that they now see fit through subsidiary partners.

Therefore through sponsorship.. there is no investment cap

[Dark Cloud]

It actually shows clearly what we've known for some time. The Premier League aren't actually in charge of their own league. Man City are.

[IanMcL]

English football was great through being competitive but that will now be gone. Let them leave to a pointless super league and create a better to watch league domestically

That's why the Prem was the chosen league, for world TV. Every team had a chance and achieved some notable victories.

The league has narrowed, over the years, since the local owners have disappeared. Soon it will be as you describe. Then it will be no different from other leagues. The 'Britishness', of the football, is already long gone.

[Rileybobs]

Just yesterday 10 men Forest nearly beat Chelsea, Villa drew against Man Utd and Brighton beat Spurs. Is the PL really less competitive than 30 years ago?

[Vegas Claret]

Just yesterday 10 men Forest nearly beat Chelsea, Villa drew against Man Utd and Brighton beat Spurs. Is the PL really less competitive than 30 years ago?

Forest have spent nearly 400 million since promotion, Brighton over 200 million just this summer - the problem isn't too big if you are in the PL but the pyramid has a huge problem

[Rileybobs]

Forest have spent nearly 400 million since promotion, Brighton over 200 million just this summer - the problem isn't too big if you are in the PL but the pyramid has a huge problem

I don’t really agree that there’s a huge problem with the pyramid, what specifically do you think the problem is?

[timshorts]

Why does anybody want to go back to the 1970's when man United and Liverpool basically went around and bought everybody's best players as they had more money.

It's no different to man city and Chelsea being able to do the same thing. But the clubs that had always previously been entitled don't like it. They want to preserve their monopoly from these upstarts as long as they can.

The issue, realistically, is that the only thing keeping the Premier league "great" is the degree of parity. Lose that and the whole thing starts coming apart (see Spain, Scotland). Greed in Spain has made the product boring. Hence the top clubs need to ensure that there are no more steps taken to distribute TV funds more disproportionately. If the likes of the glazers and their new minority shareholder get their way, they will cook their golden goose.

[RammyClaret61]

Manchester City bring Manchester City. They claim to have WON. But the tribunal only found in favour on 2 of their challenges against APR. Rejecting the rest. Yet this is their statement;

City's statement focused on the two areas where they won, as the club claimed the "Premier League was found to have abused its dominant position".
It said the club had "succeeded with its claim" and that "the APT rules were found to be unlawful".
City added that the tribunal found "both the original APT rules and the... amended... rules violate UK competition law... and the requirements of procedural fairness".
The Premier League champions said the rules were found to be "discriminatory... because they deliberately excluded shareholder loans".
And the club added "there was an unreasonable delay in the Premier League's fair market value assessment of two of the club's sponsorship transactions".

What a shame if we have a successful season, we will end up back in that god for shaken “league”

[what now !]

i take a different view on this, the fact Man City have challenged the APT rules and won will result in one of two things ,

1) the league will tighten its rules (if it can get enough votes) or

2) the rules will fall and we will end up with about 12 mega rich clubs ,

we all know the big 6 (man u, man city, Liverpool, Chelsea, arsenal and spurs) but there are another 6 that have vastly wealthy owners who can spend big , Villa , Newcastle, Wolves, Everton (if the take over goes through) Notts forest and west ham, Leicester and Brighton are just below ,

and that's in the prem, if you look at clubs with vastly wealthy owners and big plans there are several in the EFL, Birmingham and Stoke immediately spring to mind along with west brom, Leeds and Coventry

so if all of these clubs spend big in the next 5 years (look at the plans for Birmingham city and the new stadium) the they could get near the established clubs

you then have relatively wealthy owners ( hundreds of millions not billions) and there would be another 20 or so clubs , us included,

i think it will just signal a reset as it did when 'they' won the the league on the back of walkers money.

we need to get to the table and make sure we can try and survive in the prem. some people would say us coming down from the prem and have a wage bill double the one they have gives us an unfair advantage, which it probably does, so i dont think we can moan about it when put in that context.

i think once you start digging deeper into who benefits from this its not just the big 6 its any club with a wealthy owner who wants to put their own money in, after all PSR rules are to protect the club, do you honestly think the owners of say Newcastle are going to go bust and leave the club in peril , no not a chance. the rules as they are favour the big 6 but i think this will level the playing field at the top and then further down as well.

i get the PSR needs to be in for the EFL, reading and Bury et al, but most of the clubs these days do live within their means unless they have wealthy owners such as Wrexham , who would begrudge them the success they have had

just my thoughts of course and trying to look at it in a different context

[Vegas Claret]

Txiki Begiristain is leaving City at the end of the season, Pep out of contract. Could be a bit of turbulence at the Etihad

[Dassey]

I would suspect the prem and city will settle rather than wait for a verdict. It's costing millions in legal fees that the prem clubs have to pay between them. Not sure how it affects ex prem clubs like ours or the latest promoted ones. Some of the lawyers are reportedly earning 4k an hour.
I'd go for a large fine, that won't really affect city, and a large points deduction most of which may be suspended. So in effect somat like a 5 point deduction.
Prem would agree cos of the costs involved, and city cos if found guilty will be hammered by the prem, and they will then claim victimisation and another court hearing.
How has football got into this mess ?

[RammyClaret61]

How has football got into this mess ?

Because of “clubs” like Manchester City.

[what_no_pies]

Let's not pretend elite football wasn't already broken.

[what now !]

the clubs aren't impacted by the premier leagues costs , remember the premier league retain a sizeable chunk of the monies raised from TV revenue around the world ( in the 100's of millions) , i watched an expert on talk sport , the guy who used to work for city , he said that the legal costs so far across the legal action so far was around £50 million but that they had to defend their position when clubs bring action plus they have to defend their decisions when clubs appeal charges and sanctions, he said the Everton case was around £5million, they also knew that the costs would be high for the city charges, whilst that sounds a lot of money it isn't in the grand scheme of things and they are inevitable costs.

the secrecy around legal action, which all the clubs agreed to, means that there could well be actions we are unaware of , including by our club following the rulings against Everton, when the prem said there was nothing to see then charged them and the independent tribunal said we had a strong case for compensation. truth is though we dont know, but yeah its not a good look the clubs suing the league

[Vegas Claret]

Sounds like WE are still going after them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p87gXWRj90Y

[The Shire Claret]

Sounds like WE are still going after them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p87gXWRj90Y

Can I just ask what we are claiming for ?

I know we had a case against Everton but don’t fully understand why we would go after City ?

Might be obvious but I’m sure everyone has a claim if we can claim ?

[NewClaret]

Sounds like WE are still going after them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p87gXWRj90Y

Them being Everton.

Think this is just confirmation of what was in that recent article. Apparently a year to go!

[Vegas Claret]

Them being Everton.

Think this is just confirmation of what was in that recent article. Apparently a year to go!

them being city unless i misheard and I'm not sure I did

[NewClaret]

them being city unless i misheard and I'm not sure I did

They switch to discussing our case with Everton mate, describing it as much simpler as the cases being made against City and still taking an age to conclude.

[Roosterbooster]

Because of “clubs” like Manchester City.

I'd argue the mess football is in, is responsible for Man City becoming the club they are now

This was a long way down the track way before before City were bought out

[Vegas Claret]

They switch to discussing our case with Everton mate, describing it as much simpler as the cases being made against City and still taking an age to conclude.

listen from 5 minutes, they are talking about City, they reference Everton as an aside and immediately return to City and how it will be difficult to prove causation and will only proceed if City are punished on particular charges. He then doubles down on referencing Burnley directly to Man City.

Crazy how we hear the same thing differently !

[claretburns]

listen from 5 minutes, they are talking about City, they reference Everton as an aside and immediately return to City and how it will be difficult to prove causation and will only proceed if City are punished on particular charges. He then doubles down on referencing Burnley directly to Man City.

Crazy how we hear the same thing differently !

He is definitely comparing the Burnley case against Everton to other clubs against City.

[Vegas Claret]

He is definitely comparing the Burnley case against Everton to other clubs against City.

That's not what I hear at all and like he said, he later specifically links Burnley and City AFTER the Everton talk - that's undeniable. I will add though to back your and NC's thoughts I've never ever heard of us going after City at all. Time will tell.

[NewClaret]

listen from 5 minutes, they are talking about City, they reference Everton as an aside and immediately return to City and how it will be difficult to prove causation and will only proceed if City are punished on particular charges. He then doubles down on referencing Burnley directly to Man City.

Crazy how we hear the same thing differently !

What happens mate is at 6:40 the host draws a comparison between clubs claiming against City and us, Leeds, Leicester claiming against Everton, saying those were all dropped

The expert then corrects him saying Leeds & Leicester dropped out, but our claim is ongoing probably because only we could prove causation of losses.

He then says “so the clubs claiming against City will have to be able to do the same”… (prove loss and prove causation of losses)… then goes back to our case to say “but Burnley are one year in to their claim against Everton with a year to go in a far simpler case”.

He flip flops a bit between the two separate cases, but his general points are that a) not all clubs will have cases against City and b) even if they do, it takes an age to secure a verdict.

FWIW, I think we have a very strong case vs Everton. Expect it’ll settle.

[claretburns]

What happens mate is at 6:40 the host draws a comparison between clubs claiming against City and us, Leeds, Leicester claiming against Everton, saying those were all dropped

The expert then corrects him saying Leeds & Leicester dropped out, but our claim is ongoing probably because only we could prove causation of losses.

He then says “so the clubs claiming against City will have to be able to do the same”… (prove loss and prove causation of losses)… then goes back to our case to say “but Burnley are one year in to their claim against Everton with a year to go in a far simpler case”.

He flip flops a bit between the two separate cases, but his general points are that a) not all clubs will have cases against City and b) even if they do, it takes an age to secure a verdict.

FWIW, I think we have a very strong case vs Everton. Expect it’ll settle.

Just to clarify, isn't our case against Everton actually against the Premier League? My point in saying this is that didn't the Premier League confirm they looked at Everton's accounts and confirmed they had done no wrong, resulting in Leeds and Leicester dropping their cases, only for them to then punish Everton with points deductions a few months later?

[NewClaret]

Just to clarify, isn't our case against Everton actually against the Premier League? My point in saying this is that didn't the Premier League confirm they looked at Everton's accounts and confirmed they had done no wrong, resulting in Leeds and Leicester dropping their cases, only for them to then punish Everton with points deductions a few months later?

No, it’s against Everton. We did ask the premier league to appoint a commission to quickly investigate when it became clear they would be in breach but that wasn’t possible.

The premier league never said they’d approved Everton’s accounts, although that was part of Everton’s defence (that they’d been cooperating and running things past the premier league).

Just my view but I think they’ll settle as part of any takeover as a new owner will want some certainty on what that’s going to cost.

[Wile E Coyote]

sadly many of us realised a long while back that it was this way, problem arises when your gut tells us to love the game, the passions and rivalries, the media coverage, the traditions that we cherish. Ultimately though, we understand it is a game riddled with bent agents, betting companies,and exploitative foreign market forces. It often stinks unfortunately. so do we keep supporting the farce or turn a blind eye and keep quiet .

[Vegas Claret]

What happens mate is at 6:40 the host draws a comparison between clubs claiming against City and us, Leeds, Leicester claiming against Everton, saying those were all dropped

The expert then corrects him saying Leeds & Leicester dropped out, but our claim is ongoing probably because only we could prove causation of losses.

He then says “so the clubs claiming against City will have to be able to do the same”… (prove loss and prove causation of losses)… then goes back to our case to say “but Burnley are one year in to their claim against Everton with a year to go in a far simpler case”.

He flip flops a bit between the two separate cases, but his general points are that a) not all clubs will have cases against City and b) even if they do, it takes an age to secure a verdict.

FWIW, I think we have a very strong case vs Everton. Expect it’ll settle.

you were spot on, this is far clearer and goes into a little more depth about us and Everton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_nSSKzdWD8

[NewClaret]

you were spot on, this is far clearer and goes into a little more depth about us and Everton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_nSSKzdWD8

Cheers for that link Vegas, really useful.

I didn’t know about the ‘loss of a chance’ law which I think further strengthens the possibility we’ll be awarded compensation.

As the expert says, the ‘proving loss’ element will be very easy for us and I agree with his assessment that our claim will be in the region of £100m. This is detailed in a ‘schedule of loss’ and within that there will be some very strong, indisputable elements (like the loss of TV money) and then other more disputable parts (like reduced player valuations, cost of capital, interest, etc) which will be more subjective and therefore fiercely argued. There’s no doubt we’ll have kitchen sinked it. If I understand it correctly, the ‘loss of chance’ legislation will probably form a whole separate argument/claim altogether and be used as a secondary, additional claim to act as a fall back position if the main claim fails.

The causation part is the bit I’m less certain on. I don’t know whether our argument will be that the commission handed a 6 point penalty on the basis that represented fair punishment for the breach. In which case our argument will be Everton benefited to the tune of 6 points that they otherwise wouldn’t have if the breach hadn’t occurred. I think we’ll basically have a pretty open and shut case in that event and it’ll just be about arguing on the schedule of loss.

Or whether the punishment issued by the commission is irrelevant and we’ll have to prove the breaches caused our relegation. In which case we’ll likely have to prove that their signings over the relevant period caused our relegation. That will be harder but I remember looking this up and there were significant contributions from players (goals and assists) that will be easy to argue earned Everton >3 points difference in our points tally’s. I don’t think Lee Mooney will have to work too hard to create some analytical models that make a compelling case, anyway.

I think it’ll settle because Everton’s takeover is going through. It’s very difficult to value a business with a £100m (probably quite valid claim) unresolved. I think they’ll want to settle on an amount and make sure that is deducted from what Moshiri or whoever gets paid for the shares. That or they’ll assume an amount in the takeover structure and then hope to out perform it at tribunal.

[FCBurnley]

He who has most money wins !