Manchester City appear to have penned a letter to Manchester United and other Premier League clubs expressing their concerns over proposed changes to financial rules ahead of next week's vote.

The club - who reputedly sent the letter to all other Premier League clubs and the Football Association as well - are said to claim that the suggested amendments to Associated Party Transaction regulations (APTs) are 'unlawful'.

Both Man City and the Premier League declared a win from a landmark commission ruling in October that recognised the need for APT governance but stated that aspects of the framework violated EU competition law. This has led to the Premier League revising its APT policies.

READ MORE: Roy Keane identifies Man City problem as 115 charges point made

READ MORE: Man City given major 115 charges update as Manchester United and Liverpool launch legal challenge

A letter apparently handed to the BBC reveals Simon Cliff - Manchester City’s most senior lawyer - claims that the reworked proposals still violate the commission's ruling. He also criticised the haste of the consultation process conducted by the Premier League, alleging that clubs would essentially be "voting blind".

The BBC relayed Cliff's remarks within the letter, which is said to have claimed: "It is important that a new regime is grounded in rules that are fair, considered and legal. Our strong desire is to avoid any future costly legal disputes on this issue and so it is critical that the Premier League gets it right this time round."

Responding to previous correspondence with Man City on Thursday, the Premier League stated in a letter that it "rejects in the strongest possible terms the repeated and baseless assertions" made by the club regarding the case, denying the accusation of having misled its members.

The Premier League robustly added: "To the contrary, the league is well aware of, and takes very seriously, its obligations to act fairly and with an open mind."

It reiterates the belief that it has "acted fairly, transparently and responsibly in circulating considered proposals for consultation in a prompt manner". In October, the commission ruled that loans from club owners, known as ‘shareholder loans’, should have been included in spending limits.

Moving forward, these loans will be counted within costs and subject to interest rates, marking a significant change from the existing rule. The Premier League is proposing that interest costs should not be backdated to loans agreed prior to the new rule changes being ratified.

Cliff contends that this approach should not be allowed, and that this was "one of the very things that was found to be illegal in the recent arbitration". He further argued that approving such a measure would "create market distortions" and be "not lawful".

Cliff also stated that Man City are "strongly in favour of robust, effective and lawful regulation", but insisted that more dialogue was "essential" since there is a disagreement on whether the commission deemed the whole of the current APT framework to be void.

Cliff added in the letter: "Common sense dictates that the Premier League should not rush into passing amendments - particularly ones which entail material legal risk - until [it] knows the outcome from the tribunal." The Football Association received the same correspondence that was distributed to clubs.

In a robust defence against Man City's complaints on Thursday, the Premier League asserted: "Throughout the consultation, the league has reflected upon all feedback provided by clubs, including from MCFC, and sought the opinion of leading counsel to consider the proposals.

"That MCFC does not agree with the proposed amendments, or with the timing of the process being undertaken, does not mean the consultation itself is deficient or that the league has failed to comply with its obligations as a regulator."

The Premier League, meanwhile, accused Man City of "a tendentious and inaccurate interpretation" of the recording of minutes from a meeting with clubs the previous month.

It said that just because Man City "does not agree with the process does not provide a credible basis to impugn it".

When addressing the potential for more legal disputes, the league rebuffed that "such threats are meritless, and advanced without any attempt to articulate a credible ground on which MCFC could seek to restrain the consultation process".