Advertisement

National media react to Man City's Premier League legal 'success' after rule withdrawal

A general view of a corner flag at Manchester City's Etihad Stadium
-Credit: (Image: Carl Recine/Getty Images)


Manchester City appeared to have landed a victory over the Premier League, separate from their 115 charges over alleged financial breaches over Associated Party Transaction rules.

The Times reported on Thursday that a members' vote on amendments to APT regulation was dropped from a scheduled meeting, which has since led to suggestions the champions have been successful in their attempt to argue the regulations are unlawful.

The rules in question surround 'fair market value' assessments in relation to such transactions. City have fought the rules on the basis that they are anti-competitive and 'deliberately intended to stifle the commercial freedoms of particular clubs in particular circumstances and thus to restrict economic competition'.

An example of commercial revenue brought in from companies with connections to the club is City's front-of-shirt sponsorship deal with Etihad, who have connections to the club's owners. Here, football.london brings you the reaction from the national media.

'The problem here is it’s a confidential case'

Matt Lawton of The Times said: "The Times understands the 20 Premier League clubs were due to vote on an amendment to rules specific to the databank at the shareholders’ meeting in central London on Thursday. The clubs were to be asked to vote on restricting access to the databank. The vote would have meant regulatory commissions and arbitration panels could not give access to individual clubs to use the databank to acquire commercial information about comparable deals secured in the Premier League.

"However, the planned vote on the amendment was removed from the agenda late on Wednesday night.

READ MORE: Arsenal dressing room stance on Man City frustrations as 'leaked' messages reveals true feelings

READ MORE: New Declan Rice suspension risk explained as Arsenal face three-game worry ahead of Liverpool

"The significance of that development was being disputed, with sources close to Manchester City and the Premier League conflicted not only on that specific point but who they believe has gained the upper hand in the wider APT case.

“The problem here is it’s a confidential case, but I’m sure if the judgment ever comes out both sets of lawyers will claim they won,” said one insider with knowledge of the process.

"But The Times understands the “last-minute” withdrawal is an indication that a City legal team, led by Lord Pannick KC, has enjoyed some success in convincing an independent panel that the rules on sponsorship deals are unlawful and need to be changed.

'The decision was viewed as a precautionary measure'

Ben Rumsby and Jeremy Wilson of The Telegraph said: "Clubs were not told during Thursday’s meeting whether there had been a verdict on the APT row, with both City and the Premier League bound by confidentiality over the outcome unless they both agree otherwise.

"But one source told Telegraph Sport the league indicated that such a verdict was imminent by linking the case with the shelving of an amendment to those regulations surrounding who had access to a databank to which clubs submit commercial contracts.

"The decision was viewed as a precautionary measure in case City secured even a partial victory in their legal battle that would render any such rule change unlawful.

"However, another source said the amendment had been shelved following feedback from clubs on a number of proposed changes, which require a two-thirds majority to pass.

"The source added that the decision should not be interpreted as an indication City had scored a decisive win in their legal battle.

"Other sources have viewed the non-vote on the APT rules as an indication that City have secured a victory on some part of the regulations."

'They're not saying they want to be ahead of the competition'

Kieran Maguire of Sky Sports said: "Manchester City feel they have historically been disadvantaged - as have many clubs. We've had spectacular success in the Premier League, which has allowed the creation of global brands such as Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea and so on.

"If Manchester City want to be competitive with those clubs, they've had to go through the commercial route and with owners' assistance, as opposed to building a global fanbase first and maintaining it.

"City also feel they have a disadvantage being in Manchester. They will point out that ticket prices at the Etihad are much cheaper than at the London clubs, because London is a bigger tourist market and has a price premium, and therefore being able to compete on the commercial side of things gives them an opportunity to be at the top table, where they want to be.

"They're not saying they want to be ahead of the competition but on a par with them as otherwise you end up with a duopoly. We have now arguably a Big Seven, given the Newcastle takeover."

'They will hear the arguments from both sides'

Geraint Hughes of Sky Sports said: "Arbitration, in its simplest form, can be used in many ways between companies, individuals and employers. In this case, it's over a dispute about rules and it's a way of avoiding court.

"It could well end up in court, but essentially what happens is Manchester City are the claimant and the Premier League are the responder, and this arbitration panel will have somebody who effectively acts as a judge.

"It doesn't happen in a courtroom. It can happen in any room anywhere in the country. But the hearing, however long it lasts, effectively becomes a courtroom.

"They will hear the arguments from both sides. Manchester City and the Premier League will outline their positions, they'll hear evidence from witnesses that are brought by both parties. Either written or oral - that's determined by the arbitration panel.

"It is independent and their decision is called an award. It's legally binding but arbitration is a way of keeping things out of court. If it's not satisfactory for either side, then going to court is an option.

"In terms of when an award will be made, then that is literally how long is a piece of string. It could be quick or it could be very long."