Newcastle United warned of 'costly' Premier League legal 'risk' in letter as Man City hit back

Manchester City have claimed the Premier League have 'rushed through' the consultation process on 'unlawful' changes to sponsorship rules as Newcastle United prepare to vote on the matter.

Shareholders are set to gather in London on Friday to have their say on proposed amendments to association party transaction (APT) regulations after both Manchester City and the Premier League claimed victory in their recent arbitration battle. The APT rules, which ensure all commercial deals with companies linked to a club's owners are independently assessed to establish they are of fair market value, must now integrate the assessment of shareholder loans; grant clubs access to a databank of commercial deals that the top-flight use in fair market valuations; and remove some of the amendments made to the regulations earlier this year.

Manchester City have written to Newcastle and all other 18 top-flight clubs to state that the proposed changes to these regulations remain 'unlawful'. Although Simon Cliff, Manchester City's general counsel, insisted Manchester City are 'strongly in favour of robust, effective and lawful regulations', he said it was 'essential' to have the tribunal's full verdict as 'one very possible outcome was that the tribunal will declare that all of the APT rules are void'.

READ MORE: Newcastle United get transfer green light as Liverpool's £15m forgotten man weighs up future

READ MORE: Newcastle United defender ruled out until 2025 after training ground blow as chance arises

"How can the clubs meaningfully discuss amendments to rules without knowing if those very rules even exist," he wrote. "By rushing through its consultation process and tabling the proposed amendments for a vote before the tribunal has issued its determination, the PL risks further costly legal proceedings, including potential claims for interim relief and damages."

The Premier League have drafted the proposed changes following consultation with the clubs and the assistance of commercial and competition law expert Daniel Jowell KC, who previously represented Mike Ashley in the former Newcastle owner's legal battle with the top-flight.

The Premier League 'reject in the strongest possible terms the repeated and baseless assertions' that the top-flight have 'acted in any way contrary to the league's obligations as a regulator or has misled clubs'. In a letter sent to Manchester City, before Cliff wrote to member clubs, the Premier League instead stressed that the top-flight had acted 'fairly, transparently and responsibly in circulating considered proposals for consultation in a prompt manner'.

"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," the league wrote.

"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 added that the fact Manchester City 'does not agree with the process does not provide a credible basis to impugn it'.