APT. These three small letters have had a huge impact on Newcastle United since the sponsorship rules were introduced following the club's takeover.

Having since seen a tribunal panel rule that the original regulations were 'void and unenforceable', Darren Eales was asked not only if the club had any intention of disputing the Premier League's handling of previous commercial deals but, also, about how advantageous it would be if Manchester City succeeded in challenging the current regulations. Rather than opt for a simple 'no comment', the Newcastle United CEO's response was rather revealing.

"It's very fluid at the moment," Eales told reporters. "So, from that perspective, I think we're going to have to see over the next couple of months how things play out, but it's obviously something that we're watching carefully."

READ MORE: Newcastle United document reveals Amanda Staveley's last act in St James' Park boardroom

READ MORE: Newcastle United set Alexander Isak contract date as Arsenal get brutal new 'hands off' message

Understandably so. After all, Manchester City's latest legal dispute could have massive consequences for Newcastle if the same tribunal panel come to the same conclusion about the updated rules, which were introduced back in November.

It is clear how Newcastle feel on the matter. Although Newcastle have stopped short of launching their own legal fight, or publicly blasting the actual framework of the APT rules, the black-and-whites have repeatedly stood alongside Manchester City in voting against the regulations and proposed amendments.

Manchester City even built a successful arbitration case with the help of witnesses and a written submission from Newcastle while the takeover proved a crucial reference point in the champions' argument after the Citizens suggested that the evidence on which the Premier League relied on to introduce APTs included 'fear-mongering' about the buy-out.

Newcastle, all the while, have kept their powder dry. That stance has not gone unnoticed by Yasin Patel, who is a leading sports barrister at Church Court Chambers.

"Ultimately, it's just common sense not to put all your cards down," he explained to ChronicleLive. "I don't think it's the end of the chapter here."

There is certainly a lot of intrigue in legal circles. Stevie Loughrey, a partner at Onside Law, who specialises in commercial litigation and arbitration, previously told ChronicleLive that if Newcastle submitted deals for assessment and significant reductions were applied because the Premier League did not consider them to be of fair market value, the Magpies would have a 'pretty strong claim for compensation'.

That is a striking prospect considering Newcastle's commercial revenues have nonetheless soared from £26.5m in 2022 to £83.6m in 2024. However, this figure still pales in comparison to the established order.

Liverpool, for instance, made a whopping £308m, which was nearly as much as Newcastle's total revenue (£320.3m). The league leaders, of course, were one of 18 sides who voted through APT rules in the first place following the takeover, which left former owner Amanda Staveley furious 'because we had so little revenue anyway'.

Staveley suggested there was a 'fear' amongst clubs that Newcastle would have an 'unfair advantage', but Patel has argued the result of the APTs has now flipped that notion on its head.

"There's a great deal of money there to push forward the agenda for Newcastle United," he said. "We have seen what's happened with Manchester City and how everything has developed. Similarly, when the Newcastle takeover happened, the business plan must have highlighted the development of the club with commercial deals.

"The next stage will be developing all of that and saying, 'The APTs have stopped us and potentially kept the status quo of some of the other clubs who don't want the changes coming in because they are in a position whereby, ultimately, they tend to benefit from it'.

"If one was to look at the case of Manchester United, for example, and where they are at, some people might claim, 'Their financial situation is not very good'. That's not down to how much they make commercially - they make a huge amount commercially.

"Newcastle United could argue, 'It's different in our situation because you're stopping us making a lot of money because these rules have been enforced post-takeover, which stop clubs like ourselves being able to develop in the way that they should when new owners come in'."

The arrival of these owners was the 'catalyst for the consultation process' leading up to APTs being introduced in the words of the tribunal panel. The tribunal even heard that an unnamed executive contacted the Premier League on behalf of his club and 10 others to request that notice be given of a vote to introduce a short-term ban on related-party transactions just five days after the takeover in 2021.

When cross-examined by Manchester City's legal team over two-and-a-half years later, this senior figure openly admitted that the Newcastle buy-out 'heightened' concerns and 'encouraged the clubs to seek action'. The result? A set of rules unique to football in Patel's eyes.

"If you look at the arts world, if someone thinks a Picasso is worth so much but someone else comes along and pays four times' the value, who is out there to say, 'Well, actually, it's not worth that'," he added. "They paid that and that's what they think the value is.

"If you look at the everyday world, a lot of that happens. The only time we have any kind of protection of prices is to protect the consumer. That's when it happens. In this case, the consumers are the fans."