By Tony Attwood
Starting with my eternal caveat that I am not a lawyer (although I have appeared in court more times than I want to recall, although never on anything like the ManC case – but I did once reduce the whole court to uncontrolled laughter – my best claim to fame), there is the usual point at the end of just such a case in which a business takes on a business, that everyone says they have won and the other lot have lost.
What then happens is we hold our collective breath and wait to find out what actions result from the ruling – and that eventually tells us just who has won.
The bit we can be sure about is that ManC lost the majority of the points that it fought on, but it won two points. The question then is, are these two points the key issues that ManC wanted to win on, or did they in fact lose the really big points?
Certainly, it is true, as the League said, that ManC “brought a wholesale challenge” to the APT rules and were “unsuccessful in the majority” of the challenge. That’s an easy one as it is a numbers game – you bring 10 charges and win a couple of them, you can claim victory, even if you lost the majority. The question is, did you win the really big points?
It is a bit like a divorce where the husband and wife fight over everything. One wins the house and the other gets to keep the dog and claims the house was never an issue. Both claim victory which is true – up to a point.
It seems the tribunal deemed the APT rules to be necessary and that if prices above fair market value were paid then “competition will be distorted as the club would be benefiting from a subsidy”.
The League also said the tribunal had “rejected Manchester City’s argument that the object of the APT rules was to discriminate against clubs with ownership from the Gulf region”.
Here the key issue is this: are the Associated Party Transaction rules which effectively impose restrictions on two clubs owned by the same group, reasonable? The League said they were needed, and ManC said they breached free trade rules. As far as I can see (and if you can quote me exact text to say otherwise I will of course withdraw) those rules are legal. Transfers between clubs owned by the same organisation or two very closely related bodies, need to be valued by an independent body to assess the true value of the player.
ManC also argued that there were inconsistencies in the approach the League took to different types of club. The tribunal said that charge was unfounded, so ManC lost there. The League can treat transactions involving linked clubs (ie clubs with in whole or part similar ownership) in a different way from transactions between to separate clubs (such as Tottenham Hotspur and Brechin City), and in different ways depending on the type and depth of the linkage.
It appears that the League found in ManC’s favour in terms of Manchester C abusing its dominant financial position in the League – which is to say the tribunal said ManC had not done so. ManC are also claiming that the tribunal found that APT rules were unlawful.
That I am not quite clear about – unless they mean that because the rule about Associated Party Transactions was pushed through without giving ManC a full chance to make its case, that was improper procedure and so has to be voted on again. We shall see on that one.
Anyway that’s how I am reading this on the information so far released. Transfers between clubs that have linked ownership have to be at market values, and cannot be specially arranged at a discount. This means that if a player is valued at a very high price by the market, ManC must be seen to pay that high price, and cannot get the player at a discount, because he comes from a “mate”, or the player was injured four yeas ago, or has red hair.
Of course ManC can always afford to pay anything but that will then bring them into conflict with the rules about only spending a certain amount of money on players, rather than saying one has got a sponsorship deal worth £1bn from a tractor company also owned by the owners of ManC, and using that to pay for the transfer.
That again looks like a league win to me.
But it is important to acknowledge in writing this, I am expanding on the ruling to see what it implies. We may learn more from a more informed source shortly. But for the moment on the key point I think ManC lost. Thus the League can change its wording slightly, and stop linked club transfers at anything but the actual value of the player.
As I said earlier, by the tone of the media headlines you can see how obvious it is that they want City to win. Why would that be I wonder?
‘Snouts in trough’ and ‘gravy train’ spring to mind. SKY will be wetting themselves.
Why would the media want a situation where Man City can just do as they like with unlimited wealth?
Part of the reason the same media claim the PL as the ‘best in the World’ is it’s competitive nature, yet the same media seem lock stock and barrel behind a club that wants to nullify any semblance of competition.
I don’t get it.
Jeez, Man City fans are in melt down, especially about Man Utd.
Cartel this, cartel that.
Honestly, the abhorrent nature of unearned wealth in all it’s glory.
and the times having an article say this will be bad for Arsenal.
https://archive.is/ouVst