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.
Some of the APT rules have been found to be illegal, so I guess most on the Untold Arsenal website will be delighted to know moving forward, with a bit of luck, Premier League clubs will be operating under legal rules.
For those interested in a summary of the material made public today, here is the link: https://www.mancity.com/meta/media/wzmfdwtn/partial-final-award-p-164-redacted.pdf
Based on my visits to Untold Arsenal, some of you may, or may not, wish to challenge your views by reading Martin Samuel’s opinion piece in the Times. This is behind a paywall, and the link I found is from the Bluemoon website, https://archive.ph/NndOh – page 940 on the thread entitled, “City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)”
Can anyone offer an explanation for how a loan from a shareholder wasn’t deemed as related party financing under the Premier Leagues APT rules?
Historically, some football clubs have encountered financial difficulties after owners (shareholders) loaded debt onto the club. I see Arsenal’s shareholders’ loans are one of the highest in the Premier League. Is this judgement good news for Arsenal, the football club, but bad news for Arsenal#s shareholders? There must have been financial reasons for the shareholders loaning funds, rather than simply increasing equity in Arsenal. Will Arsenal’s shareholders increase equity in the club or will Arsenal’s ability to spend in the transfer windows be curtailed to finance the shareholder debt?
Let’s see how it all plays out!
and the times having an article say this will be bad for Arsenal.
https://archive.is/ouVst
@Tony
Any chance of posting my earlier submission?
For those interested in reading the material at source, instead of someone’s opinion of the material here is the link, https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2024/10/07/898efab9-9f51-449b-a393-1a0c05b48824/Manchester-City-and-Premier-League-Partial-Final-Award-071024.pdf
If you can’t be bothered to wade through it all, go to page 164 for the highlights.
I think MCFC will be pretty happy if the 115 case goes as badly as this did!
What are Arsenal’s shareholders going to do?
Let’s see what happens!
Tim
“What are Arsenal’s shareholders going to do?”
I suppose they could threaten everyone and anyone that wont let them do everything they want to do with bankruptcy, as per Man City?
I mean, that’s how it works isn’t
@ Nitram
Really? Is that a serious comment?
As far as I am aware MCFC are defending their position within the framework of the regulations and law of the land. Based on the panel’s judgement it seems there was some merit to MCFC’s actions.
I don’t think Arsenal’s billionaire owner is at risk of bankruptcy, but I’m pretty sure there is some unhappiness about either converting that loan to equity, or charging Arsenal FMV rates on that loan.
As I stated earlier, “Let’s see how it plays out.”.
Tim
Yep.
Why. What is inaccurate about it?
@Nitram
With regard to this case I’d say, “Everything”.
This is entertaining.
Tim.
” I don’t think arsenal’s billionaire owner is at risk of bankruptcy….”
That’s a snarky attempt to compare the few billions of Arsenal’s owner to the wealth of a Mideast petro state. Absolute comedy gold! Keep it coming.
@goonersince72
Hi.
I didn’t think it was much of a show personally, but if your enjoying it that’s great.
It’s funny how quickly a thought can be misconstrued; as you say, “absolute comedy gold”!
Have you read any of the links in the comments I posted? Why not debate some of the issues raised from the APT hearing or Martin Samuel’s comments on the same?
@Tim
Thanks for the link. Martin Samuel’s always seems to have a pretty level headed view and he seems to have summed up the potential problems the Premier League now have with this new ruling by the courts?
So now it seems if City are cleared then the next option is for the opposing clubs to resign and reform a new league, as easy as that?
It would appear five or six clubs at least won’t be doing that so what would the new TV rights look like minus those clubs?
Surely it would be nothing like the amount attached to the current deal and given that stark reality quite fanciful to think clubs like Palace, Brighton, Fulham etc would be happy to walk away from it?
Nevermind what the players would think if the isolated clubs have their own super rich league? If current players are happy to go to the Saudi Pro League right now then you would think this would be even more inviting?
@Rob25
With regard to the case currently being heard between the Premier League and MCFC it would, in my opinion, take a brave man, or woman, to predict the impending outcome and the outcome of the probable subsequent legal challenge.
It seems to be an increasingly popular topic of conversation, especially on Untold, that unless MCFC are severely punished, irrespective of whether the IC finds them guilty of fraudulent accounting, and sent to the lower leagues for a number of years, that the rest of the teams in the Premier League should form a new league that expressly excludes MCFC.
Will the findings of the IC provide the Premier League with such an escape route, and if it does would it hold up on appeal? If, as you suggest, the most serious charges against MCFC are not proven, and MCFC’s particpation in the Premier League continues unhindered what are those owners who’ve invested so much time and effort against MCFC going to do?
So, according to some, if MCFC remain in the Premier League, we get back to the idea that the other teams will leave the Premier League, and set up a new league expressly excluding MCFC. To my mind this sseems fanciful for a number of reasons, unless the American owners have different long term plan for English and European football, but I risk going off on a tangent if I follow that thought.
The idea that nineteen other Premier League clubs are going to leave and set up a new league seems fanciful for the following reasons: firstly, as was seen in the recent APT case, on some matters MCFC have some support, so it perfectly possible some of those clubs won’t leave; secondly, I can’t imagine that the broadcasters run their business in as haphazard a manner as the Premier League, so those clubs wanting to leave probably won’t be able to until the current broadcast contract ends; the third, and possibly most imprtant reason, I don’t think it will happen is why would Arsenal, Liverpool, and Man United want to go play in what would effectively become the new Championship.
If clubs like Arsenal, Liverpool and Man Utd are going to set up a new league can they financially compete against the ‘nation-state’ clubs and their allies – possibly Aston Villa, Nottingham Forest, and Chelsea(?) ?
Traditionalist will argue that the heritage of Arsenal, Liverpool and Manchester United and their huge fanbase will ensure the new league’s success. They may be right. If MCFC and Newcastle work togetther and provide financing that dwarfs any bradcasting finances the new league can attract then I’d be prepared to put money on the new league gradully withering on the vine.
There is no doubt in my mind that everyone in the Premier League should be greatful that’s where they are. Imagine if Arsenal, Liverpool or Man United had had the misfortune of being in the Scottish Premier League or the Erediivise.