The view that Untold has been putting forward concerning Manchester City (conveniently known these days by us, if by no one else, as ManC) is that they will go on and on and on bringing legal cases against the Premier League, while fighting any case the Premier League brings against them. In our view, and of course there is only circumstantial evidence to support this view, the aim is to force the Premier League to give in, as the club owners get frustrated at case after case, and the cost of each case.
Money is of course being diverted from ground improvements, squad improvements, social and community work, transfers and everything else, to pay the legal fees. With ManC backed by the oil revenue of one of the richest countries, and with that country having no concept of democracy or equal rights, they can go on doing this forever.
As I have regularly admitted we have no evidence for this beyond the fact that, as SportsPro points out, Manchester City have launched a fresh legal challenge against the Premier League over its rules governing commercial deals linked to a club’s owners.
In one of the latest bouts of litigation, the PA news agency reports that ManC are “contesting amendments made to the associated party transaction rules voted through by top-flight clubs last November, changes which were themselves forced on the League by an earlier legal challenge by the reigning champions.”
Now what the PA Agency recognises but many of the newspapers seem extremely reluctant to point out, “there are now three live legal cases between City and the Premier League – one covering more than 100 charges against City for alleged breaches of the league’s financial rules … the initial APT challenge and now the new challenge.”
The big point at the moment seems to be that having won the case three months ago which ruled that some aspects of the APT rules were unlawful, they are now saying that this ruling makes all the APT regulations void, and so ManC can go on and spend what it likes.
The Premier League has argued that the ruling only required some adjustments to the rules. These were put to the vote and in November 16 of the PL clubs (excluding of course the ManCian group) approved it.
Now the weird and indeed telling thing about the latest case is that the panel which looked at ManC’s arguments last time, is still looking at them and hasn’t reached a decision yet. So the new legal case is pointless, since ManC may already have won.
But the fact that ManC is running this new case is totally compatible with the view that their entire process is based on taking the rest of the League towards bankruptcy so that they will ultimately kowtow to the City Group and effectively become their vassals.
Assessing shareholder loans for fair market value was incorporated into the APT rules in November, but the rules do not apply retrospectively. It is understood the fact they are not retrospective forms a key part of City’s new challenge. But what is also interesting here is that in two days time the club shareholders are due to meet in London.
The shareholders of the clubs outside the ManC group which includes Aston Villa, Newcastle United and Nottingham F, also know that they are facing legal action from the Professional Footballers’ Association threatened legal action against the Premier League over the suggestion that the League will introduce salary caps.
The new proposals would limit club spending to five times the amount paid out to the League’s bottom club.
A prime argument of the PFA is that the Premier League owners have failed to consult the union properly. The League clubs’ argument, although not exactly expressed this way is that consultation of any kind will be irrelevant if the City Group win their claim, since they will drive the proverbial coach and horses through all current restrictions.
The union argues that if it does not today 11 February, receive notice from the League that it will consult with clubs it will commence legal proceedings against the League. Involved in the case is Nick De Marco who won Leicester case against the Premier League arguing that the League could not take into account Leicester’s earnings in the Championship when judging its FFP position.
Of course it is possible that each and every case has its merits and needs to be settled in court, but it is also just possible that there is an attempt to sink the Premier League under a welter of cases so that a new League is formed under rules that ManC like.
Untold has also argued in the past that there is another way out for the the League clubs opposed to the ManC “we can spend what we like” approach, and that is for the 16 outside the cartel to resign en masse and form their own new League.
