A new legal row could erupt between Manchester City and the Premier League if amendments to top-flight sponsorship rules are voted through today.
City warned last week against rushing through changes to rules on associated party transactions (APTs) after they challenged them on competition law grounds.
It was announced last month that an arbitration panel found aspects of the rules to be unlawful, and City argue that to make amendments ahead of further guidance being given by the panel leaves the rules open to further challenges.
However, the Premier League’s bosses are understood to be confident the changes are lawful after more than a month of consultation, and crucially believe the amendments will be accepted by a majority of clubs.
Club statement
— Manchester City (@ManCity) October 7, 2024
The PA news agency understands Wolves are set to support the league at Friday’s shareholders meeting in central London.
That is contrary to reports earlier this week that they were one of six clubs who could back City and therefore prevent the league reaching a 14-club majority in Friday’s key vote.
Sources close to the Black Country club were surprised to be listed as a potential backer of City, given they supported the Premier League when the four-in-a-row champions first launched its legal challenge against the APT rules earlier this year.
Everton are also reported to be preparing to vote with the Premier League. Sources close to the Merseyside club did not give PA a clear indication of which way they would vote but did say the club were supportive of anything which protects the integrity of the league.
City definitely have the public support of Aston Villa to vote for a postponement and PA understands Nottingham Forest will also join them.
Wolves are understood to be supporting the Premier League (Bradley Collyer/PA)
Villa cited the risk of further legal costs to the league as one of their reasons for supporting a delay, with the league having told clubs in September that over £45m was spent on upholding its rules last season.
Both the Premier League and City are understood to have been contacting clubs this week to find out which way they intend to vote.
Chelsea, Leicester and Newcastle could also support City but that would still leave the champions falling just short of a big enough bloc to halt the Premier League’s plans.
The Times reported earlier this year that City’s original legal submission against the APT rules referenced the league’s voting structure, calling it a “tyranny of the majority”.
The Premier League has consulted its clubs for more than a month on APT rule changes since an arbitration tribunal found aspects of them unlawful following City’s challenge.
Chelsea could be one of the clubs to back Manchester City (Mike Egerton/PA)
The league vowed to move “quickly and effectively” to remedy the unlawful elements but City accused the Premier League of “misleading” clubs in its interpretation of the tribunal findings and said all the rules should be considered “void”.
The APT rules assess whether commercial deals done between clubs and entities linked to their ownership represent fair market value (FMV).
The tribunal found it was unlawful to exclude shareholder loans from the rules, so these will now be added in if the amendments are passed.
The effective rate of interest charged on existing and future shareholder loans will be assessed for FMV, which would vary from club to club depending on factors such as a club’s credit score.
Clubs are set to be given a grace period of 50 days to convert such loans to equity if they wish.
Other amendments will be made to roll back changes to the APTs introduced in February. One involves replacing “would” with “could” in the wording of what constitutes FMV within the rules, which should have the effect of providing more wriggle room to clubs.
Clubs are also set to be given access to the databank used by the Premier League to determine FMV before a decision is made, rather than afterwards, if the amendments are approved.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here