APT Rules - Declared Void

[Jammy89]

Manchester City have claimed a legal victory over the Premier League in a long-running battle over financial rules ? with conflicting interpretations of its significance.

In a case brought by City, an independent panel has determined that Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules are void and unenforceable.

It is believed this ruling could be seismic on a number of levels and open the door for legal action, however the Premier League insists that would hinge on the panel's findings over the new APT rules.

What are the Associated Party Transaction rules?
The Premier League's rules require any club, its players, manager or any 'senior official' to run dealings with 'associated parties' past them.
'Associated parties' are companies or people who have a significant interest in the relevant club, financially or otherwise.
The Premier League's board then reviews each transaction to assess whether it believes they represent a fair market value.
The league says the rule helps to build 'fairness' across the division by ending a 'reliance on enhanced commercial revenues linked to the club's ownership'.
City this month launched a fresh challenge against the amended rules, as voted in by a majority of Premier League clubs in November, and are confident the tribunal will rule in their favour.

Man City latest news, rumours and transfer gossip
Fixtures | Live Premier League table
Got Sky? Watch Man City games LIVE on your phone 📱
Not got Sky? Get Sky Sports or stream with no contract on NOW📺
The Premier League insists this judgement from the panel does not impact the rules in their current form and clubs are expected to continue following them as they await a verdict.

"The tribunal's decision has found that the three narrow aspects of the old APT rules, previously found to be unlawful, cannot be separated from the rest of the previous rules as a matter of law," the Premier League said in a statement.

"The result, the tribunal has determined, is that the previous APT rules, as a whole, are unenforceable.

"However, the previous APT rules are no longer in place, as clubs voted new APT rules into force in November 2024. This decision expressly does not impact the valid operation of the new rules.

"The tribunal has made no findings as to the validity and effectiveness of the new rules. The tribunal states that whether its decision has any benefit to the club, therefore, depends on whether the new APT rules are found to be lawful as part of the second challenge issued by the club last month.

"The league continues to believe that the new APT rules are valid and enforceable and is pressing for an expeditious resolution of this matter."

APT rules were first introduced in December 2021 after the Saudi takeover of Newcastle to ensure commercial deals with companies linked to clubs' ownership were at a fair market value.

They also targeted the revenue that could be raised by Abu Dhabi-backed City from state entities through sponsorship.

City brought the legal challenge after being blocked by the Premier League from advancing new, more lucrative deals with Etihad Airways and First Abu Dhabi Bank. The Premier League champions are owned by UAE vice-president Sheikh Mansour.

This new arbitration panel ruling finding fault with the Premier League's ability as a regulator to create rules follows an initial verdict in October.

The league responded to that by rewriting three areas of the rules found to be illegal and the revisions were passed by a majority of clubs in November.

Most notably, the fair market value of shareholder loans now has to be factored into assessments about the profit and sustainability of clubs which determine how legitimate income is.

The league also ensured clubs would have earlier access to a databank with comparable sponsorship values to assess their deals against.

Premier League chief executive Richard Masters believes those new rules replaced the ones now found to be void by the tribunal - attempting to underplay the impact of this ruling.

But City are also challenging the legality of the new rules that are designed to prevent the wealthiest clubs from inflating the value of deals to spend more on players and comply with Profit and Sustainability rules (PSR).

Clubs can only lose ?105m over three years under PSR, which will remain in place into next season amid legal challenges blocking new regulations.

City are hoping a panel rules for the third time in their favour, arguing that the Premier League amended rules in November that it has now been found should never have been in place.

This is all before the verdict is delivered on a far bigger and more consequential case, with a verdict due imminently into more than 100 alleged breaches of financial rules stretching back to 2009.
-------------------

Means lots of stuff but one of which is we can sue for lost earnings in that period.

It also means the current rules will probably fail in court as you can't have new rules based off the old rules that are now deemed void.

Prem is trying to put a positive spin on it but they are ****ed at the minute.

Hopefully now so much clubs have realised how it hurts them, the prem won't be able to strong arm rules through that are designed to **** us.

[Zippity]

Much as it's great that the ruling has been made, I'm not holding my breath over the new rules being found similarly unlawful.

The damage has been done. The rules were brought in entirely to stop us progressing. Eddie Howe hasn't been able to improve the first team directly for 3 windows and it's almost a fucking miracle that he's achieved what he has despite this.

[Jammy89]

Much as it's great that the ruling has been made, I'm not holding my breath over the new rules being found similarly unlawful.

The damage has been done. The rules were brought in entirely to stop us progressing. Eddie Howe hasn't been able to improve the first team directly for 3 windows and it's almost a fucking miracle that he's achieved what he has despite this.

Oh I agree on the damage being done but we've now got a window in which we could push sponsorship deals - I really believe that is why we haven't got a stadium sponsor as the major one, we've been holding out for this ruling to see what happens.

[Ragatino]

Much as it's great that the ruling has been made, I'm not holding my breath over the new rules being found similarly unlawful.

The damage has been done. The rules were brought in entirely to stop us progressing. Eddie Howe hasn't been able to improve the first team directly for 3 windows and it's almost a fucking miracle that he's achieved what he has despite this.

Ez now Zipatronico!

I understand the scepticism, however, in Legal terms what Masters and his crooked band of ****sters have done is call 'Blue Penning'.

Blue penning is when amendments are made to a legal document as the basis of the document is deemed to be lawful and just need 5-10% tweeks.

With The Mail and The Times are now reporting that challenge has proven successful after an independent tribunal deemed them "void and unenforceable" the 'Blue Pen' is basically glitter on a turd.

It's not lawful in it's entirety.

As the ruling was on the old version of APT and not the amended mroe recent 16/4 voted version which stays in place for the rest of the season in accordance with "Premier League chief executive Richard Masters is said to have sent a letter to the league's clubs regarding the ruling on Friday evening."

Hence why City have launched a 2nd APT challenge which will be reviewed by the same panel of 3 who can back with this damning "void and unenforceable" verdict.

So I have no doubt that the findings will be precisely the same. "void and unenforceable"

Master and his crooks are just desperately grasping at straws to prolong City and Newcastle's ability to operate normal business practices.

You have to remember the 2 business models at play in the Prem.

1 - Ours, City etc - The owners very the club as a trophy asset. It's a vehicle, as Ashley used it to heighten brand awareness.
2 - US model - Money laundry and profit making machine with a view to moving the clubs over the States for matches in the near future.

1 is a model that just needs to break even and the value of the club for Middle East investors is the state of prestigious UK business added to their portfolio

2 is a model that seeks to suck out the brand identity from it's origins and bleed it dry on a global scale. Under this model the Prem teams will become the Harlem Globe Trotters. A bunch of pantomime footballers playing to crowds 6 time zones away so the owners can sell $15 dollar hot dogs, bring in timeouts so they can cut to ad breaks every 5 mins.

Which one do you think the Prem scum like Masters want?

It's the 2nd, it's the money.

[toptoon]

You just get the feeling that PIF (who will have the best lawyers in the world) knew this would happen all along and have just been biding their time. Jammy?s theory about the delay in contracting sponsorships supports this.

[Nufcian]

APT1 was clearly brought in to stop us from bringing in much needed money to the club.

All this ?preserving fairness? bo!!ocks never even asked Mike Ashley why he was paying too little and agreeing such poor sponsorship deals for us.

As I understand it, at the moment it is only deals that were denied during the rules coming in (knee jerk session to our take over in 21) to Nov 24 (when APT2 was published)? my concern is that we didn?t even try and submit deals during the period so have nothing we can push through ASAP.

I do hope PIF take the Premier League to court, that APT rules were obviously aimed at us? with them being declared void and unenforceable I would hope we can (as a club) sue them for the money we could have earnt in the period and see a massive lumpy sum based on what could have been 3.5 seasons of income they illegally denied us. The amount would be subject to arbitration I?d imagine we won?t be able to just claim silly amounts, but we should have our day in court on the back of this.

[Zippity]

I do wonder if we have documents that show investments companies were prepared to make if it hadn't been for these rules.

Otherwise, I don't see how we can prove lost earnings.

It would be fantastic if our owners took the PL to court and absolutely fucking ruined them.

[Sclox]

Does ladies football come under PSR in any way?

Could we get some sponsorship deals through them which could find its way back way into the club on the mens side?

[toptoon]

Clubs that got points deductions could sue for eye watering amounts now.

[Ragatino]

I do wonder if we have documents that show investments companies were prepared to make if it hadn't been for these rules.

Otherwise, I don't see how we can prove lost earnings.

It would be fantastic if our owners took the PL to court and absolutely fucking ruined them.

There seems to be some confused around the whole process.

1. City had a new sponsorship deal with Ethihad & First Abu Dhabi Bank rejected

The development comes after City took the Premier League to court having seen proposed sponsorship deals with Etihad Airways and First Abu Dhabi Bank blocked in 2023, with the club claiming that the division's Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules were unlawful.

Based on this rejection which was unlawful City brought the APT case against the Premier league and won.

Subsquently City are now able to sue the Prem for the 'loss of earning' to the amount of the proposed contract offered by Ethihad & First Abu Dhabi Bank.

Any other club who has also had a similar sponsorship deal rejected under these 'unenforceable rules' is also in a position to sue to be compensated for the loses of each contract rejected.

2. The points deductions have nothing to do with it

Breaching the FFP / PSR rules are doesn't mean that Everton or Forest can sue the Prem for loss of earning. That is a completely different situation not covered by the findings of the panel of 3. The deductions were allocated due to the clubs 'overspending' their PSR limit. Had the clubs had an Associated Party Transaction sponsorship offered rejected that directly impacted their revenue taking them over their PSR limit then lawyers can argue the case that the impact of the 'unenforceable rules' were the root cause of the to breach and subsequent points deductions.

At which point the loss of earning for any potential reduction in Prem Prize money for a club finishing one or two places lower in the league could part of the compensation claim. It's understood that each place in the prem table is worth £2.5m. Should a club finish 16th instead of 14th they will have lost £5m.

That amount could in theory then be claimed back by the club in addition to the 'loss of earning/revenue' from any sponsorship deals rejected under the 'unenforceable rules'.

The APT 1 findings are not a silver bullet to open the flood gates for any clubs to sue the prem for damages. Nor does it facilitate a free-for-all in terms of uncontrolled APT sponsorship deals.

To think that Aramco or another Saudi company are just gonna sign a £1billion / season sponsorship deal with NUFC is utterly ludicrous fearmongering by the cartel and their PR mouthpieces SkySportsPR (News) & TalkSht.

Board member of the separate 'PiF' entities are duty bound to ensure they run their businesses within the constraints of annual budgets. A portion of money will be allocated to Marketing and advertising. They employ the most elite marketing brand managers such as Sachi & Sachi to ensure they get the best RoI from their global marketing campaigns. Saudi's Expect Bang for Buck with a guide of $2 profit for every $1 spent.

Hope this makes more sense.