Man City accuse Premier League of ‘misleading’ clubs after Nottingham Forest and rivals communication

Manchester City have accused the Premier League of "misleading" the clubs over the outcome of the arbitration case that was brought after the competition watchdog ruled that the top-flight's rules governing commercial deals were anti-competitive

Manchester City have taken the Premier League to task by claiming that the league's reports to other clubs on the legal case concerning rules on commercial deals were "misleading". City communicated with all 19 other clubs and the league, expressing their challenge to the interpretation made by the Premier League regarding the outcome of the case.

In an email from the club’s general counsel Simon Cliff, which PA news agency has had sight of, City contends that not only the summary provided by the Premier League is misleading and inaccurate, but also took issue with the hastiness to establish new related party transaction (APT) rules. "Regrettably, the summary is misleading and contains several inaccuracies," stated Cliff in the correspondence.

The club voiced its dissatisfaction, noting, "Of even greater concern, however, is the Premier League’s suggestion that new APT rules should be passed within the next 10 days."

Manchester City have been forceful in stating their position following the tribunal's declaration: "The tribunal has declared the APT rules to be unlawful. MCFC’s position is that this means that all of the APT rules are void, and have been since 2021."

This year, the club launched a legal battle against the APT rules, which they argued violated competition law. The APT regulations aim to ensure all commercial agreements with parties related to a club's owners reflect fair market value, preventing inflated figures.

City has claimed victory after an arbitration panel deemed the rules unlawful due to their exclusion of shareholder loans. Cliff, addressing the clubs, described it as "peculiar" that the league's summary stated City was unsuccessful in most of their challenge.

He wrote: "While it is true that MCFC did not succeed with every point that it ran in its legal challenge, the club did not need to prove that the APT rules are unlawful for lots of different reasons. It is enough that they are unlawful for one reason. In the event, the tribunal found the APT rules are unlawful for three different sets of reasons."

The league has indicated that changes to the rules following the tribunal judgement could be implemented "quickly and effectively". It is believed to have convened a meeting of clubs to discuss these changes.

However, Cliff cautioned against a "kneejerk reaction" in revising the rules, warning it could lead to more legal proceedings. He emphasised the need for "careful reflection" on the way forward.

The Premier League declined to comment but stands by its summary, dismissing any claims that it was either inaccurate or misleading. Sources close to the league also highlighted that the clubs meeting scheduled for next Thursday, which will of course be attended by Nottingham Forest, will merely be a chance to discuss the rules, with no votes on amendments to the rules being taken.

The tribunal ruling has "endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system", according to the league's summary. It only found "discrete elements" of the rules to be unlawful, which could be "quickly and effectively remedied" by clubs.

"Manchester City brought a wholesale challenge to the legality, design, framework and implementation of the APT rules," the summary read. "The club was unsuccessful in the majority of its challenge. Significantly, the Tribunal determined that the APT rules are necessary, pursued a legitimate objective and were put in place to ensure that the Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) are effective, thereby supporting and delivering sporting integrity and sustainability in the Premier League."

The tribunal also found the rules unlawful due to the exclusion of shareholder loans and because they were procedurally unfair, as clubs couldn't comment on the data the league used when deciding if a deal was done for fair market value.

Decisions made by the Premier League board on the value of sponsorship deals with Etihad Airways and First Abu Dhabi Bank were also set aside by the tribunal. This was because City were unable to see or respond to the data used in making those decisions before they were relayed to the club.

What do you make of the situation? Have your say here