Topics: Manchester City, Premier League
There appears to have been a significant update in the outcome of Manchester City's legal battle against the Premier League over Associated Party Transaction Rules [APT], according to a new report.
The backdrop to Manchester City's title win last season involved the 115 charges brought against them relating to alleged breaches of the Premier League's profit and sustainability rules [PSR].
These charges relate to the time period between 2009 and 2018, and largely relate to a 'failure to provide accurate and up-to-date financial information', as well as a 'failure to cooperate with Premier League investigations'.
City strenuously deny the allegations made relating to financial irregularity and have vowed to clear their name.
Advert
The club also believe the Premier League has 'treated them unfairly' in assessing their commercial income by relying on the analysis of data company Nielsen, who also work for their rivals.
As well as the previously mentioned 115 breaches, City have taken action against the Premier League in a separate battle over APT regulations.
The APT rules were introduced in 2021 after Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund bought Newcastle United, and aim to prevent clubs from inflating sponsorship deals with companies linked to their owners, ensuring fair competition.
A vote on potential rule amendments involving all 20 clubs was set to take place at a meeting on Thursday.
But it was pulled at the last minute, according to Daily Mail journalist Mike Keegan, who has delivered an update regarding the APT case on X, formerly Twitter.
He wrote: "Manchester City appear to have scored a victory over the Premier League on APTs after a vote to amend rules was pulled at the last-minute from this morning's clubs meeting."
He added: "[It] could well indicate City have been successful in their legal challenge (eg: no point amending rules that may soon be changed/removed). Potentially huge development."
City, who are seeking damages for “losses which it has incurred as a result of the unlawfulness of the rules", have called APT rules a “tyranny of the majority” and “discrimination”.
It remains to be seen how a change to APT rules could impact on the case concerning the 115 alleged breaches of financial rules.
