Man City sue Premier League over Associated Party Transaction rules

Here we go…

From The Times.

Man City launch unprecedented legal action against Premier League

Claim has plunged top flight into civil war and hearing on Monday could change competition for ever – and help champions to see off 115 charges.

Stephen,

Just saw that. Apparently one club support Man City's notion they can price their self-sponsorships at whatever they want.

I am guessing that team may be Newcastle?

Just seen a reader quote on the Man City article in the Daily Express.

"Man City suing the PL for not letting them cheat"

From commenter "evilwolf"

Just about sums up Man City as the richest and most powerful football club in the world.

Untouchable???

If Man City are successful, it could clear the way for another Gulf state to come looking for a club with potential…

Man City feel they are the victims of discrimination over PSR. 😂😂😂

Be very interesting to see what happens over Man City's meeting next week.

If they go on to win the case, numerous of the 115 charges will be dropped and City will have carte blanche to spend whatever they want via dodgy sponsorship deals.

Admittedly every othee Premier League club will be able to do the same but the clubs that are state-owned will have a huge advantage.

For once, I hope the Premier League win this one as a loss could be the beginning of the end of our game, IMO.

I wonder who the other team who supported Man City's claim against the Premier League? Why, the other Gulf-owned team of course!!

Why don't these investors just do one!! Invest in MLS, MLB, NFL or some other closed-off sporting league!! The very thing they are investing in, they are trying to ruin. First the Super League… now this, it's a joke!

I wish the Premier League had just let them go on their Super League adventure, kicked them out the Premier League, then when the fans stopped paying for the boring no contest, anti-competition snooze fest, where would they be???

The Premier League missed a chance to reconfigure the game, to redistribute power, to even the playing field, and make the Premier League more competitive long term.

If they get away with this new change, it's basically a blank cheque book for these nation-owned clubs. The government needs to address this for all fans of all clubs and put these owners in their place!

I gave up after 10 minutes. I now realise why I stopped listening to TalkShite.

The irony Rob of City's discrimination claims Rob. Chelsea will be next.

I doubt we can complain about City and their insistence on concocting sponsorship deals to suit.

The smugness was off the scale when we did the same with Usmanov.

The scale is totally different, Barry. Ours was £30M. City's is/are likely to be £100's of millions if they win their case.

They'll just move further away as will the clubs with the richest owners.

Man City didn't seem to mind when PRS was introduced, knowing they would probably manage to comply with it now and again, even though they've been blatantly cheating.

Now that there is something introduced that directly involves them from the off, they go ape-shit.

A pre-emptive strike. Tie up the Premier League for years with legal action. Action that City can easily afford but which will drain the Premier League of funds and force them to back off.

And they won't be able to hit easy targets, Brent?

As if they don't have the will or horsepower to go after City or Chelsea, they lose credibility of any sort.

And perhaps the Premier League being tied up for a long time trying to tackle Man City will mean that the Premier League's attention and efforts are directed away from the likes of Everton?

Brian 10

That sounds like the little bit pregnant argument.

Plus it could be argued the importance of Usmanov's money was equal to 'x" millions City received even if they put their dough to better use.

Hypocrisy abounds here.

"It could be argued..." Who by, Barry?

Stan @15,

I would have thought by every Evertonian paying attention. After all, once Usmanov's money tap was turned off, we marginally missed out on the title.

Oh sorry, I got confused – we nearly went bust.

Sorry, Barry, but I don't know any Evertonians who "claim the importance of Usmanov's money was equal to 'x" millions City received".

Barry, if I got punched in the nose, it's assault. If I crack my head on the way down, it's manslaughter. If it was intentional and planned, it's murder.

It's all about scale and intent. In respect to comparing Man City and Everton, there is little to look at, the sheer scale alone of City's planned circumvention of all sponsorship rules, of hidden payments and PSR infringements, make Everton's relationship with Usmanov look like a perfect wedding.

If people are saying we broke the rules with Usmanov, then every other club in the league should be forensically investigated for the same. Man City aren't denying they did it, they are denying that they should be charged because the rules are unjust. Cheating is the correct analogy.

The decline and fall of the Premier League commenced last year.

The questions now are about how long it takes and what will replace it.

Yes but Christine, you have to hand it to City.

This is exactly how you circumnavigate the system. You drop the gloves and fight back.

By contrast, Everton tried to play nice while getting done from behind. Sorry, only reference I could think of and I massively cleaned it up.

The "bully level" of City is disgusting and oddly admirable. They also embody all that is wrong with the world and the money that seemingly drives all the scandal and cheating.

This will be a circus.

This is similar to what Man City did to Uefa, but this time they have got the boot in early. The Premier League haven't even served notice on Man City and they find that part of their rules challenged.

This is only the start. Years of litigation await.

I actually hope Man City win their case against the Premier League.

The rules are anti-competitive as we have found out. For the good of the game, the Premier League needs a shake-up – whether that's regulation or new governance.

As it stands, the game is more about accountancy, TV and dodging tax than the actual game.

The first thing the new owner should do is to sell Goodison Park back to itself for £1B and see what the Premier League makes of it! The whole situation is a mess.

The richest club in the world is £1B in debt, has handed out redundancy notices to staff, is owned by a multi-billionaire who wants the taxpayer to build them a new ground whilst still buying players for 10s of millions.

Meanwhile, a club that has just been promoted is facing a points deduction before a ball is kicked.

The whole thing stinks, as we all know.

Christine 19

I don't see the correlation.

There is no derivative equivalent to assault, manslaughter and murder in a sponsorship arrangement.

The arrangement either contravenes the rules or it doesn't what clubs do or fail to do (our case) is incidental.

Most suspect the usmanov sponsorship was a get around financial tool very likely the same applies at City.

Was the usmanov money as essential to us as Mansoors money to City? I would say yes given what has happened since he cut off the supply. As such Evertonians moaning about another club doing the same is pure hypocrisy.

Serious question. Can anyone think of a time an individual or team has taken a league or sports association to court based around issues of rights, limitations etc and not won? UEFA dismissed Bosman but he won. The infamous super league won. Other examples in tennis, golf NBA athletics etc.

Nobody cared when Blackburn Portsmouth or Chelsea did similar. So if their actions were legal then why now is it illegal? It seems the laws we have that are still intertwined with Europe favor the freedom to do or spend what you want. So unless the government or EU make actual laws about this kind of thing I expect City will win. Which suddenly opens the floodgates for Everton and anyone else penalized to sue. The other thing is the clubs like Wolves who curtailed spending to avoid trouble. Maybe if they'd spent they'd have done better. The whole thing is a fiasco.

I hate the idea of corrupt totalitarian states bankrolling guaranteed success but if our laws allow it then it's going to happen up until these tyrants fall foul of us just like the Russian oligarchs eventually did then suddenly the government will seize all their assets.

Barry, only half right.

Of course there is a correlation of scale between the two clubs and, more importantly remember, Everton have never been charged with sponsorship rule breaking or financial doping of any sort. City have and their dispute is not that they have broken the rules but that the rules are irrelevant to them. (Well unjust, unfair anti competative etc, wait, they are victimized by their competitors? Because they got away with it?)

On the other hand we have Everton, almost certainly being the benefactor of inflated sponsorship of Finch Farm... dropped immediately with sanctions, but no charges, no evidence, just a distinct probability he was the man behind the thrown, probably still is.

The difference is that one word, 'probably'. The difference is evidence and charges: in Everton's case, none; in City's case, closer to the bulk of the 115 charges they have against them.

Most of all, they are not denying them but claiming the rules don't apply to them, they are the victim of a malicious league and rivals... astounding.

Jamie, I agree, it is going to be a circus, I feel the same way, the rules are wrong but they signed up to them as we have been told a million times by the media and every man and his dog. Don't like them? Take your ball and go play somewhere else.

But... the unprofessional / amateur arrogance of Masters and Co does need pegging back. The rules should not be left to the voting of clubs who all have a vested interest. They are not fair in application or scope, indeed some may say totally ignored by some (ie, Man City) and vindictive against others for purely political expediency. Change or die Premier League, change or die...

ps: I bet City eventually get a slap on the wrist as a face-saving solution...

That's why Man City are top — they don't take shit from anybody.

Fortunately for Everton Football Club, Bill Kenwright – the self-appointed saviour – saw us out of being one of the Big 5 and made this whole debate a moot point. Meanwhile, Man City were in the third division.

Now, we're fighting administration, whilst 4 times Premier League Champions in a row Manchester City stick two fingers up to the Premier League (supposed) powers that be for spending too many billions, legitimately complaining that they were only trying to compete on a level playing field.

Which is true. Because that's how you break a monopoly. And I for one applaud them.

Kenwright must be bending over in his grave.

Sorry but I don't see the argument for these dodgy deals being a matter of scale.

We did exactly the same thing. We picked the highest number possible that we figured would stand up to outside scrutiny.

That's exactly what City have done too. It's just that they can reasonably pick higher numbers given their current exposure.

Personally, I don't see how a transaction that passes accountancy tests can then fail on a 'reasonableness' test by a football body.

But there's a lesson for City and Newcastle. Global events can turn the tap off very quickly. It's the type of event that can befall a football club (according to the independent panels).

What sort of owner would we want next? A dodgy free-flowing tap? Or a reliable trickle?

So inept are those in charge (according to them alone) of the, ahem, Premier League that there's no chance at all of City and their odious owners being taken to task, merely because they're serial winners of the Premier League itself and sanctioning them now will equate to those in charge (according to them alone) publicly admitting they're utterly unfit for purpose.

Sadly, it just ain't going to happen!

Ernie, I just don't buy that. The charges are not the same with regards to Everton:

Charges explained: (From Today's Daily Mail):

The first alleged breach and the breach which City face the most charges from claims that from every season from 2009-10 to 2017-18, the Manchester side failed to follow the rules that states that member clubs must provide accurate financial information to the league.

This allows the FFP a 'true and fair' view of a club's revenue which includes sponsorship deals and their operating cost, which involve player salaries.

Every club in the Premier League signs up to a code of compliance, which essentially translates to clubs agreeing to behave themselves and provide the league with accurate and up-to-date accounts that are expected to be audited each year.

Over the past few years City have been accused of inflating the value of their sponsorships which are connected to their owners.

Another charge which City face accuses City of not being truthful in the reporting of the compensation they handed out to leaving managers over the course of multiple seasons.

They also face accusations of reducing the cost of player and coach salaries by introducing a third party who paid a portion of the wages.

All of City's 115 charges were first reported by German outlet, Der Spiegel.

For instance, we overspent, a significant part of which was the cost of getting rid of managers (for instance, it's alleged City got their sponsors to pay the leaving payout therefore not touching their books).

Also charged with a proportion of players salaries not hitting their books by sponsors paying it...

They are charged that for 9 consecutive seasons they have not been truthful in the financial information given to the league.. they lied.

We did the same? Please point me to that as I believe we are in the mess we are in because we did the opposite.

Christine,

In what you have written, I fear that you may be muddying the waters a little by conflating all of City's crimes into one basket (admittedly as the newspaper have done).

I would maintain there is a distinct separation because of the timelines involved. The APT issue, where they are mounting a legal challenge of the rules, only came about since December 2021.

The 115 charges date from 2009 to 2018. They are separate and distinct from the APT rules. City deny wrongdoing but I don't think they are challenging the different rules from which these 115 charges stem.

I heard that one of the charges against them is that they under filled pints in the grounds bars.

Throw the book at them!!

I'm in two minds.

On one hand, if we and Forest got punished, then so should others.

But on the other, if City take it to the Premier League and force change, then good on them.

I would imagine there is a lot of nervousness in the Premier League's Paddington Offices right now as they scramble around wondering how to counter this… If they can.

I feel change on the horizon.

Remember that £50M that Usmanov gave the club just to have first dibs on the naming rights for the new stadium?

Yeah, if he was still around, we'd definitely be agreeing with City.

Getting their retaliation in first and muddy the waters at the same time... and if you want to get in to a fight, well we'll just bury you in money, erm sorry, lawyers…

Probably only one winner.

Michael #33,

I think that's an important distinction, as the 100+ original, separate charges still stand.

This current legal action taken by City might give a foretaste of things to come in relation to the 100+ other charges – ie, that City might be able to not only drag that out for years but also drain the finances and therefore the enthusiasm of the Premier League to take action. (I suspect the City wallet is much bigger than the Premier League's.)

Barry #15.

Firstly I'm not a hypocrite, mate, and don't much like being called one.

Secondly, the theft of a fiver and the theft of thousands of pounds, while being the same offence, is different in scale and different in its seriousness.

The punishment for the perpetrators would be very different when they were dealt with, and should be!

Scott #36.

It was £30M.

City are protecting their interests, they should be allowed to get on with it.

Good on City. A club should be able to spend what it likes if it has the money, as City clearly do.

The rules clearly breach law. They will win and rightly so.

The fact people don't like it doesn't mean City aren't correct.

For us, also means more potential investors to save us from mess we are in where we face the threat of our very existence.

The press are saying 10 clubs are backing the Premier League and they have given written statements, I just hope Everton aren't one of them.

The Premier League acted swiftly against Everton twice and Forest and an undisclosed deduction awaiting Leicester and possibly another case brought against Everton, so for me, we shouldn't be assisting them in their case against Man City.

Money – the root of all evil!

Michael you are probably correct as the original piece I quoted from seems to have been updated or removed from the Daily Mail site. However, I get what you are saying in that the dispute is specifically targeting one aspect, that of ATP put into place 2021, but the impact of the previous requirements have tainted other charges before this date, specifically the sponsors paying portions of wages and exit costs that have led to a less than truthful bottom line with respect to costs.

Still don't see how we can be compared to City though... other than the fact we tried to over-estimate the cost of the pandemic on our bottom line. We don't appear to have had sponsors (one in particular) paying the same costs for managers or players, but when it comes to Everton, Moshiri and Kenwright, who the heck knows…?

Brian @39,

I think you miss the point.

No one is arguing about the penalty City may or may not receive — it is the basic principle of us criticising another club for seemingly doing exactly what we have done.

It is 100% hypocrisy.

Just for clarity, Barry, as I have already asked, exactly what have Everton done that is the same as City in relation to sponsorship?

With City, it's been claimed that they used sponsors and third parties to partly pay for players' salaries and managers' exit costs. In doing so, they vastly under reported their costs.

Where have Everton done this? When where we charged for doing this? It didn't happen to my knowledge. Or are you saying it did?

No, Barry, it's you that's missing the point… but I won't argue any further with you on it.

On a lighter note, Christine, I usually agree with your every word.

This time, I have to disagree when you say: "He was the man behind the thrown." — I've just 'thrown' that in!!

Christine @47,

I think only those in charge of finances at Everton could answer that question but the basic principle remains and is very simple. Did both clubs benefit from allegedly dubious sponsorship funds?

Yes, ergo the clubs are aligned.

The essential difference is scale of monies involved which some see as an impact on the basic principle of a club benefiting in whatever way from shifty sponsorship.

But it doesn't.

For Evertonians to try and take the moral high ground on this is hypocrisy.

Good to see a club standing up to the Premier League.

Good on you, City.

Sorry Barry, I don't agree with your comparison.

Man City didn't profit from shifty sponsorship, they are charged with falsifying the accounts by third-party payments to players and managers. Are you saying we did the same?

Peter 42. & Danny 35
I couldn't disagree with you more.
There has to be some levelling of the playing field. Even at fair market value the likes of utd, arsenal & now City's sponsorships dwarf anything we can draw, so how do you keep the league competitive? Or are you just saying city or Newcastle should just be allowed to blow the rest of the league away with their state funded money ??

Although football is a business, it is also a sport, which requires a level of competitiveness to make it attractive, to fans, genuine sponsors and TV companies. It's different to a usual business where you try to quash your competitors, because if you quash your competitors in the PL, who are you competing against?

It wouldn't necessarily be the PL who are against these changes. It's the clubs, the clubs who are mid lower positions, the clubs who cant generate 900m from addidas like utd.
They are the ones who vote on the changes to PL rules, which city don't like either.

This is absolutely a bad thing for the whole of the game.

Christine, City are suing regarding rules which stop (or limit) what you can receive from commercial deals with related companies.

That's exactly what Everton did. Finch Farm became USM Finch Farm. A Premier League first for an obvious reason - there's practically no value in it. Except for the ~£20M a year we were receiving. Plus stadium naming rights and anything else that Alisher could sponsor.

Were it not for sanctions, you can bet we'd be supporting City's case.

Christine @52,

As I said, only those in charge of Everton finances can answer that.

Regarding City and sponsorship, this from the BBC.

"The allegations were around driving more money into the club from owner Sheikh Mansour through fictitious sponsorship deals, paying then manager Roberto Mancini to act as a consultant to a club in Abu Dhabi and giving players more money than was going through the accounts."

Ernie #5,

One thing that I could never understand regarding Finch Farm is how Everton could receive funds for naming rights on a facility that they did not own, any ideas?

Barry,

Your desperate need for the charge of 'hypocrisy' to stick seems to ignore a couple of important distinctions.

Everton were, as far as we know, open and honest about their dubious sponsorship deals. I recall there being a threat of investigation by the Premier League but either it never happened or was quietly dropped.

Contrast this typically naive Evertonian openness with what has been (or was?) going on at Man CIty for many years. A quote from a piece in January may help to illustrate the rather stark differences:

Stefan Borson, who was previously an advisor at the Etihad, was asked how different City's charges are to Everton and Nottingham Forest.

He replied: "The scale is on a completely different level. There's no question, if those charges are proven, this will end in at least relegation!

"There is a suggestion of conspiracy over a 10-year period. They're suggesting that City's main sponsorship agreements are not for £50-60million but are for actually £8m and the whole thing was a sham and a whole load of people lied.

"A whole load of executives from multiple companies were in on it. The club also lied to multiple parties, professionals, people doing due diligence on the company, the league, UEFA, the FA.

"If proven this is super serious. Nobody would argue that. City themselves in their submissions they will say this is an allegation of the most serious nature."

George,

I think USM sponsored Finch Farm, which saw their name attached, as in USM Finch Farm. I don't believe this was illegal in any way.

Everton may not 'own' Finch Farm outright, but I believe what they have is a long-term lease, reviewable every 5 years. It seems there was nothing to stop them appending 'USM' to the name in exchange for a few million quid.

Separately, I think USM negotiated first place to get naming rights to the new Everton Stadium. But that second bit never happened before sanctions put the kybosh on everything to do with Uncle Alishy.

Barry, you seem to suggest that several charges are equivalent to 115.

By that logic, robbing a fiver is equivalent to robbing a bank. And robbing a bank is the same as stealing billions from crypto-currency holders. The first gets you a caution, the second gets you 5-10 years and the last gets you 25 years.

Size does matter in all aspects of life!

Irrespective of any legal action by both parties in the City affair, and whatever the financial Premier League rules, may be HMRC may start to take interest, leading to another prolonged and fiercely defended position by City.

I suppose we could point to the Mersey Millionaires under Sir John Moores.

Different era and different setting, but parallels.

Then under Moshiri, we blew our billions.

Michael # 58 Thank you for that reply. I was just thinking surely Liverpool City Council might have had a claim to the funds that's all.

OK. Best way of defence it to attack! Classic. They have the money and the balls to do it. You fk with me EPL and I'll fk with you. Interesting to see what happens here and then how Everton and Notts Forest will respond.

Michael 57

None of your distinctions alter the notion BOTH clubs are involved in "dubious sponsorship deals" sic.

As such our fans calling City out is 100% hypocrisy - unassailable rather than desperate.

Sorry

Steve 59

No, I didn't say tnat.

David @53, I can understand you disagreeing.

However, Man City don't spend the most in more recent years (say the last 5) – Man Utd and Chelsea have spent the most.

It was always the case that a big benefactor could change the football landscape; some recent examples were Blackburn… then Chelsea.

Your example of Newcastle and Man City blowing everybody out of the water, I don't think holds true. I agree they would be damn near the top. The Premier League already blows everybody out of the water in terms of finances but doesn't translate in competitions in Europe. Same can be said when Italy and more recently Spain had most money.

Obviously, everybody wants sport to be competitive. I think the rules in place currently work against this. An example is a club you mention, Newcastle, being prohibited from spending. It's all to protect the elite “big” clubs. I consider the rules grossly unfair and anti-competitive.

They also have (perhaps unintended) consequences. For example, mean clubs trying to join the elite are more likely to sell homegrown players as better on the books to balance P&S. This is wrong. We all love “our own” stars coming through.

Another knock-on effect is that they pinch all the best youngsters from academies – we have had countless stolen from us. Again, I suspect this happens for lower league clubs far more than us – they need that as a lifeline.

I don't consider the rules, as they exist, assist competition and consider the contrary to be true. I could think of other ways to help level the playing field, fairer than P&S.

Separately, Barry's right - EFC desperately trying to cook the books until Ukraine - just that they were shit at it and didn't do it as much as City.

It's clearly hypocrisy to cry foul over city's antics as an Evertonian.

Peter 66.

Man City are practically blowing everyone out the water now, 6 Premier League titles in 7 years, a treble!! Imagine if they get free rein to spend what they like??

I also agree with you about the rules not allowing aspirational clubs to join the elite. It's skewed in their favour already, PSR doesn't work as it is now.

I don't know the solutions, but giving free rein to spend what you like would see the top few get even further away, ruin the league, see owners over spend and jeopardise clubs' stability.

I will believe that the Premier League want to level the playing field when they propose a salary cap. Until then, it will be the strong get stronger and fuck the rest.

David 68#

Yes, Man City do blow everybody out the water. I meant the teams that spend biggest currently, by that I mean last 5 years and Man Utd and Chelsea don't (although they've still collected trophies and made finals to be fair).

I don't see the doomsday scenario as others see if they win their case. In fact, I think it will be no different than what they've allegedly done for years, cooked the books / just that they will do without any charges overhanging them.

I still don't think they (or Newcastle) will be like Saudi based clubs paying tens/hundreds millions for players and crazy wages like they do over there. I don't even think they will spend like Man Utd — I read Casemiro, Rashford and Sancho are all on £300k per week (this fine by FFP).

I may be totally wrong and certainly the media seem against me and most people I know, but I just don't think it's a big deal people spending what they like as long as they can afford it. I appreciate it's a non-conventional and perhaps unwise view.

Michael 57, yes there are a whole host of charges being aimed at City.

But the topic of the day is them suing the league over the league limiting how much sponsorship clubs can receive from related parties.

We know it's not really a true market value and is a rort, but we have been part of that same rort.

As for the other allegations of cooked books, no it doesn't seem like we've been up to that kind of stuff.

So the Premier League is competitive... don't make me fucking laugh!!!

It will be only be competitive if Man City and the five greedy other teams fuck off to form their own Mickey Mouse elite league or 1-0 scorelines only yield two points (which some bloke spoke about on a 5 Live phone in about 20 years ago).

We and Forest should refuse to play Man City if there is no suitable punishment towards them... and why is it taking so long for them to be done? 115 fucking charges!!!

Barry @ 65, I understand.

Your point was that there was a moral equivalence in what Everton and Man City did, therefore it is hypocritical of us to criticise City because we also agreed a £30 million deal from USM to sponsor Finch Farm.

But I think that size and scale of the funds in contention provided by the sponsor matter, as the amounts City received through commercial sponsorships by companies with links to the owners is a key part of their 115 charges. It is also not the only thing City are charged with.

The USM sponsorship was not judged as a breach of the PSR rules or the amount disputed by the Premier League; the breach occurred when the loss of the sponsorship revenue led us to exceed the loss ceiling. As I understand it, City are charged (amongst other things) with inflating the value of their sponsorships which are connected to their owners.

They are also charged with not being truthful in the reporting of the compensation they handed out to leaving managers over the course of multiple seasons. And they are accused of reducing the apparent cost of player and coach salaries by introducing a third party who paid a portion of the wages.

Therefore, what Everton did could be inferred as financial incompetence but both panels accepted that we did not deliberately set out to deceive the Premier League. Deception on a grand scale is what City are charged with —and their approach shows that co-operation and admission of guilt gets you nowhere!

Deny everything and sue your opposing party seems to be working.

Hypocrisy???

That`s a bit like calling Oliver Twist a hypocrite because he pointed out Robert Maxwell's skulduggery.

Like Oliver Twist; Everton FC and its fans have been victims of other people's dosh-washing crimes. What is or was Usmanov's official position at our club?

Like Robert Maxwell, Man City and their fans have been the beneficiaries of their crimes – and crimes are what they are.

Everton have been severely punished. Evertonians have every right to call for other clubs to be dealt with in the same manner.

Hypocrites??? To borrow one of Rob's favourite sayings — "My arse!"

Better out than in Dave!

Their should be standards that all apply to

This is why they Premier League needs challenging, regulating and held accountable.

As I've said, I don't want City or Chelsea to get off the hook, but at the same time, I hope their challenge forces change in the Premier League.

Peter @70.

Man Utd can spend that way because they are even way bigger than Man City. Their commercial income is massive.

You telling me Pep wouldn't want all the best possible players? He'd be happy for Newcastle, Chelsea and others to just buy all the worlds best players?

Of course as soon as one club offers £125-150M, the others have to keep up. It's a slippery slope.

You telling me Man City wouldn't have been involved in a bid for Mbappe if it wasn't for fear of breaking the rules? Same for Man City, Man Utd, Newcastle and Chelsea.

Saudi is different. They are trying to attract players to an insignificant league to grow the appeal, most are players nearing the end of their careers and going for a final payday.

The spending of the so-called big clubs needs to be reduced not increased, so that the winners of the trophies are not the clubs who spend the most, but the clubs who build a team, coach a team, improve players.

Not just throw ££££s at it!

Newcastle, Chelsea and Everton tipped to back Man City in Premier League clash over APT Rules

Christian Smith, a litigation editor and podcast host at The Lawyer, insists that Everton are set to back Man City and their legal case against the Premier League and the APT rules.

Smith said: “Everton are expected to back Manchester City in their legal battle against the Premier League in their case to end the League's APT rules that allows sponsorship deals with companies owned or associated with the same club's owners.”

The report adds:

Sources have told Football Insider that Newcastle United have showed support for City's legal action and are prepared to submit documents to strengthen their case ahead of their hearing.

The Tyneside club have struck several commercial deals with Saudi Arabia-based companies following their takeover by PiF in 2021.

Newcastle would be free to increase their commercial and sponsorship income via Saudi companies if the Premier League's ATP rules are scrapped.

But a majority of clubs seem to be against Man City and their challenge with the Daily Mail insisting ‘between 10 and 12 clubs' are supporting the Premier League:

Between 10 and 12 clubs have provided information in support of the Premier League and its rules in what is being viewed as a civil war.

Sources say that group includes the likes of Manchester United, Arsenal, Fulham, Wolves, Brighton and Tottenham. Some have provided witness statements while others have provided letters.

As we're unlikely to win anything ever again, I'm in Man City's corner.

Mainly because it really pisses off the Kopites

I wonder whether this legal action being taken by Man City is a factor in the surge in interest in buying out Moshiri.

The Premier League have always been open to this sort of challenge since its inception.

They purport to have an open competitive league with promotion and relegation. But recent years have shown that to be a nonsense with the same winners year on year and the newly promoted teams mostly being relegated at either the first attempt or yo-yoing.

So we have the worst possible level of competition. Most informed fans could put the Premier League teams in a mostly correct finishing order before a ball is kicked in August. It's evolution in a sporting context.

You either want a competitive mostly unpredictable framework, eg, the American model, or you allow the current dog-eat-dog model with all of its associated problems. Neither is perfect.

Man City are just the super predator at the head of the current model – doing what predators will do to survive. If you argue with them, you get eaten.

Something might eventually stop them, but it won't be done on a football pitch.