Dale Johnson
Manchester City and the Premier League both claimed victory on Monday after an Arbitration Panel released its judgement on a legal challenge against Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules.
The case, which is unrelated to hearing into the 115 charges for allegedly breaching the Premier League’s financial rules, saw City claiming “discrimination against Gulf ownership” and that the rules were “unlawful.”
The Panel upheld two of City’s complaints in relation to shareholder loans and how Fair Market Value (FMV) is assessed.
However, City failed in their bid to get the APT and FMV system scrapped, with the Panel saying it was a crucial to the Premier League‘s profit and sustainability rules.
On one count, the Panel said that the rules are “unlawful … because they exclude from their scope shareholder loans.” This brings into the picture millions of interest-free loans which have been issued to clubs by wealthy backers. Everton, Brighton & Hove Albion, Arsenal and Chelsea are all reported to have enjoyed loans running into hundreds of millions of pounds.
City, meanwhile, have no such debts and argued that it was unfair that other clubs could gain a financial advantage by discounting such loans from FMV assessments, which may determine interest should be paid.
The second count covered how the Premier League determines FMV when assessing an APT. The Panel ruled that it was “unlawful” that a club is unable to comment on the data used by the Premier League before a decision is reached, that the procedure was unfair, that City were not given the opportunity to challenge the judgement and it took too long.
The Panel also said it was unfair to place the burden of proof on the club when demonstrating Fair Market Value, and this should fall on the Premier League.
The Premier League had rejected two APTs, with Etihad and First Abu Dhabi Bank, with those both now set aside. The APTs will have to be reassessed when the Premier League has looked again at how it applies its APT rules.
However, the major win for the Premier League was that APTs as a concept were supported. Had the Panel said the system was completely unlawful it would have enabled City, and other clubs under similar state ownership such as Newcastle United, to make sponsorship deals to any valuation.