City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)

[Chappie]

Would the PL be able to make a deal with one of it's members without the other members agreement?

They have for years in the case of Arsenal,Liverpool and United.

 

[cheekybids]

Would the PL be able to make a deal with one of it's members without the other members agreement?

They don’t need all of the clubs to agree that our commercial deals are FMV, the process they used was flawed. Once they told us they’ve assessed it fairly then it’s City that makes a deal.

 

[slbsn]

Extensive detail doesn't preclude the use of the word simple to describe something that fails on principle.

This argument has failed.

 

[nijinsky69]

Clearly a link, even if as GDM says, a strategic one. Blows my mind that some posters aren’t having it.

Yep. City and the PL have obviously had extensive without prejudice meetings to settle APT. It seems reasonable to suppose those same discussions included 115 which would also perhaps explain the “delay”.

 

[halfcenturyup]

This argument has failed.

Lawyers!

 

[surprisedbygrass]

Good article from Martin Samuel in the Times here about PL management style changing with Masters..​

At last, some Premier League common sense — but too late for 115 charges​

It is commendable that an agreement was reached with Manchester City despite the time and money wasted but both sides are in far too deep for a similar resolution to a much larger problem​

Martin Samuel
Tuesday September 09 2025, 5.55pm, The Times

Today, this column can exclusively reveal the outcome of the Premier League’s 115 charges against Manchester City. The winner is . . . nobody.

Not Manchester City, not the Premier League, not the other 19 clubs, not the brand, not the fans, not even the broadcasters for all the dramatic tension this saga has created. Lawyers have been made even wealthier, reporters have been kept in headlines, although there remains personal scepticism about the public appetite for another internecine squabble around football’s seemingly never-ending list of regulations. Yet does anyone get to have their arm raised in acknowledgment of a knockout after 12 rounds of attritional slugging? Almost certainly not. The Associated Party Transaction (APT) resolution tells us that.

At roughly 3pm on Monday it was announcedthat — well, what was announced, actually? Nothing that could not have been resolved over a pot of coffee and some pastries locked in a legal office in London about two years ago. One imagines that’s how Richard Scudamore, the predecessor to Richard Masters in the chief executive’s chair, might have done it.

Scudamore preferred a lighter touch during his time as the Premier League’s chief executive.
Legal bills were not a drain on the financial health of clubs when Scudamore was in charge. He was a facilitator of the Premier League’s membership, a mediator, a negotiator, a smoother-over. At his leaving do at the German Gymnasium restaurant in London in 2018, a graph indicated the growth in broadcast revenues during his time. It looked like the north face of the Eiger. The owners and chairmen present kept gazing at it in awe.

Scudamore’s style was to protect the product by sitting down and working problems through. The light-touch regulator that football has been promised? That was Scudamore in a nutshell. He only went for West Ham United over Carlos Tevez because they lied. Had the club been truthful about some of the clauses in his contract, Scudamore has always insisted that the league would have registered the player, even allowed him to play that weekend, and then sat down with West Ham’s lawyers first thing on Monday morning to show them exactly how the contract would have to be structured and worded to stay legal.

This is not the style of the modern Premier League. Were the chairwoman, Alison Brittain, and Masters to depart now, the only graph resembling the Eiger would indicate what they had cost the clubs in legal fees — about £50million in 2023-24, with significantly more likely to come. In City, in particular, it faces an opponent with the wherewithal and motivation to match its very expensive legal habit. This, ultimately, may have forced a much-needed compromise.

Scuadmore only went after West Ham after they lied about the signing of Tevez

So why, when the verdict on the 115 charges drops, can there only be losers? Well, like the APT verdict, neither side can hope to emerge entirely unscathed. This isn’t the Women’s Rugby World Cup. Nobody gets to win 115-0. Whatever goes against City, however big, however small, there will be reputational harm. Any defeat on any accusation will always be used by their detractors to place an asterisk against their achievements.

Equally, if the Premier League goes down again, it is personally humiliating for the present administration. This is its case, its pursuit, its strategy. After the debacle defeat against Leicester City and the scandal of the legal fees against Nottingham Forest — a case the Premier League actually won, with Forest admitting breaching Profitability and Sustainability Rules, yet it still ended up costing the league a fortune — it needs to get this one over the line, and significantly.

Yet even if it does, say this was to be a Premier League slam dunk, what is proven? That the league was illegitimate? That arguably the greatest club side many of us have seen was founded on deceit? When the time comes to negotiate the next TV deal, is that really such a triumph? Revenue is already dropping in real terms. The Premier League is having to offer more — additional matches, greater access — to maintain revenue streams. What will broadcasters pay if the past decade is then peppered with asterisks?

Talk to a lot of Premier League owners and they do not want past titles taken off City — they know that’s a terrible look. Serie A used to be Europe’s strongest domestic league. It had already lost ground on the Premier League when the Calciopoli scandal led to Juventus being stripped of the 2004-05 title, which then went unawarded. The 2005-06 title was given to Inter Milan, who came second, trailing Juventus by 15 points. And it can be argued justice was done, but the fallout made the league less marketable and, in time, weaker. Italy had boasted five European champions in the 21 years before Calciopoli and has had two since. The last was Inter in 2010.

There will be senior figures at elite Premier League clubs — Tim Lewis at Arsenal springs to mind, as would Daniel Levy had Tottenham Hotspur’s politics not defeated him first — who will be furious at the Premier League reaching a settlement over APT. Yet this is what light-touch regulation looks like: compromise, understanding.

There will be no winners to the outcome of the Premier League’s 115 charges against City with the legal costs running into the millions.
Again, there are no real winners because so much time and money has now been wasted on legal rulings that appear to have been ended by old-fashioned conciliation. City recognise the validity and enforceable nature of the Premier League’s rules, the Premier League accepts that City’s deals with Etihad and other Gulf partners are fair and reasonable in today’s market, because some deals are bespoke.

Nobody needs to torch the rulebook, City can stop feeling persecuted, return to the table, sign their deal with Etihad and the competition can move on. City, you will notice, acknowledge the APT rules as binding, but have stopped short of referring to them as legal. They reserve the right, as no doubt do the Premier League if a commercial agreement crosses their desks with a few noughts where they shouldn’t be. And that’s common sense. That’s what should have happened in the first place, jaw-jaw always being preferred to war-war; and a damn sight cheaper too.

This is an entirely different case to the 115 charges, but the principle is not dissimilar. Costs on each side when the big one finally lands could be in the region of £100million. Was that really necessary? Was alleged non co-operation around historic events really such an issue that it required its own lengthy charge sheet? Could it not all have been boiled down to transgressions alleged to have directly impacted the integrity of the league? Premier League clubs could end up paying more than £5million each depending on the costs award. Would they have voted for that, or for the pursuit of Nottingham Forest, Leicester and Everton, had they known how expensive it would all be?

So can Manchester City now cash blank cheques on sponsorship? Of course not. Rules and parameters remain. City did not advocate for a league without rules. Equally, this idea that they, or Newcastle United, could buy every good player and dominate is flawed. But let’s say they could. Let’s say the new APT agreement gave them the clout to take Bukayo Saka out of Arsenal, retrieve Cole Palmer from Chelsea, prise Jude Bellingham from Real Madrid and put them together with Phil Foden. What would they have? They’d have the England forward line we know doesn’t work because we’ve seen it and the impact on paper is ten times what happens on the field.

Hell, we don’t even know if Liverpool will be able to blend Alexander Isak, Hugo Ekitike, Mohamed Salah and Florian Wirtz yet. We think it will work; it looks like it should work; but Wirtz hasn’t started well and Salah is yet to hit last season’s form, and the brightest spark is Ekitike, who may have to change position to accommodate Isak. And what if a regulatory compromise had given Newcastle the capacity to keep Isak from Liverpool? Would that have been such a bad thing; or would it have made for a better competition?

No doubt City’s elite rivals who place the Premier League under such pressure to rein them in will not appreciate what they see as capitulation. It is not. It is common sense. The best deal is always the one in which both sides feel they have surrendered a little. That’s not the same as losing. The problem with the 115 charges is we are already too far in. The damage is done, with no winners and not much hope of a draw. It’s a match lasting two years and nobody gets a point.

This is such an interesting article. Thank you . The more I think about the whole 115 and subsequent APT shenanigans the more it seems like a squabble in a dodgy family business , the Mafia perhaps : the first generation knew that to keep the money rolling in they should never wash their dirty laundry in public so Scudamore was the perfect fixer. But the children and grandchildren have allowed grudges and resentment to fester as they believed in their own moral superiority and unassailable power. When a youngest and better good looking cousin by marriage fetched up who wanted to shake things up and have a piece of the action they allowed the threat to grow into hatred .But the decision to attack him and turn him into the villain has back fired, and has also included collateral damage in minor family branches , degrading the brand , breaking trust and mortally wounding it's major early beneficiary . The game is up and everyone is busy splurging before the vigorous cousin , wounded but not dead , is welcomed begrudgingly back into the family.

None of this has anything to do with what we all love , football . Its pure hard nosed business and has been ever since the Football League and then the PL was formed. Just a matter of scale .

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

You can run such an argument. But it usually fails as it did for City in the APT case. And in the PL at least there is quite extensive detail now on how FMV is determined.

But for all that extensive detail, their process was demonstrably flawed. They ultimately accepted the Emirates Palace sponsorship was FMV when their original decision was challenged. And we appear to have won a significant concession on the other two deals.

There was the grotesque situation of a NED burning the midnight oil and getting involved in a matter of day-to-day operational detail, in complete dereliction of her duty as a non-exec. And we also know that the PL chose to omit 'soft' shareholder loans from the APT rules at the behest of some members, despite knowing that was likely to be unlawful.

The statement that City are happy that they'll be treated no differently to other clubs going forward also suggests that despite this "extensive detail on how FMV is determined" it seems to have been applied somewhat capriciously depending on who was asking.

 

[Gingers Dad]

They don’t need all of the clubs to agree that our commercial deals are FMV, the process they used was flawed. Once they told us they’ve assessed it fairly then it’s City that makes a deal.

I am asking in regards to the APT case itself. City were challenging rules that were voted for by the PL members. For City to have backed down on the case presumably the PL must have made concessions regarding the rules?

 

[cheekybids]

I am asking in regards to the APT case itself. City were challenging rules that were voted for by the PL members. For City to have backed down on the case presumably the PL must have made concessions regarding the rules?

We didn’t really care about the rules we were fighting about, we used that as our bargaining point to ensure we were treated fairly.

 

[slbsn]

But for all that extensive detail, their process was demonstrably flawed. They ultimately accepted the Emirates Palace sponsorship was FMV when their original decision was challenged. And we appear to have won a significant concession on the other two deals.

There was the grotesque situation of a NED burning the midnight oil and getting involved in a natter of day-to-day operational detail, in complete dereliction of her duty as a non-exec. And we also know that the PL chose to omit 'soft' shareholder loans from the APT rules at the behest of some members, despite knowing that was likely to be unlawful.

The statement that City are happy that they'll be treated no differently to other clubs going forward also suggests that despite this "extensive detail on how FMV is determined" it seems to have been applied somewhat capriciously depending on who was asking.

All of the above was basically dismissed in APT1. As for shareholder loans, it wasn’t clear it was unlawful until the judgment and City’s position changed - it was a tactical instrument.

The statement is meaningless PR and City did not suggest in the hearing or in writing in submissions that they had been prejudiced specifically in the review of transactions. So it wasn’t even a runable argument. The suggestion regarding gulf states was rejected too.

I understand this place is a City forum but surely there is room for grown up, objective discussion of these issues. The ship has sailed on these arguments never more so with the formal settlement and City’s acceptance of the rules as they are.

 

[Chappie]

I am asking in regards to the APT case itself. City were challenging rules that were voted for by the PL members. For City to have backed down on the case presumably the PL must have made concessions regarding the rules?

If they've made concessions, it would indicate that we have not backed down but have got what, we wanted .

 

[halfcenturyup]

This is such an interesting article. Thank you . The more I think about the whole 115 and subsequent APT shenanigans the more it seems like a squabble in a dodgy family business , the Mafia perhaps : the first generation knew that to keep the money rolling in they should never wash their dirty laundry in public so Scudamore was the perfect fixer. But the children and grandchildren have allowed grudges and resentment to fester as they believed in their own moral superiority and unassailable power. When a youngest and better good looking cousin by marriage fetched up who wanted to shake things up and have a piece of the action they allowed the threat to grow into hatred .But the decision to attack him and turn him into the villain has back fired, and has also included collateral damage in minor family branches , degrading the brand , breaking trust and mortally wounding it's major early beneficiary . The game is up and everyone is busy splurging before the vigorous cousin , wounded but not dead , is welcomed begrudgingly back into the family.

None of this has anything to do with what we all love , football . Its pure hard nosed business and has been ever since the Football League and then the PL was formed. Just a matter of scale .

You should write a screenplay for that :)

 

[Paladin]

The statement that City are happy that they'll be treated no differently to other clubs going forward also suggests that despite this "extensive detail on how FMV is determined" it seems to have been applied somewhat capriciously depending on who was asking.

I assume the PL agreed to this being released in the statement, probably with the additional statement that no further comment will be made. This in itself suggests that City had the upper hand in negotiations, and sounds like an admission from the PL that they have been found to have acted unfairly towards us. Not really a good look for the PL if the details end up in the public domain.

 

[Chris in London]

All of the above was basically dismissed in APT1. As for shareholder loans, it wasn’t clear it was unlawful until the judgment and City’s position changed - it was a tactical instrument.

The statement is meaningless PR and City did not suggest in the hearing or in writing in submissions that they had been prejudiced specifically in the review of transactions. So it wasn’t even a runable argument. The suggestion regarding gulf states was rejected too.

I understand this place is a City forum but surely there is room for grown up, objective discussion of these issues. The ship has sailed on these arguments never more so with the formal settlement and City’s acceptance of the rules as they are.

The most interesting thing about the “assurance” is the fact that someone said it at all. Unless Mike Keegan simply made it up, whoever was speaking to him at City said that. We both know that whatever preceded that, it wasn’t an acknowledgment from the Premier League that City had been singled out.

The comment from the club, however, seems to suggest the club feels it has been.

 

[Coatigan]

I am asking in regards to the APT case itself. City were challenging rules that were voted for by the PL members. For City to have backed down on the case presumably the PL must have made concessions regarding the rules?

If that were the case, would they not need to put the rules back to the other 19 clubs?

Imagine if we were one of the other clubs, and this same scenario happened with one of the top 6.

The same posters pounding their chests would be screaming it stinks and corruption.

 

[SilverFox2]

Only if they put the blue cones out at the CFA. But you and I agree, even if others don't, that there's a clear linkage between 115 and APT.

The timing might be purely coincidental but don't you think there's a sense that the pieces are starting to fall into place?

I found criticism by some other PL clubs as to the secrecy of the deal particularly meaningful.
A normal legal agreement being seen as abnormal by previous PL standards on City matters.

 

[Coatigan]

We didn’t really care about the rules we were fighting about, we used that as our bargaining point to ensure we were treated fairly.

The panel ruling claimed we weren't treated unfairly (not that I agreed at the time).

Do you think we will now suddenly be treated fairly, or even say differently?

 

[waspish]

All of the above was basically dismissed in APT1. As for shareholder loans, it wasn’t clear it was unlawful until the judgment and City’s position changed - it was a tactical instrument.

The statement is meaningless PR and City did not suggest in the hearing or in writing in submissions that they had been prejudiced specifically in the review of transactions. So it wasn’t even a runable argument. The suggestion regarding gulf states was rejected too.

I understand this place is a City forum but surely there is room for grown up, objective discussion of these issues. The ship has sailed on these arguments never more so with the formal settlement and City’s acceptance of the rules as they are.

So for someone who know not much! What difference now are the apt to the original one that Man City wasn’t happy with? Just to understand why they are happy now and reading between the lines of what you believe we have got nothing much for it.

 

[Gingers Dad]

If they've made concessions, it would indicate that we have not backed down but have got what, we wanted .

Backed down is probably the wrong term but City did decide to end the legal case

 

[thegoatsthegoat]

Even in our pomp we would have 80% possession commit 5 fouls and get 3 yellows. we definitely get it tight from the authorities since the success

I think in them earlier years it was far worse, to the point Pep was having meetings with them wasn't he. It felt then they was trying to stop us. These days it doesn't feel that way, we can highlight areas where we may feel we get a yellow easier than the opposition etc but the original poster claimed we are shafted every week. Simply not true.