Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
I think you've got Related & Associated parties mixed up. UEFA weren't happy that Etihad wasn't considered a related party and their advisors in 2014 (PWC iirc) claimed they were, which was nonsensical. This topic came up again at CAS.Even that seems unlikely & their lawyers would be well aware of the apt rules that are legal when it comes to accounting.
Seeing as even though Uefa were unhappy that Etihad wasnt considered an APT it was considered fair market value & then you add in that since th EPL through the book at us, those related party rules have been shown to be illegal due to shareholder loans.
APTs are a PL construct, because they couldn't win on the Related Party issue. As someone else said, I'm a little surprised that City didn't challenge this whole APT issue in its case against the PL, but maybe they were sure of their ground on the shareholder loan issue and didn't want to overreach themselves.