Man once celebrated at Manchester City deals final blow to vociferous rebellion

Once-feted man at Man City deals final blow to vociferous rebellion

Omar Berrada left Man City earlier this year to join neighbors Man Utd – Getty Images/Ash Donelon

Coffee had barely been served in the five-star meeting room of the Nobu Hotel when Manchester City’s noisy rebellion was defeated within 15 minutes.

Not even a groan from City executives at the shareholders’ table this time, but a sharp sense of irony after a man once feted at the Etihad had dealt the final blow.

Manchester United’s Omar Berrada – who oversaw City’s signing of Erling Haaland in his previous job – sat right next to former colleagues as he had the final say before a vote with huge potential consequences.

Speaking after Chelsea legal director James Bonnington, Berrada said the time had come for the competition to move on from its recent feuds.

With fierce club-to-club lobbying in recent weeks, few words were needed: an immediate show of hands showed all but City, Aston Villa, Newcastle United and Nottingham Forest easily in agreement.

Behind the scenes, the Premier League already knew victory was in sight in a civil war that has cost the competition tens of millions of pounds since February.

Since a court result last month, several senior figures at the club have rallied the league’s support for three key amendments to its rules on associated party transactions (APT).

Before Friday’s vote, Richard Masters, the competition’s chief executive, betrayed his trust by saying there was no need for a slideshow as the clubs were in detail. Alison Brittain, its president, simply stressed that it is not in the league’s best interests to remain locked in litigation.

The amendments were then sealed at 9:20 a.m. and a pre-written press release confirming the decision was issued at 9:23 a.m. After City and the league attempted last month to claim victory with contrasting interpretations of the court findings that prompted these PTA amendments, the need to control the narrative was clear.

Legal threats still loom over the league when it comes to City, but support has waned since February, when Everton and Chelsea were among the clubs to rally behind them.

Some allies remain, but the motivations are now clearer than ever: Forest are a model of multi-club ownership and tensions with the league have simmered since penalties were spent for violations; Newcastle’s Saudi ownership has opposed APTs since the introduction of the rules, which were specifically aimed at limiting their spending following the 2021 takeover; Villa’s Egyptian owner, meanwhile, has consistently challenged PSR.

There is frustration within the City camp as other clubs, who had expressed their support privately, failed to materialize with a vote. Everton, buoyed by shareholder loans from outgoing owner Farhad Moshiri, were among those who switched sides.
Other clubs, however, say that the majority of the Premier League is more united than ever in the belief that this saga must be brought to an end. The consequences for the future of the world’s premier national football competition are too serious to allow internal struggles to continue, they emphasize.

APT rules place a limit on the amount of companies associated with clubs that can bring them money through sponsorship deals.

Senior figures say the logic of approving the changes was clear to clubs on Friday after the court’s ruling on City’s legal challenge: any delay – or possible non-approval – risked ceding control to a majority of clubs.

There is also a sense that financial controls, as implemented by the PSR and APT rules, have never been more crucial in ensuring the league maintains a competitive balance.

Some even think that the entire future of the Premier League is at stake and that there will be major consequences for the entire pyramid if there is no control over spending at the top.

City rivals send clear message

City and Villa, however, had strongly argued that no vote should take place until the court had provided its full guidance on the status of the APT rules.

The stakes were huge, but the message for the rest of the season for other clubs is that they will not be pushed around again. With City also fighting their 115-charge case, this signal couldn’t be better timed for Masters, who would have faced a real crisis had the vote gone the other way.

Joachim Piotrowski, competition and sports lawyer at Osborne Clarke, tells Telegraph sport that the 16-4 vote in favor of the amendments “is a pivotal moment in the regulatory landscape of the Premier League”.

The three amendments include the inclusion of shareholder loans in the fair market value (FMV) tests, the faster availability of a database of comparative commercial transactions with clubs and a relaxation of the wording of the rules of ” would” to “could”.

Piotrowski points out, however, that this latest change could have a negative impact. “While this represents a step towards resolving the contentious issues raised by Manchester City, it also paves the way for possible further legal battles,” he explained. “The shift from ‘would’ to ‘could’ in JVM testing is particularly noteworthy, as it could influence enforcement and compliance with the rules in the future. »

City, in turn, maintains warnings first issued before the vote.

A “retrospective exemption of shareholder loans for the period from December 2021 until the rules come into force” is problematic, says the club. “This exemption is one of the things that was found to be unlawful in the recent arbitration,” Simon Cliff, general counsel for City Group, wrote in a letter warning of possible legal action last week.

These sentiments are shared by Nassef Sawiris, the owner of the villa, who said: Telegraph sport Wednesday: “It is remarkable that legal expenses in this area have already reached astronomical amounts; New challenges and increased costs could be avoided by reaching consensus.

City’s perceived threats have been poorly received by other rivals, but Piotrowski suggests the champions may well now seek “a judicial review of the Premier League’s decision to implement the amendments”.

“This would involve arguing that the amendments are procedurally unfair or do not respect the principles of competition law,” he added.

“Furthermore, the city could explore the possibility of appealing the court’s decision on the limited grounds available under the Arbitration Act, although this would be a difficult route given the seniority and expertise of the judges involved.”

A key battle won for the Premier League and its allies on Friday, but, for City, the war may be about to get even bloodier.

Leave a Comment