The falling dominoes that could finally deliver a verdict on Man City’s 100+ charges

Across the Premier League , senior figures are now bracing themselves, amid growing murmurs the Manchester City decision is expected “this month”. Many everyday employees at the club are understood to have become inured to the prospect, since it’s been hanging over them so long - and far longer than expected.

It says much that people in the game have started to refer to the collapse of the Chinese espionage trial, and wondered whether there will be government involvement given the geopolitical dimensions though the club’s Abu Dhabi ownership.

And yet for all that “115” - or “129/130”, as it’s become known in football circles - has been seen as an existential moment for modern English football because of the height of its stakes, there is now a belief that its actual impact could be significantly lessened.

That is due to the parallel Associated Party Transaction (APT) case, which finally ended in a settlement between City and the Premier League .

Such a sentiment may come as a surprise given how muted the reaction to that announcement was in early September, particularly in contrast to the cacophony of noise the case had previously created. There was certainly no information war, as had been seen with previous developments in the story, including the initial rules being declared unlawful exactly a year ago. The feeling was that the settlement just represented a lull before “the big one”, or potentially a badly-needed entente. The release of identical statements pointed to the latter, amid a sense that many are fatigued by constant battle, and a will to “draw a line under brand-damaging litigation”.

The Independent understands that the APT settlement may even represent an end in itself, especially in how it’s seen as safeguarding a crucial part of the financial rules. This is why the impact of the City case may be lessened. Or, as has been put within the Premier League , “115 looks to the past, APT is about the future”.

The APT dispute was ultimately about the fear from other clubs that new rules were required to address the growing challenges of state ownership, and particularly the distinctive nature of “associated parties” in autocracies where the lines are blurred between public and private. In other words, that a relatively local company could be instructed to do a deal of international dimensions with a state-owned club. The company wouldn’t have any need for such promotion, and most normal ownerships - even capitalist funds - don’t have such capabilities.

Since such money often comes from the same pot, which is sovereign wealth, many football executives believe it should be counted as equity anyway - ie, revenue that would not raise PSR restraints. The fear was that this would be an indirect way for states to drastically increase their spending power.

The new APT rules were implemented in order to foster a degree of control over this, and properly link revenue to expenditure so as to prevent extreme inflation and preserve competitive balance.

The latest version of these rules, agreed earlier this year, are now understood to be locked in place. That comes after long and arduous negotiations, albeit amid a sense on all sides that it was probably time for the temperature to come down on much of this.

The entire episode did reach some peaks, that appeared to illustrate the full range of issues that come with state ownership. City would naturally point to justified grievances, right up to how the initial rules were declared unlawful. Other clubs believe they took the APT case primarily because they wanted “a win” before “115”. They pointed to how City's claim honed in on shareholder loans, despite having previously had no complaint about that issue at all.

open image in gallery

There is little appetite for more hostility between the Premier League and clubs (Getty Images)

Either way, the case left open the possibility that the entire concept of APT could be scrapped, while leaving the Premier League open to costly compensation claims over obstructed deals. In other words, chaos, and further “lawfare” amid an atmosphere of increasing animosity in English football.

The case was already seen as a landmark for how it represented the first time a Premier League club challenged the competition’s founding premise of a partnership that accepted majority votes for all regulatory decisions. The aggressive attitude of City’s representatives in meetings only accentuated this.

It was because of all that the Premier League was ultimately convinced to dig in, and not bend on these rules. A core principle of the competition was preserved, chaos avoided.

Departed Arsenal executive vice chair Tim Lewis was seen as influential here, given that he was by far the most outspoken on state ownership. There is some frustration this stance wasn’t pushed more publicly, to go with how the Premier League never seems to push the merits of PSR.

Most of the noise comes from those who argue the rules aren’t fair. The Premier League may now lack that kind of voice.

Duly, the settlement negotiations are understood to have been painstaking and complex - but ultimately successful.

There is now a strong confidence from within the Premier League that state or state-linked ownerships will not be able to test regulations with mega deals. That settlement has still provoked debate over what it could mean for “the big one”, particularly since they are expected to come in close conjunction: one in September, the next - potentially - this October.

open image in gallery

The APT rules were introduced to address the challenges of state ownership (Getty Images)

The answer, in principle, is nothing. “115” is an entirely separate judicial process, where everyone working on it has been “locked away” throughout. Clifford Chance’s lawyers representing City , for example, have essentially been bunkered away with those from the club.

One process has no impact on the other. City meanwhile insist on their innocence.

The wider case has nevertheless had other effects, since it’s widely seen as having caused clubs to delay big decisions. The competition has recently found itself at an impasse on several major issues due to disparate voting blocs. This has been visible through the failure to push through a version of Uefa’s Squad Cost Ratio, as well as potential innovations like “anchoring” - that the wealthiest clubs can only be able to spend a multiplier of the poorest clubs’ revenue.

Such hesitation has been put down to the potential for the City case to blow up everything again. The Premier League still has a lot of uncertainty around future financial rules. On the City side, some companies are even known to have been put off potential deals because the case is dragging on.

Underneath all of that, a core protection within the rules has been locked in place. This is no small thing, even as everyone now waits for “the big one”.