Jackie Broon

Realistically, I don't think there is any way that any club outside of the big 6 could ever bridge the financial gap to them with organic growth alone.

My reading of the decision is that it is likely to be important for us in that respect. In their evidence the PL said that the APT FMV rules before the amendments made in February had an inflationary effect, that APTs could be increased over time under the pre-amemdment rules and so the changes were necessary. They essentially wanted to completely restrict our ability to grow our revenue over time. The PL lost that argument. Whilst this isn't going to lead to us being able to instantly catch up to the big 6 it reopens a mechanism for us to do that in the long term.

Only in the context of PSR not being challenged. Essentially the decision says that PSR hasn't been challenged and so the principle of PSR is accepted, in that context APT control is necessary for PSR. 192. We agree that the move to an ex ante regime with a freeze on monies being used until there has been a determination that the APT is evidently not above FMV is a more intrusive market intervention than the previous ex post regime. However, as we have found, the evidence referred to at [180] above, indicates that there were difficulties in the speedy and effective investigation of potential breaches under the ex post regime. RPTs were not being declared, and any restatement would be made long after the money had been done. As a result, the PSR was not effective. There has been no challenge to the PSR or to the principle of detecting and eliminating subsidies by way of RPTs with the clubs.

After hearing about the planned meeting with of PL clubs with her I wrote to Lisa Nandy about this yesterday. Not that it will make any difference but I felt I had to say something.

I think the burden of proof and other changes to the wording in the amendments being found to be unlawful is a big thing too. It seems it's going to be very difficult for the PL to change the APT and FMV rules in future to make them any more stringent than they were before February's amendments.

But, will the APT rules at that time stand up to scrutiny? Essentially what the charges seem to relate to are Man City making APTs without disclosing that, if rules were unlawful or badly drafted so they can show they didn't breach the rules at the time, then they would probably get away with it.

The ultimate aim is probably to force some kind of settlement of the 115 charges I think. They're in a position now where PSR benefits them, so I don't think they will want to see PSR completely ripped up, just a system that allows them to keep doing what they're doing.

Exactly, and that's one of the points in Man City's letter to the other clubs.

Nope, could be months more.

One thing that people seem to be missing is that the arbitration case isn't over yet, it was only a partial decision, the arbitration tribunal still has to hear evidence and make a decision on injunctive relief (the actual impact on the rules), damages and costs.

It's a private process, the only reason we know about Man City's rejected deals is the arbitration. They stalled and rejected three Man City deals, it's very likely that they've done similar with us.

They did consider that (from page 41 on) but only in the context of the APT rules, they didn't consider the lawfulness of PSR as a whole: 192. We agree that the move to an ex ante regime with a freeze on monies being used until there has been a determination that the APT is evidently not above FMV is a more intrusive market intervention than the previous ex post regime. However, as we have found, the evidence referred to at [180] above, indicates that there were difficulties in the speedy and effective investigation of potential breaches under the ex post regime. RPTs were not being declared, and any restatement would be made long after the money had been done. As a result, the PSR was not effective. There has been no challenge to the PSR or to the principle of detecting and eliminating subsidies by way of RPTs with the clubs. (I know this contradicts what I said earlier and PSR being here to stay)

Unfortunately, that was found to be legitimate by the arbitration panel.

That, the reversal of the burden of proof, alongside other restrictive changes in wording of the APT rules like 'could' to 'would' were what led Man City to bring the case. That was Man City's challenge, in addition they threw the kitchen sink at the PL and not all of that stuck, as it wouldn't tend to when someone throws the kitchen sink. But they were entirely successful in challenging the amendments that caused them to bring the case against the PL in the first place.

And not really accurate, the amendments were significant to us, more than Man City, because they would have really hampered our ability to grow sponsorship revenues as we grow. The amendments have been completely thrown out and it's going to be very difficult if not impossible for the PL to make PSR and APT any more stringent than it was before the amendments again.

The judgment found that it was legitimate to change the rules in response to our takeover and the rules not being sufficient at that time to prevent us, and other clubs, from exploiting associated party transactions. It was instigated by our takeover but the arbitration panel found that was acceptable for the PL to do that in the circumstances.

Coincidental background? https://www.newcastleunited.com/en/news/newcastle-united-appoint-roger-thornton-to-board-of-directors

I doubt the likes of Arsenal would be willing to sacrifice PSR altogether to avoid interest on their loans. I don't know whether UEFA include interest on shareholder loans or not, if not they might also need to consider amending their rules as a result of this.

I've skimmed though the decision in more detail. Here's some stuff I've gleaned that's not apparent from the summary. The bad: In relation to whether the changes to the rules were unfairly targeted at gulf state own clubs and unfairly made in response to our takeover, they found that was not the case and it was appropriate for the PL to change the rules. They fundamentally found that the PSR and APT are lawful in principle in terms of competition law. This seems to make it unlikely that PSR and APT are going anywhere. The good: The amendments to the APT rules were found to be unlawfully anti-competitive pretty much in their entirety (other than around changes to deadlines for making FMV decisions). The changes in the wording and reversal of the burden of proof from the PL to the club was found to be unlawfully anti-competitive. Basically, PSR and APT are here to stay but Man City did exactly what they set out to do, get rid of the amendments to the rules, and as a bonus they fucked over some of their main rivals with the shareholder loans stuff.

It's pretty likely they've been doing the same with us as well.

That's not my reading of the decision, it is clear that the rules are only unlawful on limited grounds: (i) that the APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 because they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and for no other reason; (ii) that the Amended APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 as they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and because of the pricing changes in Appendix 18 of the Amended APT Rules and for no other reason; (iii) that APT Rules and the Amended APT Rules are unlawful on account of being procedurally unfair because a club is unable to comment upon the comparable transaction data relied upon by the PL before the PL determines whether a transaction is not at FMV and for no other reason;

Yeah, they do it as a way of putting money into the club in a way that means they can get it back in the future with much lower personal risk.

Probably not, it probably just takes the rules back to where they were this time last year. Other than the interest free loan stuff.

Briefly reading the conclusions of the decision it does seem pretty limited in scope, more about procedural matters of not giving Man City the opportunity to respond to rejection of their sponsorship deals and not giving decisions in time. They haven't made a decision on compensation yet though, which will be interesting for us because we might be able to get some too if they have rejected some of our deals.