What Man City Premier League legal update means for Liverpool as 115 charges impact explained

Liverpool and their fellow Premier League competitors have been urged not to read too deeply into a crossover between Manchester City's associated party transactions (APT) rules case and the 115 charges hearing following reports that a voting change has been made. Ahad of the league's latest AGM, City are said to have been given a boost in their latest fight.

Having taken the battle back to the league earlier this year with regards to APT legislation, the Times claim that a decision not to hold a vote over the current regulations has left some at City confident changes are afoot. This is ongoing alongside the higher-profile alleged financial breaches hearing currently ongoing.

Business of football writer Dave Powell recommends caution in looking for an overlap between the two entirely separate scenarios though. “While the mention of Manchester City and legal challenges is likely to whip up plenty of interest, there remains no decision communicated on any rule change by the Premier League," he explains. "With the rules remaining the same on the League’s website and no sign of any alterations to clauses.

READ MORE: Major Man City Premier League legal battle 'update' emerges as Everton and Liverpool 'denied vote'

READ MORE: Liverpool have signed an even better Gini Wijnaldum - but I fear Trent Alexander-Arnold will leave

"The argument from City in this case against the Premier League, which is separate from the independent commission hearing over the 115 charges that is currently ongoing, was that the rules around APT were unlawful and contrary to the Competition Act 1998. The rules have only been in situ since the Premier League and its member clubs reacted to the Newcastle United takeover by the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund (PIF), with other clubs having raised concerns immediately due to fears of improving the ability to invest on the playing side through inflating revenues by entering into deals with associated companies.

"In the case of the PIF, wealthy firms in the Gulf with whom the PIF were closely linked. The current piqued interest focuses on the removal of a vote on amendments to the APT rules, due to take place yesterday [Wednesday, September 25], that related to limiting access for clubs to data on the size of fellow Premier League members commercial deals.

“While no decision has been communicated, the rather secretive nature of the Premier League and how it conducts its business means that City could well have been successful in an element of their appeal against APT rules." Despite the importance of such changes, as they would effectively deregulate rules which guard against clubs landing commercial deals out of proportion with market rates, Powell does not see the potential ruling having much effect elsewhere.

In City's case, they believe that the current rules infringe on their desire to invest and improve, with discrimination against the wealthiest owners, including those from the Middle East. “It is unlikely to have more far-reaching implications when it comes to the independent commission and the 115 charges for alleged historical breaches of financial fair play rules," Powell says, which did include allegations of inflating the value of deals.

“However, the more than City can make the case that the Premier League’s own rules at present are unfair and unlawful, they do have the potential to make that case to an independent panel when considering some of the wider aspects of the 115 charges. But should City achieve a victory against the Premier League over APT rules then it could open up the opportunity for clubs with wealthy owners who could leverage relationships with associated parties to a greater extent to draw in more in terms of revenue.

"Thus, improving their ability to operate more freely in the transfer market despite financial controls that exist in the form of profit and sustainability rules (PSR). For now, though, no decision has been communicated so all that can exist is speculation.”