The coffee had only just been poured inside the Nobu hotel’s five-star meeting room as Manchester City’s noisy rebellion was defeated in 15 minutes.
Not even a whimper from City’s executives at the shareholders’ table this time, but an acute sense of irony after a man once feted at the Etihad delivered the final blow.
Manchester United’s Omar Berrada – who oversaw City’s signing of Erling Haaland in his previous job – had been sitting right next to former colleagues as he had the last word before a vote of huge potential consequence.
Speaking after Chelsea’s chief legal officer James Bonnington, Berrada said now was the time for the competition to move on from its recent spats.
With ferocious club-to-club lobbying in recent weeks, few words were needed: An immediate show of hands afterwards showed all but City, Aston Villa, Newcastle United and Nottingham Forest readily agreed.
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 the outcome of a tribunal last month, several senior club figures had been rallying league support for three key amendments to its associated-party transaction (APT) rules.
Ahead of the vote on Friday, Richard Masters, the competition’s chief executive, betrayed his confidence by saying there was no need for a slideshow as clubs were across the detail. Alison Brittain, its chair, simply underlined that it is not in the league’s interests to remain locked in litigation.
Amendments were then sealed by 9.20am and a pre-written press release confirming the decision was issued by 9.23am. After both City and the league had last month attempted to claim victory with contrasting interpretations of the tribunal findings that had prompted these APT amendments, the need to control the narrative was clear.
Legal threats still loom over the league as far as City are concerned, but support has dwindled since February, when Everton and Chelsea were among clubs to rally behind them.
Some allies remain, but motives are now clearer than they have ever been: Forest are a multi-club ownership model and tensions with the league have simmered since spending breach sanctions; Newcastle’s Saudi ownership has opposed APTs since the introduction of the rules, which were specifically designed to curb their spending after the 2021 takeover; Villa’s Egyptian owner, meanwhile, has consistently challenged PSR.
There is frustration within the City camp that other clubs, who had privately expressed support, did not materialise with a vote. Everton, propped up by shareholder loans from outgoing owner Farhad Moshiri, were among those to switch sides.
Other clubs claim, however, that the majority of the Premier League is more united than ever in believing a line must be drawn under this saga. The consequences for the future of the world’s leading domestic football competition are too high to allow more infighting to carry on, they point out.
APT rules put a limit on how much companies associated with clubs can feed money to them via sponsorship deals.
Senior figures say the logic of approving the changes was clear to the clubs on Friday following the tribunal’s ruling into City’s legal challenge: any delay – or eventual non-approval – risked handing control away from a majority of clubs.
There is also a feeling that financial controls, as implemented by the PSR and APT rules, have never been more crucial in ensuring that the league retains a competitive balance.
Some even believe that the entire future of the Premier League is at stake and that there will be major ramifications for the entire pyramid if there are no controls on spending at the top.
City’s rivals send clear message
City and Villa had argued forcefully, however, that no vote should take place until the tribunal 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 from other clubs is they will no longer be pushed around. As City also fight their 115 charges case, that signal could not be better timed for Masters, who would have faced a full-blown crisis if the vote had gone the other way.
Joachim Piotrowski, a competition and sports lawyer at Osborne Clarke, tells Telegraph Sport that the 16-4 vote in favour of amends “is a pivotal moment in the Premier League’s regulatory landscape”.
The three amendments include the integration of shareholder loans into fair market value (FMV) tests, the earlier availability of a database of benchmarked commercial deals to clubs and a softening of phrasing in the rules from “would” to “could”.
Piotrowski points out, however, that there could be a sting in the tail with that latter change. “While it represents a step towards resolving the contentious issues raised by Manchester City, it also sets the stage for potential further legal battles,” he explained. “The change from ‘would’ to ‘could’ in the FMV tests is particularly noteworthy, as it may influence the application and enforcement of the rules in the future.”
City, in turn, still stand by warnings first issued ahead of the vote.
A “retrospective exemption for shareholder loans for the period from December 2021 until the rules come into effect” is problematic, the club claim. “This exemption is one of the very things that was found to be illegal in the recent arbitration,” wrote Simon Cliff, City Group’s General Counsel, in one letter warning of potential legal action last week.
Those sentiments are shared by Nassef Sawiris, the Villa owner, who told Telegraph Sport on Wednesday: “It is noteworthy that legal bills to date on this matter have already reached astronomical amounts; further challenges and escalation of these fees could be avoided through reaching consensus.”
City’s perceived threats have gone down badly with other rivals, but Piotrowski suggests the champions may well be now seeking “judicial review of the Premier League’s decision to implement the amendments”.
“This would involve arguing that the amendments are procedurally unfair or that they fail to comply with competition law principles,” he added.
“Additionally, City may explore the possibility of appealing the tribunal’s decision on the limited grounds available under the Arbitration Act, although this would be a challenging path 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.
