\n<\/p>\n
It had been felt that Manchester City’s challenge to the Premier League was that they wanted to scrap Associated Party Transaction rules completely.<\/p>\n
But from talking to sources with an understanding of City’s motivations, BBC Sport has learned the club’s argument was not against what they deem to be proportionate and fair regulation.<\/p>\n
In this instance, what they actually argued against were the changes. City argued the initial rules, in place up to 2021, were fine. The club did not believe there had ever been an indication of a need to change those rules, and no proposal to do so had been put forward.<\/p>\n
It is also worth bearing in mind that under these rules, all City’s partnership deals had been annually reviewed and none were considered to be related party transactions. <\/p>\n
So, their conclusion was that the changes – which they believe were rushed anyway considering the complexity of the arguments – came about as a result of club politics.<\/p>\n
The rules were changed following a vote in February that was not unanimous. <\/p>\n
Last November plans to block loan deals between associated clubs and also wider commercial transactions both fell short of gaining the required two-thirds majority. <\/p>\n
This confirmed to City the plans were wrong, and would lead to substantial argument and legal bills on both sides. They felt the new rules would be used to target certain clubs. <\/p>\n
They also question that if 14 clubs – or in this instance 12 given two abstained – can effectively change the economics of rival clubs, what would stop them doing so in an even clearer way by, say, centralising commercial contracts, as is the case in Major League Soccer.<\/p>\n
This last argument does appear a bit of a stretch, nevertheless, it is what City felt and the argument they made.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n