NSWE Investment

[jwarry]

That’s an incredible post not least for its length!

[Tuscans]

Aston Villa owner Nassef Sawiris: Why we stand with Man City in Premier League civil war


Nassef Sawiris, the Aston Villa owner, says he is joining Manchester City in voting against associated-party transaction proposals because the “embattled” Premier League needs a “fresh start”.

Egypt’s richest man also detailed his concerns over “astronomical” fees attached to legal challenges and the need to provide a “united front” to the Government as regulation looms.

Becoming the first Premier League owner to go public with his position, Sawiris said the league should delay Friday’s vote as it attempts to heal rifts that “began with the failed attempt to launch a Super League in 2021”.

He has spoken out after Telegraph Sport disclosed on Tuesday how Villa had rallied behind City in the intensifying APT row in a letter telling other clubs that the league’s ongoing civil war is “critically weakening” the top tier.

Explaining his view, Sawiris, 63, has now confirmed “we will be voting against the proposed APT Rules” as clubs need time to reach a unanimous position.

“In our view, a vote in 90 days on amended terms taking into consideration the Tribunal’s findings will have a significantly greater chance of securing the unanimous support of all 20 Premier League clubs,” he said in a statement.

“Crucially, a unanimous vote will present a fresh start for an embattled Premier League that began with the failed attempt to launch a Super League in 2021. With the imminent arrival of the Government’s Independent Football Regulator, it is more important than ever that the Premier League can present itself to the regulator with a united front. In our view, this will be far more easily achieved if the APT vote is held in February and supported unanimously by all clubs.”

In June, shortly after City’s hearing began against APT rules, Sawiris first admitted concerns over the Premier League’s profitability and sustainability regulations in an interview with the Financial Times. In September, other clubs also voiced concerns privately at legal bills for all the league’s high-profile cases, including those against City.

In his new statement to Telegraph Sport, Sawiris expresses concern that costs will continue to spiral, with City warning of more potential legal action if APT amends in the wake of the tribunal’s findings are voted through.

His statement adds: “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. Ultimately, a unanimous vote will showcase the emergence of a new era of clubs who can compete vigorously on the pitch but work together to strengthen the Premier League and its global appeal.”

Telegraph Sport has previously reported how Villa’s ownership has grown increasingly sympathetic towards the Abu Dhabi-owned club’s cause, but the club’s major intervention ahead of the crunch vote is the first time any rival has gone public with support.

In a separate letter written to Premier League clubs, Villa argued that the forthcoming vote should be postponed and warned the Premier League will be “weakened” by any further public conflict with City.

They wrote: “It is now abundantly clear that any vote (if passed) will result in immediate further litigation by Manchester City FC and an associated defence by the EPL [English Premier League], incurring material further costs and unnecessary distraction and devotion of time to this issue.

“It is highly likely that the tribunal will conclude within the coming three months, and that an APT rule that takes into consideration the tribunal’s verdict will be supported by all clubs and cannot be contested.”

Despite the concerns, the Premier League still intends to press ahead with a vote on amends to APT rules which followed a legal challenge by City brought after the league rejected a huge new Etihad sponsorship deal as being not of fair market value. The independent tribunal has yet to provide full clarification on the status of the league’s APT rules after its judgment.

Villa’s intervention comes after City and the Premier League had attacked each other’s positions ferociously in other letters sent in recent days. City have written to rivals to tell them they are voting “blind” on amendments to APT rules that remain “void” while a tribunal clarifies a 175-page ruling last month.

The league, however, has sent a lengthy letter dismissing the club’s interpretation of findings and taking particular exception to criticism in a prior letter from City regarding its role as a regulator.

At a Premier League meeting in June, Villa also failed with a proposal to increase the allowed losses over three years to £135 million.

Current rules stipulate that clubs can lose £105 million over the three-year reporting period and Villa’s argument to increase it by £30 million was voted out.

Telegraph Sport reported in September how concern over legal costs has been mounting behind the scenes for several clubs following the appeal by the Premier League over its costs award in the Everton case for PSR. In submissions to the commission, the club’s general counsel, Celia Rooney, described as “eye-watering” some of the rates paid by the Premier League for its legal costs.

The Premier League regards the spending on fighting legal cases as fundamental – both to enforce rules and to defend itself against legal challenges.

Those costs are paid out of central Premier League funds which means that all clubs bear them equally.

Finished off a comment by Stefan Borson ( former football financial advisor ) , "Villa are obviously correct - both in the need to await the Tribunal determinations and the need to all the clubs to move forward in alignment".

[Demitri_C]

I cant support nassef on this.

[Ads]

Nasef following the prevailing step toward a more conciliatory pre-action approach post Churchill and Merthyr Tydfil and the updates to CPR 1.1(2)(f) in October. ADR doth loom large.

[DB]

https://x.com/KieranMaguire/status/1859291658648682866?t=aN8SgbOEzi0VolwZ3wguIw&s=19

[Tuscans]

https://x.com/KieranMaguire/status/1859291658648682866?t=aN8SgbOEzi0VolwZ3wguIw&s=19

Aston Villa join Newcastle and Wrexham in issuing shares to investors, with a £50m injection via parent NSWE Sports.

This is a correction for a previous posting by the club at Companies House

[Brazilian Villain]

Telegraph Sport reported in September how concern over legal costs has been mounting behind the scenes for several clubs following the appeal by the Premier League over its costs award in the Everton case for PSR. In submissions to the commission, the club’s general counsel, Celia Rooney, described as “eye-watering” some of the rates paid by the Premier League for its legal costs.

Celia Rooney is Everton's legal counsel. Is she any relation to Wayne?

[Somniloquism]

Maybe distantly. However I wonder if Ads can give us any idea how much Blackstone charge for / pay their top counsels as I suspect her costs are not much different then the Premier League ones.

[ChicagoLion]

They opened Pandoras Box by allowing State ownership.
Swaris may just be stating the bleeding obvious, that Citeh lawyers will not stop litigating.
The problem with his position is that this (Citeh Litigation) is unlikely to change post the Tribunal, unless they get their way of course.

[cdbearsfan]

It's a jar.

[dave.woodhall]

I think we're getting to the stage where Manchester City can afford to spend more than the League.

[Gareth]

I think we're getting to the stage where Manchester City can afford to spend more than the League.

100% this!

Was the same when the oddballs like Bristol City were crying about our spending in the Championship…the EFL would have been running scared of the financial clout of NWSE at that time. 

City will tie PL up in legal knots until they get the outcome they want be it completely cleared or some token punishment

[Ads]

Maybe distantly. However I wonder if Ads can give us any idea how much Blackstone charge for / pay their top counsels as I suspect her costs are not much different then the Premier League ones.

If you want a KC for say a 3 hour application in front of a Circuit Judge, let's say even in a non-chancery matter, simple county court issue, you're looking at a good £10,000 for the day. That's for reading your brief, skeleton argument, doing the hearing, maybe an advice, con on top and you're going northwards again in costs. Probably closer to £15k with and in fact, you'd be charged for the day as a whole.

If they're assisting in case management, over many 10s to 100s of hours over several months, multiple hearings, senior, you're talking 7 figures. The most I can charge is £230 an hour plus VAT (in theory...).

[Sexual Ealing]

'Kinell Ads, I charge more than you do!

(I do not. My rates are very reasonable. DMs open)

[Ads]

They're litigation rates, central set for Garde As. It's not really indexed to my wages, mainly because I'm not a Fee Earner anymore.