How dropping authorized battle with Man City over sponsorship guidelines uncovered the Premier League – and why the lame duck chief government is responsible, writes MIKE KEEGAN

According to some, it was the Indiana poet James Whitcomb Riley who coined the phrase when he wrote: ‘When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.’

Critics claimed Riley’s success – he became a best seller and toured the world – was down to a poor education which meant that he spoke the language of the common man and, as such, was able to get his point across to the masses.

Riley passed away in 1916 at the age of 66, and so the chances of him imparting his wisdom to those who rule the roost at Premier League headquarters in Paddington are fairly remote.

But as those who run the top-flight come to terms with another Manchester City legal victory, they could do worse than pin his message above the door and paint it on the walls, because the reality of the situation still appears to be falling outside of their grasp.

In October, Mail Sport reported how an independent tribunal made up of a KC, a former second most senior judge in England and Wales and another judge who at one point was in charge of the Commercial Court, had found that the Premier League’s rules on associated party transactions (APTs), brought in following the Saudi takeover of Newcastle in what appeared to be a panicked move aimed at stopping the Geordies from doing another City, were unlawful following a legal challenge from none other than City themselves. 

The four-in-a-row champions had taken the extraordinary step after they were stopped them from penning sponsorship deals with Etihad Airways and Abu Dhabi first bank.

Richard Masters could find himself a sitting duck if the Premier League are humiliated again

Man City celebrate their fourth successive Premier League triumph at the Etihad last May

City chairman Khaldoon al-Mubarak (left), pictured with FIFA president Gianni Infantino

Within the ruling, three elements of APT were identified as problematic, the main issue being that shareholder loans (loans from stakeholders at no interest or mate’s rates) were not subject to the same fair market assessments.

At the time City (who had pushed for the ruling to be made public against the Premier League’s wishes) urged caution over next steps. But chief executive Richard Masters was singing from a different hymn sheet. He failed to hear the quacking. 

Instead, he told clubs that the tribunal had actually ‘endorsed’ the rules. Just a couple of sticking plasters needed on the ‘discrete elements’ identified. We will be alright in no time, he assured.

City tried. Simon Cliff, general counsel, was accused by some of bullying when he sent a warning to clubs that there might be a sharp object approaching in the waters ahead. He had suggested it may be wise to wait for the panel to deliver its final verdict on whether the entirety of the rules were actually null and void, which was their view. But still the quacks went unheard. 

Later that very same month the Premier League went ahead with a vote on their tweaked system and it passed by 16 to 4.

As promised, City issued another legal challenge. As promised, the panel came back earlier this week on the first matter and found that the rules – which ran for three years – were indeed ‘void and unenforceable’.

And yet, in his email to clubs on Friday afternoon, Masters continued to downplay the severity of the situation. 

All would be fine, he said, because we have the new rules now. What he failed to mention was that the same panel that has ruled so emphatically in favour of City, would be ruling shortly on the legality of those new rules. 

Manchester City and Newcastle could strike significantly higher sponsorship agreements if the tribunal finds in the Premier League champions’ favour again with their next verdict

Pep Guardiola marks his sixth Premier League title – and City’s eighth – with Al Mubarak

There was also no talk of the legal costs, with City now expected to seek the £10m they spent and the top-flight set to shell out the estimated £10m they could have claimed had they emerged successful. 

There was also no mention that even if the panel does give the new rules the green light the potential remains for clubs who saw deals blocked under the outlawed system to seek compensation.

All eyes are now on the panel and on the verdict from the Premier League’s attempt to hammer City for 115 alleged breaches of its financial regulations which is due over the coming weeks.

Should that result in further embarrassment for the Premier League and its chief executive it might be an idea to call it a duck – overseen by one of the sitting variety.