Despite calls from Nottingham Forest’s rivals Aston Villa for the vote to be postponed, the Premier League intends to move forward with it on Friday.

After an arbitration panel ruled that certain portions of the league’s associated party transaction (APT) rules were illegal, the league has been discussing with teams on modifications to the rules for over a month.

Although four-time champions Manchester City, whose legal challenge to the regulations prompted the arbitration panel to be called, warn that adjustments should not be hurried through, clubs, including Forest, will vote on those changes at a league meeting in central London on Friday.

According to reports, Villa has now joined the calls for a postponement and criticised the public way the APTs dispute has been handled.

According to reports, the league responded to Villa in writing, stating that it is sticking to its intention to hold a vote on Friday and agreed with the views regarding protecting the privacy of the process.

With the vote only a few days away, league CEO Richard Masters is still meeting with clubs this week.

Villa argues in his letter that the “acrimonious back and forth exchanges” regarding APTs “weaken” the Premier League as a whole, club executives, and the league’s leadership.

A majority of 14 clubs must concur, or two-thirds of the votes cast in the event of abstentions, for the rule amendments to be approved.

The proposal to subject the interest rate on shareholder loans to the fair market value (FMV) test is arguably the most important change.

According to the rule modification, interest charges that reflect fair market value will not need to be retroactively applied to the loan’s original issuance date. Nonetheless, it is recognised that the proposed modification would apply an effective interest rate to all current loans after a grace period, not only new loans.

If they so choose, club owners and shareholders who have contributed loans within the grace period may convert them to stock, but doing so will complicate the process of withdrawing their funds.

There will be a rollback of some measures that were approved in February. One is changing the phrasing of what is considered fair market value in the rules from “would” to “could,” which is supposed to give clubs more flexibility.

Additionally, clubs will have access to the league’s databank information for comparison before decisions are made regarding whether a sale was made for fair market value.