UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%

  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%

  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%
  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maldeika said:
No. There is just other clubs that do not need to manipulate... Especially not Bayern is nowhere near having problems keeping the FFP rules...
You just cannot compare minority owners without ruling power that are stock corporations with your situation.

When it is about Adidas, Audi and Allianz... - this companies aren't only Bayern sponsors but sponsor other top European clubs, too, and the contracts with Bayern aren't better than the others.
Click to expand...
Bayern and “not manipulate” in the same sentence, oh the fucking arrogance
 
Rosler's Mullet said:
Good piece, interesting that Liverpool were the first English team to field an all non English 11,way back in 1892.
Click to expand...
That's because their owner, who had been Everton chairman, fell out with his board and arranged to kick Everton out of Anfield which was their ground. So he had a ground but no team and bought a load of Scottish footballers to form what is now Liverpool.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Excellent post as ever. You could say that FFP has played some part in increasing financial stability but what has done at least as much if not more than FFP is rising TV and commercial revenues. UEFA claim that net debt or that debt as a proportion of turnover has decreased but I've worked out that gross debt hasn't decreased to any noticeable degree.

Imagine the retail sector, with major store groups struggling on the high street and a couple of big ones failing. The Department for Business decides to step in and brings in legislation that means stores must break-even. An ambitious owner sees a chance to invest in their smaller, niche business and take over some of the prime locations vacated by the failed stores. It's a big step up for them and they'll need capital to do that. Rents will rise, as will wages and other overheads. They'll need to invest in stocks and as a consequence of this increased cost base the business will run at a loss for a while until it's established. But they're not allowed to do that.

Any attempt to defend that ludicrous position would be laughed out of court.
Click to expand...

perfect analogy and the very reason i would like it to go to court
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Excellent post as ever. You could say that FFP has played some part in increasing financial stability but what has done at least as much if not more than FFP is rising TV and commercial revenues. UEFA claim that net debt or that debt as a proportion of turnover has decreased but I've worked out that gross debt hasn't decreased to any noticeable degree.

Imagine the retail sector, with major store groups struggling on the high street and a couple of big ones failing. The Department for Business decides to step in and brings in legislation that means stores must break-even. An ambitious owner sees a chance to invest in their smaller, niche business and take over some of the prime locations vacated by the failed stores. It's a big step up for them and they'll need capital to do that. Rents will rise, as will wages and other overheads. They'll need to invest in stocks and as a consequence of this increased cost base the business will run at a loss for a while until it's established. But they're not allowed to do that.

Any attempt to defend that ludicrous position would be laughed out of court.
Click to expand...

Would have thought this would be an angle we are looking at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraint_of_trade
 
Maldeika said:
No. There is just other clubs that do not need to manipulate... Especially not Bayern is nowhere near having problems keeping the FFP rules...
You just cannot compare minority owners without ruling power that are stock corporations with your situation.

When it is about Adidas, Audi and Allianz... - this companies aren't only Bayern sponsors but sponsor other top European clubs, too, and the contracts with Bayern aren't better than the others.
Click to expand...



Great competitive league you have, will this year be 8 titles on the trot ?
you must be so proud of making your league into a one horse race by milking your opponents of there best players.

But hey, thats ok, you`re Bayern you can do what you want.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
That's because their owner, who had been Everton chairman, fell out with his board and arranged to kick Everton out of Anfield which was their ground. So he had a ground but no team and bought a load of Scottish footballers to form what is now Liverpool.
Click to expand...
In a similar way to that long forum post about United (Munich families, champagne Louis etc) should be required knowledge for all fans (city, oppo’s and most of all United ones), so should the story of Liverpool:

A team founded on money, to earn money for its owner, in comparison to most of the clubs founded in that period - who were created for more altruistic reasons.

A club who only cared for itself.

The 1st, what later became ‘plastic’, but at that time ‘bakelite’ club. An owners plaything.

The 1st mercenary club, not just one or two, but the entire playing staff, bought in from afar (Scotland), on higher wages than the other clubs.

A club funded entirely by the owner investing his own money, with an eye to the future of profit and prestige - the irony.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Excellent post as ever. You could say that FFP has played some part in increasing financial stability but what has done at least as much if not more than FFP is rising TV and commercial revenues. UEFA claim that net debt or that debt as a proportion of turnover has decreased but I've worked out that gross debt hasn't decreased to any noticeable degree.

Imagine the retail sector, with major store groups struggling on the high street and a couple of big ones failing. The Department for Business decides to step in and brings in legislation that means stores must break-even. An ambitious owner sees a chance to invest in their smaller, niche business and take over some of the prime locations vacated by the failed stores. It's a big step up for them and they'll need capital to do that. Rents will rise, as will wages and other overheads. They'll need to invest in stocks and as a consequence of this increased cost base the business will run at a loss for a while until it's established. But they're not allowed to do that.

Any attempt to defend that ludicrous position would be laughed out of court.
Click to expand...

Sport is considered different by the EU commission. Forgetting about football there are spending caps in Rugby, Cricket, Forumula One, all the American sports have varying types of spending limits.

If you apply the same rules to sport as business then every single sports rule book is getting ripped up and replaced.
 
Just thinking, with leagues suspended and game being played behind closed doors a lot of clubs are going to be losing money, how will this impact FFP position of clubs.
 
BobbyBoy said:
Sport is considered different by the EU commission. Forgetting about football there are spending caps in Rugby, Cricket, Forumula One, all the American sports have varying types of spending limits.

If you apply the same rules to sport as business then every single sports rule book is getting ripped up and replaced.
Click to expand...

To save me looking it up, do those sports you mention have different "spending caps" for different clubs ?
 
Academica said:
Just thinking, with leagues suspended and game being played behind closed doors a lot of clubs are going to be losing money, how will this impact FFP position of clubs.
Click to expand...
The usual suspects have a higher proportion of their revenue derived from match day- Arsenal, Liverpool, United, Chelsea - than from other sources, when compared to other sources/clubs.
I’m sure if matches are behind closed doors, special dispensation on failing FFP will be swiftly wafted through to ensure the cartel clubs can continue putting distance between themselves and the rest.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
That's because their owner, who had been Everton chairman, fell out with his board and arranged to kick Everton out of Anfield which was their ground. So he had a ground but no team and bought a load of Scottish footballers to form what is now Liverpool.
Click to expand...
And the owner went on to become the tory Lord Mayor of Liverpool, just to emphasise the working class origins of that club!
 
r.soleofsalford said:
Great competitive league you have, will this year be 8 titles on the trot ?
you must be so proud of making your league into a one horse race by milking your opponents of there best players.

But hey, thats ok, you`re Bayern you can do what you want.
Click to expand...
I may be mistaken, but didn't Volkswagen who have interests in Wolfsburg and Bayern have someone on the board at Wolfsburg when we signed KDB, and wasn't that person also claimed to be a Bayern supporter? Cue the smacked arse syndrome of Bayern towards us as they expected to get Kev on the cheap.
 
BobbyBoy said:
Sport is considered different by the EU commission. Forgetting about football there are spending caps in Rugby, Cricket, Forumula One, all the American sports have varying types of spending limits.

If you apply the same rules to sport as business then every single sports rule book is getting ripped up and replaced.
Click to expand...

Other sports have spending caps or spending limits but in all cases these limits are the same for all participants. FFP differs from this because it ties spending to income - but limits equity investment- so teams have different spending limits. At a domestic level any team with regular CL football is in such a privileged position that other teams can simply never catch up - even if their owner wants to invest. FFP is wholly at odds with a football pyramid. I’d argue FFP is not a financial regulation to govern the wellbeing of the game. It’s clearly an instrument to protect a cartel - hence why it is so very different from anything introduced in other sports. If UEFA wanted to protect clubs it could simply have introduced a wage cap or set a ceiling on the debt to income ratio - but we all know why they didn’t do that- and that’s why FFP is probably not consistent with competition law - it’s specifically designed to limit not encourage competition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top