Article 101 of TfEU states unequivocally that "any agreement to limit or control production, markets, technical developments or investment" are prohibited. When you say that "if you don't want to enter UEFA sanctioned competition you can spend what you (like)" you are actually admitting that if you DO want to enter UEFA sanctioned competition you have to agree NOT to spend what you like, and this is a clear acceptance of a limit on investment. UEFA is quite clear on what it will not let you spend. This is, of course, the fundamental part of FFP, the break even rule; clubs may not spend more than what they " earn" from certain sources. In other words a club may only spend what other companies put into your club, not your owner! If they do the owner/shareholders may only make up 30 million euros of the difference over three years. Now expenditure on academies, stadia etc are not counted towards the break even calculation, though interest on loans to pay for them is. Money spent on players (transfer fees and wages) is counted in full. Money spent on players is investment in an asset just as spending on an academy or a stadium, and it is clear that a team of low cost, poor players will keep an expensive stadium near empty. Thus FFP clearly limits investment by owners and shareholders and, in short, that is what is illegal about that., and further proof of this comes from the settlement agreed by City and UEFA in 2014. UEFA decreed that City's wage bill must not increase for two years, they set down a limit on what City could spend in the transfer market and City were even allowed a squad of only 21 in the CL instead of the 25 other teams were allowed. In no other area of economic activity is this degree of interference from an external body contemplated, let alone allowed. UEFA is in fact abusing a dominant market position - and this is prohibited - by trying to force participants to accept an abrogation of their rights as a pre-entry condition. City's acceptance of the settlement of 2014 was only an agreement in that the club's consent was obtained only because refusal would have led to long legal proceedings damaging to its interests.
Only yesterday Rick Parry was in front a government committe stressing the need for wage caps, he's hardly doing that if it's illegal?
You can’t see the irony in this if you think a system which allows owners to ‘install gold plated toilet seats and have academies built on the moon’ but cannot invest their own money in employing the best possible staff for their own business is acceptable?
A wage cap will only work if ALL clubs agree to it, as they have in rugby. An informal cap may well get acceptance from the FL and it would not be unlawful until a club went to law because action was taken by the league against it for breaching the cap.
The courts said "That's your lot".Plus they can't have rules that are illegal. Is it appropriate to draw comparisons with golf clubs, that used to ban women from membership? Were they eventually overruled by law, or public onion?
So every club could agree on June 1st for a wage cap buy Preston get taken over by a billionaire on August 1st and suddenly something that was legal in July now becomes illegal in August because someone wants to go a spending spree?
I think you're comparing apples with oranges in your examples, you are using restrictions of trade and general employment laws from the past where we are speaking about agreements in advance of registering in a league or cup.
I know each case must be judged on its own merits, but we have to return to the Bosman ruling and the precedent it set.But they can invest in their own staff, it just has limits for entry to specific competitions. I'm not saying it's right or wrong just not illegal as bluesincehyderoad has claimed.
So every club could agree on June 1st for a wage cap buy Preston get taken over by a billionaire on August 1st and suddenly something that was legal in July now becomes illegal in August because someone wants to go a spending spree?
I think you're comparing apples with oranges in your examples, you are using restrictions of trade and general employment laws from the past where we are speaking about agreements in advance of registering in a league or cup.
I don't think City really want to bring FFP down. After all, Khaldoon is in favour of a wage cap. Nor do they want to bring UEFA down, as Khaldoon says we do have some friends there.There is absolutely no point anybody going on about the rights or wrongs of FFP and why we failed it. CAS have no interest in that. They are only judging only on the the 2 year ban and the relevant charges from UEFA that led to ban i.e. overstating sponsorship and failure to assist with the investigation.
The time to fight FFP and the original charges passed years ago.
You may end being shown to be right but sport has loads of these type rules. F1 has spending limits, rugby union has a salary cap per team, even the PL has it's own financial rules which City signed up to, China has limits on it will allow be spent on foreign players, the list of restrictions compared to "normal life" would go on for miles.
If you get what you're looking for the implications are enormous for every sport on the planet.
A sad day that was.
That's essentially correct. I was told we sought and received assurances from UEFA that we were on the right lines as regards our accounting for these wages on three separate occasions and that we would not be sanctioned if we met the requirements of the then current rules.I'd welcome clarification from PB on this point. My understanding is that we are dealing with a matter of some legal significance here since at issue are wages agreed in contracts signed some considerable time before the terms of FFP were known. UEFA could not, therefore, find a club in breach of the regulations for spending before there was any regulation of spending. But I am certain that City were in regular contact with UEFA to ensure that we were in a position to avoid any sanction. We received assurances from UEFA that this was the case and the club still has these assurances. Only after our accounts had been published did UEFA change the date limit on these wages. This is certainly not City being "somewhat creative after the fact" nor is it reason for UEFA to be "more than a little pissed they missed it". It shows clearly that City did everything to conform and were victim to something very similar to entrapment. This is one of many procedural reasons why I too "fail to see how UEFA can make this stick in CAS or anywhere else for that matter."
Correct, they wont get into any debate around the rights and wrong of FFP just the process.There is absolutely no point anybody going on about the rights or wrongs of FFP and why we failed it. CAS have no interest in that. They are only judging only on the the 2 year ban and the relevant charges from UEFA that led to ban i.e. overstating sponsorship and failure to assist with the investigation.
The time to fight FFP and the original charges passed years ago.
why should we take the slightest interest in a dippers opinion?Monkey sponge on twitter is a Liverpool supporting football agent , he thinks it's going legal , our champions League ban
Dippers know all about illegal,find out about their mythical new groundFFP doesn't limit owner investment, an owner can install gold plated toilet seats and have academies built on the moon if they want. The day to day part of the business must meet certain trading terms to qualify for entry to European competition. If you don't want to enter UEFA sanctioned competition you can spend what you. What is illegal about that?
Only yesterday Rick Parry was in front a government committe stressing the need for wage caps, he's hardly doing that if it's illegal?
Because he's also a football agent, and like what khaldoon said ' football is a small world, we hear things 'why should we take the slightest interest in a dippers opinion?
Would that be from the hateful 8? Or EUFA?Monkey sponge on twitter is a Liverpool supporting football agent , he thinks it's going legal , our champions League ban
and dead Italians, destruction of other people's transport and property, hacking, having sanctioned money laundering firms as sponsors, having a grossly inflated kit deal with a B-player Boston manufacturer and signing players from another club whose ownership have close ties to their own owners at below market value.Dippers know all about illegal,find out about their mythical new ground