Probably the only mistake our ownership has made since the takeover, it should have fought FFP in the courts from day one.
Incredible to make owner investment into a business illegal, FFS how and why did we not stop that.
This Superleague ruling one claim they have made is ‘For the fans, we propose free viewing of all Super League matches’. It’s an admirable idea, however how do they intend to keep the revenues coming in when the clubs biggest source of income is tv money paid for via subscriptions to platforms like Sky?
I remember arguing this at the time, but apparently we were prepared to accept a slap on the wrist in order not to upset the apple cart. I thought this was a mistake at the time, because FFP should have been a mechanism to prevent clubs going into excessive debt, not to prevent investment and suppress competition. Water under the bridge now I suppose but it appears to have come back to bite us on the arse with the premier league.Probably the only mistake our ownership has made since the takeover, it should have fought FFP in the courts from day one.
Incredible to make owner investment into a business illegal, FFS how and why did we not stop that?
The revived ESL is the new Nuclear Option :)
That's not my understanding. Jean-Louis Dupont brought a case before the European Commission on behalf of Football Agent Daniel Striani.The attempt to get such a ruling failed as the court ruled that UEFA had the benefit of an exception to normal law.
Clubs have already been to the ECJ which ruled against them (in a roundabout sort of fashion) in the case brought originally by City supporters, later joined by some clubs. There is no likelihood of defeating ffp in the European courts, due to the EU cultural get out. Post Brexit, however…….That's not my understanding. Jean-Louis Dupont brought a case before the European Commission on behalf of Football Agent Daniel Striani.
However they told Dupont that he'd skipped several steps & needed to start from a local magistrates, before pursuing the case further up the ladder if he doesn't get his desired ruling which he did.
The European Commission rejected his case based on a specific technicality. He objected to FFP from a players & agents perspective, whilst the EC opined that FFP was directed at football clubs, & that none had complained to them about FFP over the four years it had been in effect.
No big clubs wanted to be seen as his backers to the case, albeit smaller clubs dreaming of becoming the next PSG, Leipsig or City stood to benefit.
The situation would be wholly different if football clubs brought a case to the EC or ECJ instead of football agents on behalf of players. That's all that's standing in the way of a serious court challenge to FFP.
They always seem to shoe-horn the less than mighty Spurs in there - A 'super' team that has won one trophy this millennium.View attachment 101910
The first time UEFA & FIFA's hegemony has been challenged in the ECJ, football's rule stopping the Super League falls apart like a cheap suit.
I believe FFP is also contrary to EU Competition Law. City just don't want to be the ones to bring the self serving scam crashing down.
https://news.sky.com/story/european...ly-in-blocking-breakaway-competition-13034834