PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Keeper! said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
KS55 said:
The attempt to get such a ruling failed as the court ruled that UEFA had the benefit of an exception to normal law.
Click to expand...
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 didn't get his desired ruling. He followed the guidance & eventually had his complaint heard by the European Commission.

The European Commission rejected his case at the first hurdle 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.
 
Dribble said:
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.
Click to expand...
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…….
 
Dribble said:
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
Click to expand...
They always seem to shoe-horn the less than mighty Spurs in there - A 'super' team that has won one trophy this millennium.
 
KS55 said:
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 courts, due to the EC cultural get out.
Click to expand...
Which clubs? I can't recall hearing of any legally challenging FFP.

As per the EC ruling, it's for the affected clubs to complain & prove their case, but none have & all have signed up & agreed to FFP.

Until that changes, I can't see FFP being ruled as anti-competitive even though we know that was its exact intent.
 
Gazza said:
They always seem to shoe-horn the less than mighty Spurs in there - A 'super' team that has won one trophy this millennium.
Click to expand...
Spurs are the ultimate arse lickers who've always clung on to the coat tails of ManUre, Liverpool & Arsenal.

This suits those three, as it shields them from looking like the self serving bastards they are.
 
The Government has announced the new independent regulator for football will introduce rules to block any English clubs from joining a Super League.

It'll be like Rwanda 2.0... ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯
 
Dribble said:
Which clubs? I can't recall hearing of any legally challenging FFP.

As per the EC ruling, it's for the affected clubs to complain & prove their case, but none have & all have signed up & agreed to FFP.

Until that changes, I can't see FFP being ruled as anti-competitive even though we know that was its exact intent.
Click to expand...
Go back across the many cases to see the development of this. In the DuPont case we were joined in the action by several clubs for example.
 
WhatsApp_Image_2023-01-17_at_12.15.52_(1).jpeg

Both Barça & Real have issued statements saying UEFA's monopoly is over, & that they'll be giving an update on the Super League's future very soon.

HOWEVER, with FIFA backing UEFA, what if they both ban any Super League players from appearing in European or Global club or international football?

This would include all European club competitions, the Euro's, the Olympics, that pre-World Cup tournament, the World Club Cup AND the World Cup?

This ain't over by a long chalk & these developments could be perfect for City. Whilst they're all squabbling about this ruling, will the PL or UEFA seriously want to hammer us over their sketchy FFP breaches & piss us off?

This promises to get messy & we owe them fuck all after our treatment at their hands! (⁠•⁠‿⁠•⁠)
 
Last edited:
Was there not a fine for joining the super league ? Does the ruling mean we get it back ? Make our revenue even higher and any sanctions should they ever come even more daft
 
With GB now being outside the EU it gets even more complicated.

Footy determined to destroy itself where so much is decided away from the pitch rather than on it.

Soon the Champions will be the club with the best lawyer with no need for actual games!
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
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?
Click to expand...

Because they will support that for two years with initial funding, then miraculously have a vote on a broadcasting deal. Don't believe a word these cowboys say. I would trust FIFA and UEFA more than these guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top