City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So is it possible that this could be settled today? By all accounts we're still in talks with UEFA, presumably to try and negotiate a lesser punishment. Or are we flat out refusing to accept any punishment because we believe UEFA have changed the goalposts with regards to them not seemingly following international accounting standards when assessing us?

SSN reporting that UEFA is set to reveal City's punishment later today and whether we will contest it

 

[mancity dan]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So is it possible that this could be settled today? By all accounts we're still in talks with UEFA, presumably to try and negotiate a lesser punishment. Or are we flat out refusing to accept any punishment because we believe UEFA have changed the goalposts with regards to them not seemingly following international accounting standards when assessing us?

SSN reporting that UEFA is set to reveal City's punishment later today and whether we will contest it

Haha. I thought they already had with £50m fine and smaller CL squad size.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I would have thought that the issue that is ultimately going to bring down ffp is a player, just like Bosman - either someone like an Ashley Cole (but with balls and brains) who realises that the wages they now command under ffp are economically much lower than they would have been, or someone who does not get a club because of ffp affordability. Ultimately ffp reduces player wages, reduces transfer fees (which some clubs need to survive) and takes loads of money out of fottball, while the likes of the Glazers (bless em) continue to take loads of money out of football. The European courts will look much more favourably at a disadvantaged individual than a loaded club, I am sorry to say

There's a clear connection between the two that the courts cannot fail to see though, by blocking investment in a business you take away their right to grow and create more economic benefits and more employment within the EEA/EU, so either side (employer or employee) can take the case perfectly effectively. I think people are relying on the Bosman ruling as a point 'a' here when it's slightly different, Bosman was, in effect, the players v the clubs. FFP is the players and the clubs against the G14 and UEFA.

 

[M18CTID]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So is it possible that this could be settled today? By all accounts we're still in talks with UEFA, presumably to try and negotiate a lesser punishment. Or are we flat out refusing to accept any punishment because we believe UEFA have changed the goalposts with regards to them not seemingly following international accounting standards when assessing us?

SSN reporting that UEFA is set to reveal City's punishment later today and whether we will contest it

Haha. I thought they already had with £50m fine and smaller CL squad size.

True. Unless it's been negotiated down in the meantime.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So is it possible that this could be settled today? By all accounts we're still in talks with UEFA, presumably to try and negotiate a lesser punishment. Or are we flat out refusing to accept any punishment because we believe UEFA have changed the goalposts with regards to them not seemingly following international accounting standards when assessing us?

SSN reporting that UEFA is set to reveal City's punishment later today and whether we will contest it

And Whingers been flapping his lips again so maybe some news today.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The cartel don't need to destroy us and PSG they just need to stop anyone else joining! So they need to make a big point but if they push too hard and we go to war we all lose

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So is it possible that this could be settled today? By all accounts we're still in talks with UEFA, presumably to try and negotiate a lesser punishment. Or are we flat out refusing to accept any punishment because we believe UEFA have changed the goalposts with regards to them not seemingly following international accounting standards when assessing us?

SSN reporting that UEFA is set to reveal City's punishment later today and whether we will contest it

And Whingers been flapping his lips again so maybe some news today.

I do think he knows more than is the public domain. He's deranged and hypocritical in the extreme but not stupid. His media outbursts are calculated from him I think. To try to make everyone think we've got off lightly whilst he can make it look like he's been hard done by. This is what all the "if you overspend by £100m, you should be fined £100m" was all about, to make £50m seem quite reasonable. He knew that was coming.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

QPR fan in peace. Seem to remember last time we were up your way we had a little mutual celebration so maybe my appearance here is an omen. Something tells me you wont suffer quite so much this time round....

Anyway FFP. You think you've got problems. We're goin to take it up the botty large style whether we go up or stay put. And the irony is we're a far worse side than the one that turned up when Joey (bless) went mental (again). So regarding the legality of FFP, this seems to me a pretty decent summary:

http://www.soccernomics-agency.com/?p=469

Oh and good luck with the other thing ;)

Those screaming war and go to Court should read this (from a QPR well wisher)- you will need your legal welly's and I've just had a wade through.
Some very interesting observations from a legal mind on UEFA's reasoning to believe that FFP and why it would likely be supported if put before the ECJ.
The most interesting is of course he is fair minded enough to say the true test will always be a challenge. Not sure why he didn't mention the Dupont case in relation to such a potential challenge unless the article is outdated.
For those who can't be arsed in a nutshell:
It's reason enough to believe that any challenge will not be nailed on from an anticompetitive stance as there is case law to support "Sports Organisations" to have special dispensation to impose such practices that appear to be anticompetitive in other fields of business. I believe the test may be that this is only the case if they (UEFA) can show such practices satisfy justifiable aims of FFP.
From my perspective it would seem that the main justifications put forward for this support would be those aims laid down in 2010 which of course have since given birth to those of the bastard child of Mr. G14 and Mrs. Platini.
I would appreciate it if those with a modicum of legal experience (i number myself amongst those with a little) could lend their subjective opinion if they have a read through, maybe PB and Aguerro 93.20 and anyone else who's contributed to the thread.

The only precedent I can think of is the Salary cap in Rugby, which is slightly different within the field as it has fulfilled one key requirement- The players themselves negotiated and agreed with it, so it bypasses the necessary laws to prevent anti-competitive wage structures. If anyone
knows of any others that would support UEFAs stances post a link, but I'm surprised they haven't already turned up.
Here's a key quote from that article:

FFP seems to me to be a horizontal agreement between suppliers (of sports services: clubs) which includes commitments to restrain spending (inter alia on players’ wages). It is also strengthened by vertical restraints (licensing requirements) enforced by UEFA, the governing body. It is a restriction on competition (to acquire players’ services) which has the effect (inter alia) of depressing the levels of remuneration payable to players. That is the province of Article 101 TFEU, which is the EU’s principal Treaty provision designed to control restrictive practices and anti-competitive arrangements.

Another:

the social policy objectives pursued by such agreements would be seriously undermined if management and labour were subject to Article 101 TFEU when seeking jointly to adopt measures to improve conditions of work and employment. It therefore decided to place such agreements beyond the reach of Article 101 TFEU. So EU competition law is interpreted with contextual nuance. But both key elements – collective action and improvement of conditions of work – are missing from FFP. So the ‘Albany exception’ cannot help UEFA.

Not that the Professor himself says that he here is trying to construct a case defending FFP, but he obviously still feels that there are some pretty big holes in it. Any decent legal counsel will drive a lorry through those holes.

EDIT:Key point from the Article

So what was at stake was a restriction of competition but not one incompatible with EU law, because justified by a legitimate objective, inherent in the organisation and proper conduct of competitive sport. This would not apply only if (as was not shown) the rules went beyond what is necessary to ensure the proper conduct of competitive sport (e.g. by imposing excessively severe penalties).

 

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

let me summarize the position - we are plucked, trussed and oven ready
it merely remains for the gas to be turned on - I'm thinking who'd be first in the queue for that job?

I think you criminally underestimate the professional resources and sheer resolve of our ownership. You focus too much on the motives of others and too little on the capabilities of us.

We have acted honourably throughout and will continue to do so - that is what they are relying on. People without integrity have always put good faith at the top of their victims' list of desirable characteristics. What is criminal is the whole crude FFP apparatus.

 

[nickson71]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

SSN reporting that UEFA is set to reveal City's punishment later today and whether we will contest it

Haha. I thought they already had with £50m fine and smaller CL squad size.

True. Unless it's been negotiated down in the meantime.

if they do announce our punishment I would not surprise me if it if it was their last offer assuming that they have been trying to negotiate with us.

say they start at the £50mil plus squad restrictions we tell them to get stuffed so they come back with £20mil but by this point we have decided to take this to court so we say get stuffed again. The up side being that they can say we are being unreasonable by refusing a reduced punishment.

maybe a bit of paranoia there