FanchesterCity
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
The long and short of UEFA's argument will be this:
1) FFP is a valid exemption from normal rules as it's in the greater interest of the industry (which is a valid reason for exemption)
2) The majority of participating clubs are in agreement with the rules
3) The current rules aren't set in stone and that FIFA are still very much 'developing' their policy - so teething troubles are to be expected.
However, the winning counter argument (in my opinion) will be this:
1) It is not protecting the industry at large, merely a very small subset of clubs aka the elite.
2) No industry wide vote has taken place to prove the majority of the industry agrees with the rules.
3) Teething troubles may well be a typical issue with new rules, but that doesn't make them immune from the law.
4) There is no evidence whatsoever that huge investments in football clubs is (or has been) detrimental to the welfare of the game. Whilst there is some evidence to suggest it's been beneficial.
5) There IS evidence to suggest that clubs over stretching their finances can (and do) end up in trouble, but this should never be confused with huge investment. This is a ruse UEFA have been using for years, and is quite simply misleading, and at worse, knowingly misrepresentative of mismanaged club finances. i.e. they often use 'clubs getting into financial trouble' as their biggest fear, but appear to condone huge debt, but reprimand significant investment.
6) FFP imposes an effective glass ceiling for smaller clubs, who's only realistic means of growth is for growth to occur over decades, rather than years, which is a deterrent to many investors.
7) FFP places additional pressures on clubs to maintain revenues, which has a direct impact on tickets prices and merchandise which is not to the benefit of the consumer. i.e. If an owner chose to lower tickets prices, FFP would offer no incentive for them to do so. FFP makes very little provision for consumer benefit other than the exemption from FFP for infrastructure development, which is at best, a tenuous benefit.
The long and short of UEFA's argument will be this:
1) FFP is a valid exemption from normal rules as it's in the greater interest of the industry (which is a valid reason for exemption)
2) The majority of participating clubs are in agreement with the rules
3) The current rules aren't set in stone and that FIFA are still very much 'developing' their policy - so teething troubles are to be expected.
However, the winning counter argument (in my opinion) will be this:
1) It is not protecting the industry at large, merely a very small subset of clubs aka the elite.
2) No industry wide vote has taken place to prove the majority of the industry agrees with the rules.
3) Teething troubles may well be a typical issue with new rules, but that doesn't make them immune from the law.
4) There is no evidence whatsoever that huge investments in football clubs is (or has been) detrimental to the welfare of the game. Whilst there is some evidence to suggest it's been beneficial.
5) There IS evidence to suggest that clubs over stretching their finances can (and do) end up in trouble, but this should never be confused with huge investment. This is a ruse UEFA have been using for years, and is quite simply misleading, and at worse, knowingly misrepresentative of mismanaged club finances. i.e. they often use 'clubs getting into financial trouble' as their biggest fear, but appear to condone huge debt, but reprimand significant investment.
6) FFP imposes an effective glass ceiling for smaller clubs, who's only realistic means of growth is for growth to occur over decades, rather than years, which is a deterrent to many investors.
7) FFP places additional pressures on clubs to maintain revenues, which has a direct impact on tickets prices and merchandise which is not to the benefit of the consumer. i.e. If an owner chose to lower tickets prices, FFP would offer no incentive for them to do so. FFP makes very little provision for consumer benefit other than the exemption from FFP for infrastructure development, which is at best, a tenuous benefit.