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

[Sunny Coast Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Can't remember by how much, however the governing body itself is making losses.
what gives them the right to take the immoral high ground on the behest of other loss making ventures propped up by tax rebates ala the rags.

 

[stony]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'm sure that UEFA will give Liverpool a much easier ride than we got, but I would die laughing if they got sanctioned just as we moved into profit.

After all those smarmy snide little digs from John Henry, the day of any announcement of LFC failure to comply City should put a joint bid in for Sterling and Sturridge.

Sterling yes, Sturridge no.

 

[Rösler von Stretfordbömber]

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.

7) The very recent ruling in the Mastercard interchange fee case addresses this point directly (by analogy) and suggests the court would be favourable in a general sense to this argument in particular (market power of cartel of credit card companies creating higher costs for consumers = bad under antitrust scrutiny, basically.)

I would add

8) By effectively (albeit somewhat indirectly) capping the amount of money UCL-contending clubs can pay in wages, FFP serves as a restraint on the movement of and availability of employment for "workers." i.e. French footballer wants to come here and work. But we are unable to pay him wages because of FFP restrictions - worker thus not free to move from one EU member state to another (And footballers are clearly qualified as "workers" per Bosman.)

But yes, as another poster just said these are good arguments against. There are some additional arguments they are running with on the "for" side in one way or another.

It is all affected by who is the particular plaintiff as well. M. DuPont is representing the agent (as well as groups of football fans.) He seems to have an excellent shot on the merits.

If your plaintiff were a club or player I think the case would be even stronger to knock this out. But of course no club wants to get too sideways of their imperial overlords. And players probably think about Jean-Marc Bosman, who had to sit out while the case wound through the courts and who I believe never played again professionally even after winning his case.

 

[waspish]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If they do get done 7m withheld is NOWT compared to the 50m we have had withheld

 

[HolisticJim]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

FFP is absolute bollocks. If it's designed to stop clubs spending more than they can afford, like Portsmouth and Leeds did, how the fuck can it be applied to us? Our owner has more money than the entire nation of Belgium and could afford to buy the Moon if he wanted it. This means one of three things:
Platini doesn't understand his own rules, so is an imbecile who shouldn't be left in charge of a goldfish, never mind UEFA.
Platini understands perfectly but hopes no-one questions him so he can cheat and allow Man Utd and Real Madrid to spend what they like, thus generating more money for UEFA.
Platini believes the media bullshit that 'the Sheikh will get bored'. In which case again, he is an imbecile.

So in reality, Platini is either an imbecile, or a corrupt cheat.

Whichever, we really need to beat this crap in the courts, then sign Bale, Ronaldo and Fabregas. Fat windbags like Alan Brazil and various southern rags in the media will then set themselves on fire rather than live with us winning the quadruple every season.

As much as I can't stand the bloke he basically said in an interview that the Elite clubs threatened to go it alone unless Uefa met certain criteria.
I don't recall him naming FFP specifical but he did say that in many cases he wasn't I'm agreement but was powerless to prevent them.

 

[Dribble]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

FFP is absolute bollocks. If it's designed to stop clubs spending more than they can afford, like Portsmouth and Leeds did, how the fuck can it be applied to us? Our owner has more money than the entire nation of Belgium and could afford to buy the Moon if he wanted it. This means one of three things:
Platini doesn't understand his own rules, so is an imbecile who shouldn't be left in charge of a goldfish, never mind UEFA.
Platini understands perfectly but hopes no-one questions him so he can cheat and allow Man Utd and Real Madrid to spend what they like, thus generating more money for UEFA.
Platini believes the media bullshit that 'the Sheikh will get bored'. In which case again, he is an imbecile.

So in reality, Platini is either an imbecile, or a corrupt cheat.

Whichever, we really need to beat this crap in the courts, then sign Bale, Ronaldo and Fabregas. Fat windbags like Alan Brazil and various southern rags in the media will then set themselves on fire rather than live with us winning the quadruple every season.

As much as I can't stand the bloke he basically said in an interview that the Elite clubs threatened to go it alone unless Uefa met certain criteria.
I don't recall him naming FFP specifical but he did say that in many cases he wasn't I'm agreement but was powerless to prevent them.

Very true. Many times Napoleon has openly admitted that he's the G14's woman and is powerless to stop them, but as one poster said, that still doesn't make FFP right or lawful.

 

[gh_mcfc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I am confident that reference to the undue influence of certain G14 clubs hold over UFEA has been included in the submission to the court. In fact I suspect our lawyer has been made aware of direct quotes taken from a certain interview by a sympathetic journalist with our French puppet friend. #shotinfoot

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Probably getting ahead of myself here, but if the legal challenge is successful and FFP is deemed unlawful, I wonder what the consequences will be.

For a start, the sanctions imposed on us will presumably be deemed unlawful and we will be given our money back and have the squad restrictions lifted. But beyond that, what about the damage done to our club and its reputation. I don't think we would decide it's in our best interests to pursue this further (who knows) but presumably we could go after them for damages. I mean, what if we were out of the CL by then and could show that only having 21 players had materially affected this. Or we could show we were after Falcao but couldn't get him because of unlawful FFP restrictions. I really don't know how this all would pan out.

There's also the trivial matter of UEFA having to ask all the CL clubs for the money back - the fines from us and PSG that they will have dished out to the other clubs. Maybe they don't want to give it back. There's all sorts of ramifications.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Probably getting ahead of myself here, but if the legal challenge is successful and FFP is deemed unlawful, I wonder what the consequences will be.

For a start, the sanctions imposed on us will presumably be deemed unlawful and we will be given our money back and have the squad restrictions lifted. But beyond that, what about the damage done to our club and its reputation. I don't think we would decide it's in our best interests to pursue this further (who knows) but presumably we could go after them for damages. I mean, what if we were out of the CL by then and could show that only having 21 players had materially affected this. Or we could show we were after Falcao but couldn't get him because of unlawful FFP restrictions. I really don't know how this all would pan out.

There's also the trivial matter of UEFA having to ask all the CL clubs for the money back - the fines from us and PSG that they will have dished out to the other clubs. Maybe they don't want to give it back. There's all sorts of ramifications.

If I remember correctly all competing clubs sign disclaimers that they will not be able to look for redress if FFPR is removed.
That said if it is found illegal then due to the "undue influence of certain G14 clubs" in bringing it into existence could the clubs be charged under anti-competitive laws?

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Probably getting ahead of myself here, but if the legal challenge is successful and FFP is deemed unlawful, I wonder what the consequences will be.

For a start, the sanctions imposed on us will presumably be deemed unlawful and we will be given our money back and have the squad restrictions lifted. But beyond that, what about the damage done to our club and its reputation. I don't think we would decide it's in our best interests to pursue this further (who knows) but presumably we could go after them for damages. I mean, what if we were out of the CL by then and could show that only having 21 players had materially affected this. Or we could show we were after Falcao but couldn't get him because of unlawful FFP restrictions. I really don't know how this all would pan out.

There's also the trivial matter of UEFA having to ask all the CL clubs for the money back - the fines from us and PSG that they will have dished out to the other clubs. Maybe they don't want to give it back. There's all sorts of ramifications.

If I remember correctly all competing clubs sign disclaimers that they will not be able to look for redress if FFPR is removed.
That said if it is found illegal then due to the "undue influence of certain G14 clubs" in bringing it into existence could the clubs be charged under anti-competitive laws?

I think that sounds a bit like "no refunds on sale goods" or other contract terms that would be illegal.

Can you imagine an armed gang breaking into your home and asking you at gunpoint to sign a disclaimer saying you can't come after them for damages if they are caught. You can imagine how the judge might view such a contract, can't you.