I have occasional spells where I need to remind everyone just how clever I am ;-)Ducado said:gordondaviesmoustache said:There is a further aspect to FFP, which adds another layer to it being an anthema to the philosophy that underpins the EU, namely the freedom of the market to move goods, people and capital freely.
To allow this to happen businesses must fail. Companies if they are run poorly, make strategic errors or have products that are no longer relevant must be made to pay. If other companies, more hungry, nimble and innovative are providing a better product then it is in the public interest for them to flourish, or at the very least for the conditions to be in place that do not militate against that possibility.
I say this because united, on current evidence, are a poorly run business. They have made a series of poor decisions in terms of recruitment, have had to completely revise their putative corporate strategy, have a product which is looking tired and are, by their own admission, looking at significantly lower profits in the foreseeable future.
If there was a system in place which protected Phones4U, for example, that did not punish them for the mistakes they made as a business, which unfairly prevented others entering the fray and challenging their market dominance, this would most likely be acted upon by the EU. If, however, that situation was allowed to prevail indefinitely meaning that Phones4U were allowed to continue to make poor decisions in the knowledge that they were protected from the consequences that flowed from that, it's even more difficult to see how that would be tolerated by the EU.
We usually think about FFP as a means of keeping people out of a particular group, but even when reflecting upon those it seeks to protect we often assume they will continue to operate as efficient, well oiled commercial enterprises. Commercial history teaches us otherwise. It is littered with many examples such as IBM, Nokia and currently Tesco who once enjoyed dominance over a particular market, who became lazy and complacent and ultimately lost their power and relevance. FFP gives those clubs at the top protection against making difficult, but correct commercial decisions.
FFP protects and rewards bad business practice (aka "doing things the wrong way"). Football may, to some extent, be different from other businesses in terms of how it is addressed by the EU legal system, but how can anyone seek to justify that state of affairs?
Although I'm sure they will.
Now and again you really do post some excellent posts and that was one! (only now and again mind you ;-) )
Ducado said:gordondaviesmoustache said:There is a further aspect to FFP, which adds another layer to it being an anthema to the philosophy that underpins the EU, namely the freedom of the market to move goods, people and capital freely.
To allow this to happen businesses must fail. Companies if they are run poorly, make strategic errors or have products that are no longer relevant must be made to pay. If other companies, more hungry, nimble and innovative are providing a better product then it is in the public interest for them to flourish, or at the very least for the conditions to be in place that do not militate against that possibility.
I say this because united, on current evidence, are a poorly run business. They have made a series of poor decisions in terms of recruitment, have had to completely revise their putative corporate strategy, have a product which is looking tired and are, by their own admission, looking at significantly lower profits in the foreseeable future.
If there was a system in place which protected Phones4U, for example, that did not punish them for the mistakes they made as a business, which unfairly prevented others entering the fray and challenging their market dominance, this would most likely be acted upon by the EU. If, however, that situation was allowed to prevail indefinitely meaning that Phones4U were allowed to continue to make poor decisions in the knowledge that they were protected from the consequences that flowed from that, it's even more difficult to see how that would be tolerated by the EU.
We usually think about FFP as a means of keeping people out of a particular group, but even when reflecting upon those it seeks to protect we often assume they will continue to operate as efficient, well oiled commercial enterprises. Commercial history teaches us otherwise. It is littered with many examples such as IBM, Nokia and currently Tesco who once enjoyed dominance over a particular market, who became lazy and complacent and ultimately lost their power and relevance. FFP gives those clubs at the top protection against making difficult, but correct commercial decisions.
FFP protects and rewards bad business practice (aka "doing things the wrong way"). Football may, to some extent, be different from other businesses in terms of how it is addressed by the EU legal system, but how can anyone seek to justify that state of affairs?
Although I'm sure they will.
Now and again you really do post some excellent posts and that was one! (only now and again mind you ;-) )
I enjoyed that post Gordon .gordondaviesmoustache said:There is a further aspect to FFP, which adds another layer to it being an anthema to the philosophy that underpins the EU, namely the freedom of the market to move goods, people and capital freely.
To allow this to happen businesses must fail. Companies if they are run poorly, make strategic errors or have products that are no longer relevant must be made to pay. If other companies, more hungry, nimble and innovative are providing a better product then it is in the public interest for them to flourish, or at the very least for the conditions to be in place that do not militate against that possibility.
I say this because united, on current evidence, are a poorly run business. They have made a series of poor decisions in terms of recruitment, have had to completely revise their putative corporate strategy, have a product which is looking tired and are, by their own admission, looking at significantly lower profits in the foreseeable future.
If there was a system in place which protected Phones4U, for example, that did not punish them for the mistakes they made as a business, which unfairly prevented others entering the fray and challenging their market dominance, this would most likely be acted upon by the EU. If, however, that situation was allowed to prevail indefinitely meaning that Phones4U were allowed to continue to make poor decisions in the knowledge that they were protected from the consequences that flowed from that, it's even more difficult to see how that would be tolerated by the EU.
We usually think about FFP as a means of keeping people out of a particular group, but even when reflecting upon those it seeks to protect we often assume they will continue to operate as efficient, well oiled commercial enterprises. Commercial history teaches us otherwise. It is littered with many examples such as IBM, Nokia and currently Tesco who once enjoyed dominance over a particular market, who became lazy and complacent and ultimately lost their power and relevance. FFP gives those clubs at the top protection against making difficult, but correct commercial decisions.
FFP protects and rewards bad business practice (aka "doing things the wrong way"). Football may, to some extent, be different from other businesses in terms of how it is addressed by the EU legal system, but how can anyone seek to justify that state of affairs?
Although I'm sure they will.
gordondaviesmoustache said:There is a further aspect to FFP, which adds another layer to it being an anthema to the philosophy that underpins the EU, namely the freedom of the market to move goods, people and capital freely.
To allow this to happen businesses must fail. Companies if they are run poorly, make strategic errors or have products that are no longer relevant must be made to pay. If other companies, more hungry, nimble and innovative are providing a better product then it is in the public interest for them to flourish, or at the very least for the conditions to be in place that do not militate against that possibility.
I say this because united, on current evidence, are a poorly run business. They have made a series of poor decisions in terms of recruitment, have had to completely revise their putative corporate strategy, have a product which is looking tired and are, by their own admission, looking at significantly lower profits in the foreseeable future.
If there was a system in place which protected Phones4U, for example, that did not punish them for the mistakes they made as a business, which unfairly prevented others entering the fray and challenging their market dominance, this would most likely be acted upon by the EU. If, however, that situation was allowed to prevail indefinitely meaning that Phones4U were allowed to continue to make poor decisions in the knowledge that they were protected from the consequences that flowed from that, it's even more difficult to see how that would be tolerated by the EU.
We usually think about FFP as a means of keeping people out of a particular group, but even when reflecting upon those it seeks to protect we often assume they will continue to operate as efficient, well oiled commercial enterprises. Commercial history teaches us otherwise. It is littered with many examples such as IBM, Nokia and currently Tesco who once enjoyed dominance over a particular market, who became lazy and complacent and ultimately lost their power and relevance. FFP gives those clubs at the top protection against making difficult, but correct commercial decisions.
FFP protects and rewards bad business practice (aka "doing things the wrong way"). Football may, to some extent, be different from other businesses in terms of how it is addressed by the EU legal system, but how can anyone seek to justify that state of affairs?
Although I'm sure they will.
JoeMercer'sWay said:also MCFC could quite easily be pointed to as a model for sustainable investment in football and thus punishing us for it could be seen dimly in the eyes of the EU. Also, if the status quo have sense, they will know this and be terrified of FFPR failing because in an improving economic climate the City model could be a death knell to those clubs if FFPR is quashed.
UEFA would jump into bed tomorrow with the likes of us if further investment came in and created a competitive Club World Cup that brought billions into UEFA's pockets from the growth of the game in Asia etc.
fbloke said:BluessinceHydeRoad said:fbloke said:Perhaps we dont give Platini the credit he deserves?
He may well have played an absolute blinder here, via FFP rather than being the donkeys arse he seems like at first glance?
He has said many times that he knew that debt was a problem and also that no-payment of taxes was also an issue but both of these things required new rules for UEFA to be able to make a stand on them.
Whatever UEFA tried to do it would have upset or destabilised some clubs and it also scared the 'cartel' out of the long grass.
He also knows that the clubs have, for the past two decades or more been stripping authority from UEFA to control the footballing affairs of the European game.
He has gone way out of his way to make it abundantly clear that the decisions he has been 'forced' to make on FFP have been at the behest of the powerful clubs, the big clubs, the current ruling elite of clubs.
If FFP is now perceived as a tool designed by these clubs with their own self-interest at the fore and simply something that UEFA have, under great pressure and against their original designs for debt control, now been handed by these clubs then UEFA can clip the power of the clubs via the EU.
Its an interesting thought that the big clubs could be forced to break up and end all their cosy ECA led agreements, referred to by Platini on a number of occasions SINCE the legal challenges were laid down.
Thinking in the round it might not be such an outlandish thought that UEFA and M. Platini have given the cartel not only enough rope to hang themselves but he has allowed them to build the gallows under the impression that others would be the victims.
No, fbloke, Platini has not played a blinder and he deserves no credit for abdicating every shred of responsibility which goes with his office at UEFA. For a start, it did not need any new rules for UEFA "to make a stand" on the question of debt or on the non-payment of taxes. He hasn't made any stand at all on the question of debt, apart from a cosy little deal with his friends from the G14 that some of them don't have to pay their debts, while debt is not allowed for any other club. On the non-payment of taxes, it was the inland revenue that put a stop to Rangers dodges, because they were illegal and were dealt with by using the law. FFP would have had no role at all anyway. In the main non-payment of tax was essentially a Spanish problem, and was dealt with only when the German government took up the question with the European commission: "How long must the German taxpayer pay Ronaldo and Messi's wages so that their clubs can pay no tax?" was the headline on the front page of Das Bild. It had nothing to do with the football authorities, who seem to have made the curious decision that Atletico Madrid's repayments, large as they are, don't affect their balance sheet enough for them to fall foul of FFP. Only investment, it appears, does that!
Now, to argue that he has introduced these regulations as a stroke of genius to show the criminal intentions of the magic circle so that the courts will quash them and thus destroy the power of the G14 is to ignore the facts. The argument that he only did this for these reasons ignores the slight difficulty that it is acting as a part of a cartel which is the offence, and the purity of motive is no defence and certainly no proof of innocence: "I was just obeying orders" has never worked as a plea! Platini is employed, and paid handsomely, for leadership, and he has shown none. He has given way to every threat made by the "magic circle", has defended the fines imposed on City and PSG, and, if he really "knows" that his rules are doomed in the courts why has he defended them so resolutely, imposed them so inflexibly and had nothing at all to do with M. Dupont's challenge to them? Why has he never done anything to help those clubs threatened with ruin by his regulations? Aren't they entitled to UEFA's protection rather than face the threat of financial implosion because the same cartel, in England, has foisted these same rules on the PL? Why has he chosen to waste four years hounding European clubs to save his own skin rather than spell out the consequences of secession to the "magic circle". This man is not a fit custodian of our game and doesn't even give a thought for the fans at all.
I'll put you down as undecided should I?
;-)
Club World Cup is FIFA, not UEFA, so they wouldn't get "billions" from it. Of course their clubs would likely win it so there could be some spin offs.JoeMercer'sWay said:UEFA would jump into bed tomorrow with the likes of us if further investment came in and created a competitive Club World Cup that brought billions into UEFA's pockets from the growth of the game in Asia etc.