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

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

And that, in one, was the reason for the introduction of the Premier League. Certain big clubs wanted to keep TV revenues for themselves rather than spreading the money throughout the FL's 92 clubs. The argument was that TV audiences tune in to watch the big clubs whereas they would have little interest in lower league games. The up-and-coming SKY TV realised this potential and the first of the big broadcasting deals was signed, leaving the other three divisions out on a limb. It does annoy me, in a placid sort of way, when senior names at some of these big clubs are quick to condemn City for attempting to maximize their income, yet the same hypocrites held no sympathy towards those clubs who were to have their incomes slashed because of this eagerness to get on the PL SKY bandwagon.

And 10 years before the PL those self-same big clubs (including the rags, Liverpool & Arsenal) blackmailed the other clubs into handing over the 25% gate money they previously got from the home club, thereby widening the fnancial gap virtually at a stroke.

Sadly Peter Swales was also in favour of this move.

That is true, and iirc he was delegated to do the negotiations. Must have been due to his perceived reputation as a 'peacemaker'. I think it's fair to say that he misunderstood the scale of the monster that was to be unleashed on the game (like he misunderstood everything about his own club) and he was accused by some of selling the PL short.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I could do with some nice 'uns up top and some vitality in my shorts!

Sign me up!

 

[higgi1p]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I.

shock and awe will resonate throughout the CL and PL cartels, as well as the rest of the PL, when the new sponsorship deals are made public.

So hope that happens soon. Does anybody know the date of an announcement?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I.

shock and awe will resonate throughout the CL and PL cartels, as well as the rest of the PL, when the new sponsorship deals are made public.

So hope that happens soon. Does anybody know the date of an announcement?

 

[Ducado]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Has this been posted? It's from Fair Play for Football Consumers FB page

PRESS RELEASE - Mr Dupont Petitions Brussels Court.

Press Release (10 October 2014)

FFP legal challenge steps up in Belgian Courts with new bid (« interim measure ») to prevent further implementation of UEFA's break-even requirement

As is well known, the Court of First Instance in Brussels is currently considering a dispute about FFP between players 'agents and supporters, including the Manchester City FC Supporters Club (15,000 members and 168 clubs worldwide), represented by lawyers Jean­Louis Dupont and Martin Hissel, against UEFA and the Belgian Football Association

Through this action, the plaintiffs are seeking in particular the Court of First Instance to refer the case before the Court of Justice of the EU (EUCJ) so that it decides on the compatibility of the UEFA Financial Fair Play regulations with EU law. The plaintiffs argue that the regulations amount to an "investment ban " and, as such, are a flagrant violation of EU competition law. Given a final ruling on the merits may take some time, today the plaintiffs have filed with the Court of First Instance in Brussels a request for a "provisional measure": until such time the Belgian Court makes its final ruling on the merits of case, the provisional measure seeks to prohibit UEFA from moving into the second phase of the implementation of its "break-even requirement". In effect this aims to force UEFA to, at least, stick to the rule as currently applied (i.e. a deficit limit of up to €45 million) and prevents further hardening of the rule (a deficit limit of up to €30 million) as required by the FFP regulation.

The move does not ask the Belgian judge to stop UEFA's FFP implementation, rather, simply to prevent it from accelerating while the agents' and supporters' challenge is being considered by the Courts. This is likely to be helpful, also, for UEFA since it serves to limit UEFA's financial risk in the event that the judge upholds the existing complaint and it is faced with damages from multiple parties.

It is now rests with the Court of First Instance in Brussels to fix the procedural timetable for the debate on the request for this interim measure.

Jean-Louis DUPONT Martin HISSEL

 

[Mr Ed (The Stables)]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I.

shock and awe will resonate throughout the CL and PL cartels, as well as the rest of the PL, when the new sponsorship deals are made public.

So hope that happens soon. Does anybody know the date of an announcement?

I don't like it up here can someone put me back in my stable FFS........lol

 

[cibaman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Has this been posted? It's from Fair Play for Football Consumers FB page

PRESS RELEASE - Mr Dupont Petitions Brussels Court.

Press Release (10 October 2014)

FFP legal challenge steps up in Belgian Courts with new bid (« interim measure ») to prevent further implementation of UEFA's break-even requirement

As is well known, the Court of First Instance in Brussels is currently considering a dispute about FFP between players 'agents and supporters, including the Manchester City FC Supporters Club (15,000 members and 168 clubs worldwide), represented by lawyers Jean­Louis Dupont and Martin Hissel, against UEFA and the Belgian Football Association

Through this action, the plaintiffs are seeking in particular the Court of First Instance to refer the case before the Court of Justice of the EU (EUCJ) so that it decides on the compatibility of the UEFA Financial Fair Play regulations with EU law. The plaintiffs argue that the regulations amount to an "investment ban " and, as such, are a flagrant violation of EU competition law. Given a final ruling on the merits may take some time, today the plaintiffs have filed with the Court of First Instance in Brussels a request for a "provisional measure": until such time the Belgian Court makes its final ruling on the merits of case, the provisional measure seeks to prohibit UEFA from moving into the second phase of the implementation of its "break-even requirement". In effect this aims to force UEFA to, at least, stick to the rule as currently applied (i.e. a deficit limit of up to €45 million) and prevents further hardening of the rule (a deficit limit of up to €30 million) as required by the FFP regulation.

The move does not ask the Belgian judge to stop UEFA's FFP implementation, rather, simply to prevent it from accelerating while the agents' and supporters' challenge is being considered by the Courts. This is likely to be helpful, also, for UEFA since it serves to limit UEFA's financial risk in the event that the judge upholds the existing complaint and it is faced with damages from multiple parties.

It is now rests with the Court of First Instance in Brussels to fix the procedural timetable for the debate on the request for this interim measure.

Jean-Louis DUPONT Martin HISSEL

Interesting article in the Times by Marcotti, albeit not one that will find favour here. He reckons Dupont will fail because of two fundamental differences with the Bosman case. Firstly because FFP legislation is fairly recent and enjoys the support of UEFA, the EC and the major clubs, most of whom are still in power. Whereas with Bosman they were dealing with antiquated legislation that people took for granted but weren't personally invested in.

Secondly he thinks that Dupont was on the right side of the argument with Bosman but not FFP. He paints City and PSG as being in a minority in an argument about the rights of stakeholders.


I wouldnt say its the most robustly argued case I've ever read, I'm sure that many will find the holes in his arguments. But its interesting to see how others see the issue. Know your enemy as they say.

 

[Roy Munson]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So hope that happens soon. Does anybody know the date of an announcement?

I don't like it up here can someone put me back in my stable FFS........lol

Managed to get a nice bit of info over the weekend. City, the campus and all of the CFG are in the process of consolidating all of the I.C.T. syatems (a massive undertaking given the dozens of different systems used across CFG). This will form part of a pretty big sponsorship agreement with the software company involved. I won't specifically name the company except to say they are a German giant.

 

[MeatHunterrr]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I don't like it up here can someone put me back in my stable FFS........lol

Managed to get a nice bit of info over the weekend. City, the campus and all of the CFG are in the process of consolidating all of the I.C.T. syatems (a massive undertaking given the dozens of different systems used across CFG). This will form part of a pretty big sponsorship agreement with the software company involved. I won't specifically name the company except to say they are a German giant.

How would the ICT software company then get exposure? Because surely they want exposure as part of big sponsorship?

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Has this been posted? It's from Fair Play for Football Consumers FB page

PRESS RELEASE - Mr Dupont Petitions Brussels Court.

Press Release (10 October 2014)

FFP legal challenge steps up in Belgian Courts with new bid (« interim measure ») to prevent further implementation of UEFA's break-even requirement

As is well known, the Court of First Instance in Brussels is currently considering a dispute about FFP between players 'agents and supporters, including the Manchester City FC Supporters Club (15,000 members and 168 clubs worldwide), represented by lawyers Jean­Louis Dupont and Martin Hissel, against UEFA and the Belgian Football Association

Through this action, the plaintiffs are seeking in particular the Court of First Instance to refer the case before the Court of Justice of the EU (EUCJ) so that it decides on the compatibility of the UEFA Financial Fair Play regulations with EU law. The plaintiffs argue that the regulations amount to an "investment ban " and, as such, are a flagrant violation of EU competition law. Given a final ruling on the merits may take some time, today the plaintiffs have filed with the Court of First Instance in Brussels a request for a "provisional measure": until such time the Belgian Court makes its final ruling on the merits of case, the provisional measure seeks to prohibit UEFA from moving into the second phase of the implementation of its "break-even requirement". In effect this aims to force UEFA to, at least, stick to the rule as currently applied (i.e. a deficit limit of up to €45 million) and prevents further hardening of the rule (a deficit limit of up to €30 million) as required by the FFP regulation.

The move does not ask the Belgian judge to stop UEFA's FFP implementation, rather, simply to prevent it from accelerating while the agents' and supporters' challenge is being considered by the Courts. This is likely to be helpful, also, for UEFA since it serves to limit UEFA's financial risk in the event that the judge upholds the existing complaint and it is faced with damages from multiple parties.

It is now rests with the Court of First Instance in Brussels to fix the procedural timetable for the debate on the request for this interim measure.

Jean-Louis DUPONT Martin HISSEL

Interesting article in the Times by Marcotti, albeit not one that will find favour here. He reckons Dupont will fail because of two fundamental differences with the Bosman case. Firstly because FFP legislation is fairly recent and enjoys the support of UEFA, the EC and the major clubs, most of whom are still in power. Whereas with Bosman they were dealing with antiquated legislation that people took for granted but weren't personally invested in.

Secondly he thinks that Dupont was on the right side of the argument with Bosman but not FFP. He paints City and PSG as being in a minority in an argument about the rights of stakeholders.


I wouldnt say its the most robustly argued case I've ever read, I'm sure that many will find the holes in his arguments. But its interesting to see how others see the issue. Know your enemy as they say.

Interested in reading it if anyone can c&p it from behind the paywall.