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

[kippaxking79]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

TBF the crowd in the background on FIFA 15 is only marginally better.

 

[Holcombe bloo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'm on my Dragon 32 right now

 

[cookster]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'm on my Dragon 32 right now

Your missus only 32? You lucky b@stard.

 

[gh_mcfc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

There's a lot of questions there.

Firstly, Dupont isn't arguing any collusion's taken place. He's merely arguing that the current FFP regulations are restrictive. For the moment, the suggestion is that they are restrictive purely as a result of being ill judged with regard to reaching the intended objective (stopping clubs getting into financial problems) and as an unintended consequence, they're unnecessarily restrictive, not good for the industry as a whole, and don't benefit the consumer.

Now, IF there was some smoking gun that detailed actual collusion, then this would be a far bigger story and would put the existence of UEFA at risk. But nobody's anywhere near that stage.

But let's suppose evidence ever did come to light... and that it clearly showed collusion between UEFA and some clubs to 'fix' aspects of the industry....

In that case, the courts would have to look at:

a) Who was involved (was it a handful of people who hid it from their own clubs, and UEFA)?
b) Was it intentional collusion, or merely an unintended consequence?
c) How much was the market affected by the collusion?
d) How much did other parties suffer as a result?
e) How much did the colluding parties gain from it?
and much more.

Could people go to prison for collusion? yes
Can businesses be fined? yes
Can victims be compensation? in theory, yes - but in practice this can be hard to put a figure on, and in some cases, the damage is irrevocable.

Whilst a lot of us fans laugh and joke about collusion, with more than a hint of actual suspicion underneath the humour, there's no concrete evidence it's happened. But sometimes, collusion / price fixing etc can happen without organisations realising they're doing it.

For instance - There are two pubs in a small village, and both agree to call a truce to price wars....
They then agree that one will sell only sell Stella Artois, and the other will only sell Carling.
They then agree that it might be nice to make a bit more money, so they both agree to put up their prices by the same amount.

1) Calling a truce to price wars could be interpreted as agreeing a minimum price.
2) Agreeing which products they will sell between them is fixing the market... even if they think they're doing out of common sense.
3) Agreeing to inflate their prices is cast iron example of price fixing.

In theory price fixing is as applicable to a corner shop / local pub as it is to a multinational company. Both are subject to the same laws. However, such small retailers go under the radar (generally, but not always).

There are also special rules for companies that have a particularly large market share (and that can still be a local pub). In those instances, extra measures are put in place to ensure they can't use their market share unfairly.

Superstar. Cheers for the detailed response. I'm not suggesting it will happen, but I'm sure the more layers of the onion are peeled off, the stronger the argument for collusion would be. Can't see anyone digging that deep unfortunately though & even if they did I'm sure it would be difficult to prove beyond doubt?

Not directly UEFA related, but wasn't there a letter on Arsenal headed paper, signed by Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs— stating the existing FFP proposals did not go far enough and that greater limitations should be placed on owner investment? Why was this letter to the FA marked as Private and Confidential? Surely this debate should have been out in the open?

Isn't that documentary evidence of collusion to stop investment (and in so doing restrict pay and free competition and all the other contravensions of EU law)? How did these clubs agree on the content of the letter? What discussions did they have behind closed doors? Presumably some must have gone on because they all signed it.

Just to clear a few things up. Jean Louis has sent me a copy of the presentation to the courts. Although mostly in French I can just about translate and from also from several conversations I have a half decent understanding of the arguments.

1: The complaint being raised is purely against FFP break even requirement in that it is anti competitive and is a block on investment. Also that other tools are more appropriate to achieve UEFAs stated aims

2: The argument in the document highlight the knock on and negative effective the break even requirement have on all the interested parties (including us supporters)

3: It matters not what the EU / UEFA / Carlos rent a quote the itk foreign Journos think. It only matters what the Brussels court decides on the point of Law and hopefully the the European supreme Court decides on a point of law. The pointless prevarications of the ignorant are irrelevant

4: Jean Louis has is aware of the gang of 4 letter and was interested in it. He is also aware and has indeed quoted extracts from the Samuel / Platini interview in the document to the court. He is interested in "highlighting" the fact the break even requirement of FFP has been brought about as an act of protectionism at the behest of certain clubs. Effectively the actions of a cartel.

 

[Ricster]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Meanwhile, at old trafford.....

[bigimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Sinclair_ZX_Spectrum.jpg[/bigimg]

Design classic.

Maybe nice to look at but it was a shitty keyboard to use.

Brings back memories.

I used to remember the magazine I'd buy every month, and every month it had "THE BEST GAME EVER", all you had to do was key in the program.
You'd get excited towards the end and when you typed in the last part of the program up pops "ERROR, LINE 312."
You'd have to count back through hundreds of lines to alter the mistake you'd made, only for the game to be utter shite!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Superstar. Cheers for the detailed response. I'm not suggesting it will happen, but I'm sure the more layers of the onion are peeled off, the stronger the argument for collusion would be. Can't see anyone digging that deep unfortunately though & even if they did I'm sure it would be difficult to prove beyond doubt?

Not directly UEFA related, but wasn't there a letter on Arsenal headed paper, signed by Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs— stating the existing FFP proposals did not go far enough and that greater limitations should be placed on owner investment? Why was this letter to the FA marked as Private and Confidential? Surely this debate should have been out in the open?

Isn't that documentary evidence of collusion to stop investment (and in so doing restrict pay and free competition and all the other contravensions of EU law)? How did these clubs agree on the content of the letter? What discussions did they have behind closed doors? Presumably some must have gone on because they all signed it.

Just to clear a few things up. Jean Louis has sent me a copy of the presentation to the courts. Although mostly in French I can just about translate and from also from several conversations I have a half decent understanding of the arguments.

1: The complaint being raised is purely against FFP break even requirement in that it is anti competitive and is a block on investment. Also that other tools are more appropriate to achieve UEFAs stated aims

2: The argument in the document highlight the knock on and negative effective the break even requirement have on all the interested parties (including us supporters)

3: It matters not what the EU / UEFA / Carlos rent a quote the itk foreign Journos think. It only matters what the Brussels court decides on the point of Law and hopefully the the European supreme Court decides on a point of law. The pointless prevarications of the ignorant are irrelevant

4: Jean Louis has is aware of the gang of 4 letter and was interested in it. He is also aware and has indeed quoted extracts from the Samuel / Platini interview in the document to the court. He is interested in "highlighting" the fact the break even requirement of FFP has been brought about as an act of protectionism at the behest of certain clubs. Effectively the actions of a cartel.

Wouldn't it be utterly wonderful if that Gang of Four Cunts letter became the smoking gun that did for FFP.

 

[Maly]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Not directly UEFA related, but wasn't there a letter on Arsenal headed paper, signed by Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs— stating the existing FFP proposals did not go far enough and that greater limitations should be placed on owner investment? Why was this letter to the FA marked as Private and Confidential? Surely this debate should have been out in the open?

Isn't that documentary evidence of collusion to stop investment (and in so doing restrict pay and free competition and all the other contravensions of EU law)? How did these clubs agree on the content of the letter? What discussions did they have behind closed doors? Presumably some must have gone on because they all signed it.

Just to clear a few things up. Jean Louis has sent me a copy of the presentation to the courts. Although mostly in French I can just about translate and from also from several conversations I have a half decent understanding of the arguments.

1: The complaint being raised is purely against FFP break even requirement in that it is anti competitive and is a block on investment. Also that other tools are more appropriate to achieve UEFAs stated aims

2: The argument in the document highlight the knock on and negative effective the break even requirement have on all the interested parties (including us supporters)

3: It matters not what the EU / UEFA / Carlos rent a quote the itk foreign Journos think. It only matters what the Brussels court decides on the point of Law and hopefully the the European supreme Court decides on a point of law. The pointless prevarications of the ignorant are irrelevant

4: Jean Louis has is aware of the gang of 4 letter and was interested in it. He is also aware and has indeed quoted extracts from the Samuel / Platini interview in the document to the court. He is interested in "highlighting" the fact the break even requirement of FFP has been brought about as an act of protectionism at the behest of certain clubs. Effectively the actions of a cartel.

Wouldn't it be utterly wonderful if that Gang of Four c**ts letter became the smoking gun that did for FFP.

What would be even funnier than that GDM? How about if all of the clubs & directors/execs involved in the cosy cartel were to get prosecuted for an act of protectionism.....that'd be far more interesting than just FFP going out of the window.

This is some serious shit if any of it could be proven. It could potentially take down some of the 'established' elite. Big fines, potential jail terms and potential restrictions on what the clubs involved (& directors) can and can't do in business in the future. Now that would be most amusing.....

 

[oakiecokie]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just to clear a few things up. Jean Louis has sent me a copy of the presentation to the courts. Although mostly in French I can just about translate and from also from several conversations I have a half decent understanding of the arguments.

1: The complaint being raised is purely against FFP break even requirement in that it is anti competitive and is a block on investment. Also that other tools are more appropriate to achieve UEFAs stated aims

2: The argument in the document highlight the knock on and negative effective the break even requirement have on all the interested parties (including us supporters)

3: It matters not what the EU / UEFA / Carlos rent a quote the itk foreign Journos think. It only matters what the Brussels court decides on the point of Law and hopefully the the European supreme Court decides on a point of law. The pointless prevarications of the ignorant are irrelevant

4: Jean Louis has is aware of the gang of 4 letter and was interested in it. He is also aware and has indeed quoted extracts from the Samuel / Platini interview in the document to the court. He is interested in "highlighting" the fact the break even requirement of FFP has been brought about as an act of protectionism at the behest of certain clubs. Effectively the actions of a cartel.

Wouldn't it be utterly wonderful if that Gang of Four c**ts letter became the smoking gun that did for FFP.

What would be even funnier than that GDM? How about if all of the clubs & directors/execs involved in the cosy cartel were to get prosecuted for an act of protectionism.....that'd be far more interesting than just FFP going out of the window.

This is some serious shit if any of it could be proven. It could potentially take down some of the 'established' elite. Big fines, potential jail terms and potential restrictions on what the clubs involved (& directors) can and can't do in business in the future. Now that would be most amusing.....

We can but pray.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Perhaps M. Dupont could enlighten us on the possible consequences of the "Arsenal" letter and some of the pressure applied to UEFA to introduce the break even rule. The case before the Belgian court concerns simply the legality of the rule itself. Would/could the ECJ decide that there is prima facie evidence of the existence of a cartel and call for further investigation which lead to charges against individuals? If individuals were found guilty (and acting as a cartel to rig the market is about as serious as it gets) because the PL voted in (almost) these "rules" , and (what/whowhat's left of UEFA colluded in their introduction, supported them and applied them they would be expected to take action against the guilty clubs. This I suspect would see some demotions to the conference or the lowest division a la Rangers for the signatories of the letter otherwise the courts would really ruin them!

The aim of the letter to Richard Scudamore, dated 17 December 2012, is to get agreement to measures "to curb the inflationary spending" which is such a problem. This can only be spending on players and the problem is that it is putting the price up. The aim is to keep them down by acting together, but acting together "to restrict the owner funding of operating losses". Cutting through the bull, what it means is, "we can't compete with Sheikh Mansour in the transfer market, so let's bring in a rule to stop him spending his own money." Cynics might say that this is what cartels do rather than clubs of istry and tradition concerned with the good of football!

Martin Samuel also got some frank - and alarming - admissions out of Platini, and I wonder if we saw some realisation from UEFA at least on Monday that from 2008 onwards they might just have adopted a gloatingly triumphalist tone when it wasn't really appropriate. They considered action on debt, extending the break even period and even Rumennigge - who had called for City to be "kicked out" of the CL and couldn't wait to get his hands on "his share" of City's fine - was trying to pretend that FFP is actually a voluntary code, which clubs adhere to because, like Abramovitch and Berlusconi, they see it is in everyone's interest.

 

[Maly]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Perhaps M. Dupont could enlighten us on the possible consequences of the "Arsenal" letter and some of the pressure applied to UEFA to introduce the break even rule. The case before the Belgian court concerns simply the legality of the rule itself. Would/could the ECJ decide that there is prima facie evidence of the existence of a cartel and call for further investigation which lead to charges against individuals? If individuals were found guilty (and acting as a cartel to rig the market is about as serious as it gets) because the PL voted in (almost) these "rules" , and (what/whowhat's left of UEFA colluded in their introduction, supported them and applied them they would be expected to take action against the guilty clubs. This I suspect would see some demotions to the conference or the lowest division a la Rangers for the signatories of the letter otherwise the courts would really ruin them!

The aim of the letter to Richard Scudamore, dated 17 December 2012, is to get agreement to measures "to curb the inflationary spending" which is such a problem. This can only be spending on players and the problem is that it is putting the price up. The aim is to keep them down by acting together, but acting together "to restrict the owner funding of operating losses". Cutting through the bull, what it means is, "we can't compete with Sheikh Mansour in the transfer market, so let's bring in a rule to stop him spending his own money." Cynics might say that this is what cartels do rather than clubs of istry and tradition concerned with the good of football!

Martin Samuel also got some frank - and alarming - admissions out of Platini, and I wonder if we saw some realisation from UEFA at least on Monday that from 2008 onwards they might just have adopted a gloatingly triumphalist tone when it wasn't really appropriate. They considered action on debt, extending the break even period and even Rumennigge - who had called for City to be "kicked out" of the CL and couldn't wait to get his hands on "his share" of City's fine - was trying to pretend that FFP is actually a voluntary code, which clubs adhere to because, like Abramovitch and Berlusconi, they see it is in everyone's interest.

I asked a number of similar questions a couple of pages back pal. See FanchesterCity's response at the top of the page. It would seem that courts COULD investigate further if they feel there are questions to be answered around this, but personally, I can't see it happening, as much as I would love it to.