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

Re: City & FFP (continued)

patrickblue said:
And I'm sure a lawyer wouldn't be taking this on if he didn't think he had a good chance of winning.

And I am sure the lawyers advising UEFA think that it's legal and defensible if challenged.

It's going to be interesting to see which way the courts decide. But either way, it's really of only passing interest to City now.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Chippy_boy said:
patrickblue said:
And I'm sure a lawyer wouldn't be taking this on if he didn't think he had a good chance of winning.

And I am sure the lawyers advising UEFA think that it's legal and defensible if challenged.

It's going to be interesting to see which way the courts decide. But either way, it's really of only passing interest to City now.

And with it a chance to close a thread that is utterly dull! Lets do it Mods!
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Chippy_boy said:
patrickblue said:
And I'm sure a lawyer wouldn't be taking this on if he didn't think he had a good chance of winning.

And I am sure the lawyers advising UEFA think that it's legal and defensible if challenged.

It's going to be interesting to see which way the courts decide. But either way, it's really of only passing interest to City now.

I agree completely.

What's more, even if FFP is abolished it is unlikely to allow the global wealth we are now seeing in football trickle down to other Clubs. Business is never fair.

This skewed wealth distribution is exactly how it happens in other sectors of business that are unrestricted.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

MaineRoadBlue said:
Chippy_boy said:
patrickblue said:
And I'm sure a lawyer wouldn't be taking this on if he didn't think he had a good chance of winning.

And I am sure the lawyers advising UEFA think that it's legal and defensible if challenged.

It's going to be interesting to see which way the courts decide. But either way, it's really of only passing interest to City now.

And with it a chance to close a thread that is utterly dull! Lets do it Mods!

What a facile comment.

Very interesting thread with some well written and thoughtful contributions. I have enjoyed it very much indeed. I do think that the collapse of FFP would be of more than just a passing interest to City though. Especially with the spectre of Gill and his cronies overseeing any future goalpost moving.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

80s Shorts said:
MaineRoadBlue said:
Chippy_boy said:
And I am sure the lawyers advising UEFA think that it's legal and defensible if challenged.

It's going to be interesting to see which way the courts decide. But either way, it's really of only passing interest to City now.

And with it a chance to close a thread that is utterly dull! Lets do it Mods!

What a facile comment.

Very interesting thread with some well written and thoughtful contributions. I have enjoyed it very much indeed. I do think that the collapse of FFP would be of more than just a passing interest to City though. Especially with the spectre of Gill and his cronies overseeing any future goalpost moving.


Hard to see what Gill can do if our turnover is higher than the Rags and our debt lower in a few years. Perhaps they will just try and go off and have there own league by invite. But then the Rags would never win a game again, and the public would walk away from a league with no promotion, relegation.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

MaineRoadBlue said:
Chippy_boy said:
patrickblue said:
And I'm sure a lawyer wouldn't be taking this on if he didn't think he had a good chance of winning.

And I am sure the lawyers advising UEFA think that it's legal and defensible if challenged.

It's going to be interesting to see which way the courts decide. But either way, it's really of only passing interest to City now.

And with it a chance to close a thread that is utterly dull! Lets do it Mods!
Nodody is holding a gun to your head making you read it, maybe you could just not enter the thread if its so dull ?
 
City & FFP (continued)

its more than coincidence that in same week platini announces working closely with european commission, that he also mentions potentially changing criteria to include debt etc

it was of course badged as uefa looking at regulations to see if they are indeed onerous on some, to appease likes of city, psg etc but i'd imagine they are a result of his talks and advice he was given on surviving legal challenge

but what it also provides is leverage with likes of bayern and madrid, in other words he can eventually say it is not uefa driving these changes, he is working towards meeting european law
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Article 101

(ex Article 81 TEC)

1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market, and in particular those which:

(a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;

(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;

(c) share markets or sources of supply;

(d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;

(e) make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

2. Any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be automatically void.

3. The provisions of paragraph 1 may, however, be declared inapplicable in the case of:

- any agreement or category of agreements between undertakings,

- any decision or category of decisions by associations of undertakings,

- any concerted practice or category of concerted practices,

which contributes to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit, and which does not:

(a) impose on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of these objectives;

(b) afford such undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.

This is the relevant section of the European treaty. The wording is unequivocal: limits and/or controls on investment are clearly "prohibited" and any decisions based on such an agreement (eg the sanctions imposed on the nine "offenders") "shall be automatically void." This will NOT be the case ONLY if the agreement actually promotes technical or economic progress AND brings benefits to consumers WHILE NOT restricting the rights of undertakings more than strictly necessary or which allows for the elimination of competition.allow for the elimination of competition.

This clause expresses quite explicitly a desire to protect the right to invest, to prevent any interference with that right and illustrates the fundamental principle of the treaty, that investment is an important means of bringing benefits benefits to the consumer and in terms of economic development. It is thus inconceivable that the ECJ would accept as a justification of the break even rule, that Berlusconi has been losing 100 million euros a year or that certain rich, successful clubs would find it harder to compete with PSG or City. It would find it hard to understand why or how restricting investment at City and PSG or anywhere else contributes to financial stability at any other club. It is hard to accept that restricting investment makes football anything but less competitive in sporting terms. A further problem for UEFA is that financing investment through borrowing is a normal practice in every other area of business life, and law suits for anti-competitive behaviour would fly if anyone suggested that Tesco could not borrow to invest, to make up ground lost to other supermarkets recently. Here the connection between investment and progress for undertaking and consumer is more evident than in football, but is of the same nature. Any claim by ASDA that investment by Tesco should be stopped because it might make ASDA less competitive would be laughed out of court, but this is the view of competition that UEFA wants the ECJ to espouse. This is not a "sporting exception" but is asking the ECJ to reject the fundamental principles underlying competition law in Europe, and replace them with a completely different, not to say contrary, set of principles.

Nor can UEFA pull the "by invitation only" rabbit out of the hat. UEFA is clearly an association of undertakings and, in the case of the CL, it is not acting as a governing body at all, but as a competitor to the clubs. It has laid down clear criteria to take part in an "open" competition, but it enjoys a privileged ctatus - it alone sells the TV rights, it competes for sponsorship, won't allow non-sponsors to "appear" on TV and distributes money to the participants as prizes. To refuse an invitation to a club which qualifies on grounds other than the sporting criteria would be to "apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage" and would be one further breach.

That's my case, I suspect M. Dupont's is much more detailed but not greatly different and I can't see how the court cannot find in his favour. I'm not sure that UEFA have actually taken a great deal of legal advice, unless M. Berlusconi is acting for them! Certainly Platini has never come remotely near an explanation of how the law allows the regulations he has put in place. Certainly in the Bosman case UEFA relied on an argument that the law didn't apply because UEFA didn't think it was good for football. Can't try that one again!
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

One element of this that I simply cannot get my head around is why the EU would apparently pander to the wishes of an organisation that is based in a non-EU country, pays no tax in the EU and is on very dodgy ground even in terms of the Swiss tax system.

What does the EU 'gain' from allowing a non-EU body/company to limit the options of EU citizens?
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

BluessinceHydeRoad said:
Article 101

(ex Article 81 TEC)

1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market, and in particular those which:

(a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;

(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;

(c) share markets or sources of supply;

(d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;

(e) make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

2. Any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be automatically void.

3. The provisions of paragraph 1 may, however, be declared inapplicable in the case of:

- any agreement or category of agreements between undertakings,

- any decision or category of decisions by associations of undertakings,

- any concerted practice or category of concerted practices,

which contributes to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit, and which does not:

(a) impose on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of these objectives;

(b) afford such undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.

This is the relevant section of the European treaty. The wording is unequivocal: limits and/or controls on investment are clearly "prohibited" and any decisions based on such an agreement (eg the sanctions imposed on the nine "offenders") "shall be automatically void." This will NOT be the case ONLY if the agreement actually promotes technical or economic progress AND brings benefits to consumers WHILE NOT restricting the rights of undertakings more than strictly necessary or which allows for the elimination of competition.allow for the elimination of competition.

This clause expresses quite explicitly a desire to protect the right to invest, to prevent any interference with that right and illustrates the fundamental principle of the treaty, that investment is an important means of bringing benefits benefits to the consumer and in terms of economic development. It is thus inconceivable that the ECJ would accept as a justification of the break even rule, that Berlusconi has been losing 100 million euros a year or that certain rich, successful clubs would find it harder to compete with PSG or City. It would find it hard to understand why or how restricting investment at City and PSG or anywhere else contributes to financial stability at any other club. It is hard to accept that restricting investment makes football anything but less competitive in sporting terms. A further problem for UEFA is that financing investment through borrowing is a normal practice in every other area of business life, and law suits for anti-competitive behaviour would fly if anyone suggested that Tesco could not borrow to invest, to make up ground lost to other supermarkets recently. Here the connection between investment and progress for undertaking and consumer is more evident than in football, but is of the same nature. Any claim by ASDA that investment by Tesco should be stopped because it might make ASDA less competitive would be laughed out of court, but this is the view of competition that UEFA wants the ECJ to espouse. This is not a "sporting exception" but is asking the ECJ to reject the fundamental principles underlying competition law in Europe, and replace them with a completely different, not to say contrary, set of principles.

Nor can UEFA pull the "by invitation only" rabbit out of the hat. UEFA is clearly an association of undertakings and, in the case of the CL, it is not acting as a governing body at all, but as a competitor to the clubs. It has laid down clear criteria to take part in an "open" competition, but it enjoys a privileged ctatus - it alone sells the TV rights, it competes for sponsorship, won't allow non-sponsors to "appear" on TV and distributes money to the participants as prizes. To refuse an invitation to a club which qualifies on grounds other than the sporting criteria would be to "apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage" and would be one further breach.

That's my case, I suspect M. Dupont's is much more detailed but not greatly different and I can't see how the court cannot find in his favour. I'm not sure that UEFA have actually taken a great deal of legal advice, unless M. Berlusconi is acting for them! Certainly Platini has never come remotely near an explanation of how the law allows the regulations he has put in place. Certainly in the Bosman case UEFA relied on an argument that the law didn't apply because UEFA didn't think it was good for football. Can't try that one again!

I think they stood a chance arguing for the overall benefit of the industry, especially if there was a clear consumer benefit. They've missed a massive trick there. UEFA's stance seem to be that 'the market' is the clubs (and the subtext being 'only some clubs'). They've totally forgotten about the consumer - the fans (match goers, or tv subscribers). The price of watching this competition's not gone down, and it's no more accessible than previously either.

Platini's soundbites are all about the clubs, nothing about the consumer (terrible term really, but that's what we are).
Why not give clubs an incentive to lower prices? make an FFP exemption for subsidised tickets?
The pressure to comply with FFP not only encourages clubs to spend less (which they believe is a good thing), but it encourages them to charge more too (not consumer friendly).
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.