BluessinceHydeRoad said:
FanchesterCity said:
BluessinceHydeRoad said:
Fanchester, your treating us to your usual vague, generalised waffle. No-one will argue that Sheikh Mansour can do what he likes with his money as you state, but they will argue that his right to invest in his football club is guaranteed in law and they will quote Article 101 of the EU Treaty to support that claim. They will go further and argue that the agreement between City and UEFA made last May is automatically void as stipulated in part 2 of the article. The onus is,therefore, upon UEFA to prove that it has imposed this limit on investment by the Sheikh because he is using his investment to prevent technical or economic progress or to try and eliminate competition. He has clearly NOT done any of these thing, and the argument that he has sought to do any of the things UEFA have tried to prevent is laughable (UEFA never mentions the exceptions justifying a ban on investment and certainly never argue that FFP is necessary in these terms). There is no case to answer, and your argument that UEFA can reasonably argue that Manchester City have established, or are in any way near to establishing "a monopoly on a market" or that "the wider public good" (whatever that is - and it would have to be specified clearly in court) is patently ridiculous as a cursory examination of the present situation shows. Since you never refer to Article 101 I reproduce it salient points for you to consider. It's hard to see UEFA not having to refer to it in court.
Article 101
1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings...which...
(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;
2. Any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be automatically void.
If you're going to use 101, use ALL of it... you've deliberately omitted part 3 which explains allowable exceptions which is PRECISELY what UEFA are arguing. That, is in no way 'condoning / supporting' UEFA. It's merely demonstrating what THEIR side are using as their rationale.
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.
Part 3 is THEIR rationale, not mine. But you cannot deny they are using that to implement FFP.
I believe it's wrong of them, I think they'd probably lose in court, but it's happening right now, and we are sanctioned by it. UEFA do HAVE a rationale, and that's it. We both think it's wrong, but you can't pretend they aren't using section 3 to try and justify it.
I can't spell it out any more clearly, section 3 is what UEFA are using to justify the existence of FFP. This is a fact.
All the talk in the world about 'no case to answer', 'UEFA don't have a leg to stand on' stacks up to nothing when we are currently affected by FFP!!!
FFP as it stands, is bullshit in my (and you eyes), but you're bonkers to think UEFA don't think they have their side of the story. They THINK they have justification, and part 3 is that justification in their eyes.
When people ask 'how can UEFA do this' - I'm telling them. Because part 3 gives them that little foothold.
No they aren't using Part 3 of Article 101, Fanchester; that's actually the fact. UEFA make no reference at all to Article 101 and make no attempt to argue that any investment in football attempts to achieve any of the undesirable ends detailed in Part 3. I'v asked you before to tell me
anythin Sheikh Mansour has invested in which would justify a limit on his investment and you can't, and UEFA can't. UEFA actally justifies FFP on the following grounds:-
• to introduce more discipline and rationality in club football finances
• to decrease pressure on salaries and transfer fees and limit inflationary effect
• to encourage clubs to compete with(in) their revenues
• to encourage long-term investments in the youth sector and infrastructure
• to protect the long-term viability of European club football
• to ensure clubs settle their liabilities on a timely basis.
The question raised is in what we at all have Manchester City done anything at all to merit any punishment at all? Manchester United, Real Madrid and Barcelona appear to be far more deserving of sanctions, but City don't need to argue that.
Almost all of those arguments will come under section 3.
UEFA will say that without FFP, owners like Abramovic and Mansour would likely have spent exorbitant amounts. It's a chicken and egg argument there. The restrictions were effectively in place during our investment period, so we'll never know what might have happened had they not been.
Ironically, our investment may well have been less without the restrictions, but because we knew they were looming, it accelerated our spending.
FFP is quite primitive and draconian (as it stands) and has already resulted in unintended consequences (as new rules often do). There were (and still are) a wide range of other measures UEFA could have taken to achieve the above aims.
There is another issue of course, and that's a much more troublesome one.... UEFA's stated aims all sound lovely, and nice, just like the term 'Fair Play' sounds every so honourable. Their actual aims may or may not be far more sinister. But if we give them the benefit of the doubt, and accept they do want to secure the stability of clubs, they could have done in far better ways. For me, I think that's the best argument against FFP (as it stands today).
I think we can pontificate all day about how to poke huge holes on their argument. I think you and I actually agree on that. I'm only saying that their argument exists.
When Platini does his FFP PR, he's never going to get into legal arguments, he wants to simplify it and make it sound a wonderful thing. When you list the points above (arguments he uses), quite a large number of fans (of other clubs) think it all sounds good. It's only once more and more fans think it through, and clubs like Everton and Villa stand wondering why nobody will invest in them, that they come to realise that FFP isn't just 'curbing the nasty sugar daddies who are ruining football', it's stopping investors buying them, because they know FFP will inhibit their scope for growth.
I 'think' a lot more neutral fans are finally cottoning on to this, but there's still huge masses of people cheering FFP on because they've fallen into the trap of thinking it only affects sugar daddy clubs.
Today, EUFA are probably winning the FFP PR war, purely because people have taken exception to the likes of City and Chelsea and they think FFP might stop us. Slowly but surely though, people are seeing through it, but it's taking time.
When City scream 'it's unfair', most people think it's just sour grapes.
When a club like Villa or Everton etc start screaming it, more people start listening - which is a good thing.
Another complication with litigation is that UEFA's FFP only applies to CL and EL. We apply for a licence to take part in those competitions according to their rules. No club is forced to take part. So we can't argue UEFA have some all encompassing set of FFP restrictions over us. We are free to just not bother taking part (in theory).
Of course, CL is so integral to any club's growth, it's hard to imagine any top club retaining a top tier status without taking part. So in that respect, UEFA do indeed have a significant hold (monopoly) on club's opportunities on a world stage. That argument about that alone is messy enough!
This, in my view, is why what seems like a simple legal argument ends up being a far more complex one, and drags on and on. EUFA are nothing if not crafty. They run the only two major European competitions (but don't stop you having your own, if you want to risk a break away). They create FFP rules for those competitions (but don't force you to take part). They don't place any limits on the amount you invest in the club (only limits on ways you can spend it) - they are sneaky - no two ways about it.
