EricBrooksGhost
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 2,727
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Wood treesFanchesterCity said:EricBrooksGhost said:FFS just breathe a little; if there was ever a lesson in "less is more"FanchesterCity said:Not as far as I'm aware (not for sport). It's been challenged for other industries, but they aren't comparable to this issue.
As far as I know, it's a bit of an 'unknown', someone needs to test the water... but nobody wants to get wet doing it!
EDIT:
There are SOME precedents prior to 101 that can still be used, where sport HAS been deemed worthy of special exemption, and there equally plenty of others where it hasn't!. In general sport is never above the law. But that's not the argument here really, the argument is if FFP qualifies under 101(3).
The law will still take into account precedents that simply 'happen' in society. Less so once there's a legal precedent set. Even if one is set, it can be changed (just much more rare).
I think we've got a great case, but since we may not be hindered by it any more, if it worth City being the guinea pig?
'sonly words.