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

[r.soleofsalford]

Is there a date where we should be hopefully confirmed as in the clear?

Not an official date but UEFA are in dialogue with any affected clubs this week so we should know HOW FAR THEY HAVE MOVED THE GOAL POSTS AGAIN one way or the other by Friday the 15th.

edited

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Is there a date where we should be hopefully confirmed as in the clear?

Not an official date but UEFA are in dialogue with any affected clubs this week so we should know HOW FAR THEY HAVE MOVED THE GOAL POSTS AGAIN one way or the other by Friday the 15th.

edited

Thanks, The edited bit is what I'm concerned about.

 

[BLUE THUNDER]

the real date we should be interested in is the court case with DuPont..and it's progress. Cant be far away now.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

the real date we should be interested in is the court case with DuPont..and it's progress. Cant be far away now.

The case that intrigues me is the one brought by the PSG fans,and not an interested business as such.
This pits UEFA against consumers - and the law considers the consumer to be king if I'm not mistaken!

 

[LoveCity]

The PSG sanctions have made me very nervous, but I cannot for a second believe a business as large as City could be ready to spend a fortune this summer without being absolutely 100% sure they can. If they were, heads would roll en masse.

 

[BLUE THUNDER]

the real date we should be interested in is the court case with DuPont..and it's progress. Cant be far away now.

The case that intrigues me is the one brought by the PSG fans,and not an interested business as such.
This pits UEFA against consumers - and the law considers the consumer to be king if I'm not mistaken!

Agree, it cant possibly last in it's current form. There must be some pissed off clubs out there that are just waiting for DuPont , PSG fans group etc to do the work for them

 

[blueparrot]

Apparently PSG will only have 48 million Euros net left to spend

"Paris Saint-Germain will remain hampered by UEFA's financial fair play regulations next season, according to the French media, but Ligue 1 rivals Monaco should escape heavy punishment.

Along with Manchester City, PSG were the club hardest hit when European football's governing body handed down its first wave of FFP sanctions last summer.

The French champions were fined €60 million, restricted in their transfer dealings and had their Champions League squad reduced to 21 players from the usual 25.

RMC claims the Ligue 1 leaders will only be allowed to spend €48 million on players this summer before they are forced to trim their current squad.

They had an initial purse of €60 miliion, but have already promised Toulouse €12 million for Serge Aurier, who joined the club on loan last summer.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.espnfc.com/french-ligue-1/story/2438221/psg-to-be-hit-with-more-ffp-sanctions-report" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.espnfc.com/french-ligue-1/st ... ons-report</a>

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

the real date we should be interested in is the court case with DuPont..and it's progress. Cant be far away now.

The case that intrigues me is the one brought by the PSG fans,and not an interested business as such.
This pits UEFA against consumers - and the law considers the consumer to be king if I'm not mistaken!

Article 101 doesn't exactly make the consumer king but it does protect his rights. It prohibits associations to limit investment and declares any agreement doing thins to be void unless such an agreement "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," Such agreements have to do the minimum indispensable to improving production or distribution of goods and promoting technical or economic progress and giving consumers a fair share of the benefits. The PSG fans are arguing that the agreement (the FFPR) have led directly to their club having to increase ticket prices, with no benefit to consumers and no identifiable technical, economic or distributive progress.

 

[SilverFox2]

the real date we should be interested in is the court case with DuPont..and it's progress. Cant be far away now.

The case that intrigues me is the one brought by the PSG fans,and not an interested business as such.
This pits UEFA against consumers - and the law considers the consumer to be king if I'm not mistaken!

Article 101 doesn't exactly make the consumer king but it does protect his rights. It prohibits associations to limit investment and declares any agreement doing thins to be void unless such an agreement "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," Such agreements have to do the minimum indispensable to improving production or distribution of goods and promoting technical or economic progress and giving consumers a fair share of the benefits. The PSG fans are arguing that the agreement (the FFPR) have led directly to their club having to increase ticket prices, with no benefit to consumers and no identifiable technical, economic or distributive progress.

Thanks BSHR, informative as usual.

Assuming they win their case will it be a judgement against UEFA or a judgement against PSG to not raise their prices ?
Presumably PSG like City have agreed to the conditions of the FFP ?

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

The case that intrigues me is the one brought by the PSG fans,and not an interested business as such.
This pits UEFA against consumers - and the law considers the consumer to be king if I'm not mistaken!

Article 101 doesn't exactly make the consumer king but it does protect his rights. It prohibits associations to limit investment and declares any agreement doing thins to be void unless such an agreement "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," Such agreements have to do the minimum indispensable to improving production or distribution of goods and promoting technical or economic progress and giving consumers a fair share of the benefits. The PSG fans are arguing that the agreement (the FFPR) have led directly to their club having to increase ticket prices, with no benefit to consumers and no identifiable technical, economic or distributive progress.

Thanks BSHR, informative as usual.

Assuming they win their case will it be a judgement against UEFA or a judgement against PSG to not raise their prices ?
Presumably PSG like City have agreed to the conditions of the FFP ?

If the court accept that increases in the price of tickets are a direct consequence of FFPR and/or FFP is either not a legitimate limit on investment or that it is not necessary to go so far as to limit investment permanently or at all or that it doesn't bring any of the benefits required by Article 101, it will be a judgement against UEFA. The argument that City and PSG agreed to FFP or the conditions is not valid because article 101 also declares that, "Any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be automatically void." UEFA's fines would have to be repaid.