BluessinceHydeRoad said:
FanchesterCity said:
My post was in response to the one prior to mine where it was suggested our ticket prices were a consequence of FFP, and I replied saying that would be a hard sell.
But even for PSG, it's not an easy sell, since there were alternative courses of action they could have taken - such as selling some players.
Of course we as fans can quite easily say it's forcing prices up, but you'd have to prove that in court, which would be difficult when ticket price increases were rising prior to FFP too.... I don't think it's a clear argument.
Had you read my post in context of the prior one, you'd not have reached your wrong conclusion about my post.
The post prior to yours was from Chippy boy, which commented on PSG and argued that price rises at City could be shown to be a result of FFP.
The "alternative courses of action", such as selling some players, raise the precise question of the legitimacy of the break even rule. UEFA must demonstrate to the court the reasons why it will not allow the most obvious "alternative course of action" which is investment by the owners of the club. In particular they must demonstrate that there are actual advantages in terms of economic and/or technical progress which will result from the limit imposes on investment and that the consumer derives benefits from the resultant progress. Tell us straight, no waffle or bluster, how exactly UEFA will do that.
The relevance to City is that this case will show that a permanent and universal ban on owner investment will not necessarily promote progress at all but will increase the pressure on clubs to raise ticket prices as a way of increasing revenue. Selling players would damage the interests and development of the club if done purely to balance the books. We are back to the fundamental principle: commercial law is founded on the principle that investment is essential and must be encouraged while FFP rests squarely on the principle that it is harmful and must be banned. It is clearly contrary to the letter and spirit of European law.
I know very well what it said, it's why I responded to it.
You just failed to see my response was to THAT claim, that OUR ticket price hike was a direct result of FFP, and I argued that was a hard sell. No harm done, we're back on track now.
Of course you can argue that FFP puts pressure on clubs to hike prices, in order to increase revenue (with the ultimate aim of being allowed to spend more).
But it can equally be argued that a club simply needs to stop spending more. The only 'pressure' is that they put on themselves by wanting to spend more, and in order to do so, they charge fans more.
PSG themselves could argue that IF fans will pay that price, then by default, it's what the market will bear, and if the market couldn't bear the price hikes, the fans would stop going, and revenues actually decrease.
Sadly, this is where sport doesn't quite conform with normal business, as PSG fans can't easily buy their product from elsewhere (another team).
I wouldn't like to guess which way a court would look at all that, it's a mess. It's made even worse because the notion of FFP is a good thing, it's just the lousy way (imo) it's implemented that's the problem.
