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

[Jackson-ctid]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So it seems that UEFA have reduced PSG's deal with the Qatar Tourism Authority from €200m per season down to €80m per season for a deal that does not involve stadium naming rights, etc. whilst we're getting hammered over our potential £35m per season deal with Etihad.

It looks like the Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority should be one of our new sponsors then. €80m per season seems fair. Let them sponsor our footbridge and our training kits, they can sponsor everything that Etihad doesn't. And while we're there, let's renegotiate with Etihad, seeing as €80m per season for kit rights only is the new benchmark in European football.

 

[Matty]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It cannot however make a definitive finding that FFPR is/is not compliant with EU law, especially competition law. Only the ECJ can do that. In other words, we might win in the CAS with an argument that FFPR breaches competition law but lose in the ECJ, or we might lose on that point in the CAS but win in the ECJ.

Personally, I think unless the EU law arguments were absolutely clear cut the CAS would probably approach the matter on the basis that FFPR are not unlawful under EU law, unless and until the ECJ ruled otherwise. That said, where a national court is asked to resolve a difficult question of EU law it has the power to refer the EU law question to the ECJ for determination. I don't know if CAS has the same power, or whether the ECJ would accept a reference from CAS for a ruling. But if CAS can do that it wouldn't surprise me if they did.

I'm wary of taking a different view to you Chris but it's my understanding that CAS is a Swiss court effectively and operates under Swiss law. They aren't in the EU but CAS does comply with ECHR. The only right of appeal is to a Swiss Federal court and then only on the basis of process, rather than a point of law. So I doubt there would be any ability to refer cases to ECJ.

You are right about CAS being a swiss body and an appeal lying from CAS to Swiss Federal court, but a reference to the ECJ is not an appeal per se, it is a request for a ruling. As I say, I just don't know whether CAS has the power to refer EU law questions to the ECJ or whether the ECJ has the power to accept references from CAS.

It would actually be a more curious situation if references were not admissible by the ECJ than if they were. Plainly, UEFA operates within the EU (albeit not exclusively) and therefore has to comply with EU law. If it did not, it would be operating illegally within the EU member states that are also members of UEFA. City are entitled to rely on provisions of EU law in dealing with UEFA for the simple reason that if UEFA don't want to be subject to EU law they take their competition and play it where EU law doesn't apply. That is a non starter for obvious reasons.

So given that City are able to rely on EU law in the CAS, and the CAS is not and cannot be the final arbiter of EU law, it follows that you could have conflicting judgments - one saying one thing in the CAS, the other saying something contrary in the ECJ. I don't think either court would welcome such a situation.

Having thought about it more, even assuming there cannot be a reference to the ECJ it may be that you get to the same point by a different route - e.g. by the CAS adjourning any proceedings involving City and UEFA until a case can be heard in the ECJ deciding that FFPR does/does not offend EU competition law.

CAS normal make decisions fairly quickly, and in this instance would need to make a decision before next season's Champion's League begins as the punishment would be due at that point. If they adjourn and essentially tell the EU they need to make a ruling, then that will take a lengthy period of time. If that were the case it'll be interesting to see what UEFA does with regards to the punishment, do they apply it and run the risk of it being deemed illegal/unfair at a later point (and the obvious action from City that this would invite) or do they delay any punishment until the final decision is made?

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So it seems that UEFA have reduced PSG's deal with the Qatar Tourism Authority from €200m per season down to €80m per season for a deal that does not involve stadium naming rights, etc. whilst we're getting hammered over our potential £35m per season deal with Etihad.

It looks like the Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority should be one of our new sponsors then. €80m per season seems fair. Let them sponsor our footbridge and our training kits, they can sponsor everything that Etihad doesn't. And while we're there, let's renegotiate with Etihad, seeing as €80m per season for kit rights only is the new benchmark in European football.

Emirates sponsor PSG's kits, QTA pay them for 'advice'

 

[welsh_andy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I am 90% certain that CAS will find in our favour but if they don't and we take it through the European Courts
does anybody know if we could get an injunction preventing the CL taking place until a decision is made?
I'm assuming that we've been banned by that stage. Legally speaking just how dirty can we fight on this?

tbh i think we will just get a smaller fine, once they look at whole picture and the massive investment i believe with the media coming on side then they will be forced to climb down. i just hope we dont settle like the others

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Should the uk govenment get involved as surely these financial penalties will effect the continuing redevelopment of the area and jobs which have been and will be created by City investing in east Manchester.

Prince Philip is on the phone to Platini as we speak, issuing dark hints that he sorted Diana out and he'll do the same to him. Charles is writing a letter and Harry is on alert to take Platini and the Investigatory Panel out on a bender and get them so drunk they agree to let us off.

Very humorous, PB, but the question has wider repercussions than football, doesn't it.. Sheikh Mansour bought our club and proceeded to buy up the land around the stadium for redevelopment. Now, we all know that a brand new stadium in a contaminated industrial wasteland will, within 20 years be a seedy, derelict stadium in a contaminated industrial wasteland unless something dramatic is done to attract people to the whole site on a minimum of 200 days per year. This is expensive to say the least since people won't go just because there is a cafe or a souvenir shop there. The football club is the engine for development to attract other investment in the area and to attract revenue to finance part of the "project".

I believe that Europe is a major area for gulf states' investment and UEFA are doing their damnedest to delay and even halt it in this case. Their argument that they allow investment in infrastructure is disingenuous - they refuse to allow investment in another asset, players, and are syphoning off revenue allocated for regeneration into the UEFA's coffers by means of, by the sounds of it, an outrageous fine. Abu Dhabi, and other oil rich states may feel inclined to ask European leaders if this is something they find acceptable, and whether they really want oil revenues invested in Europe. Some European leaders may be mindful of the role of Arab oil money in averting the collapse of more than one bank. I believe a fair slice came from Sheikh Mansour himself.

In 2008 Sheikh Mansour had a vision, whatever his motives, of regenerating Manchester City and east Manchester. Now UEFA are trying to tell him that he can regenerate East Manchester but not Manchester City because his investment in players is "greedy" amongst other things. Politicians should ask themselves whether a demented French megalomaniac and his bunch of football bureaucrats are qualified to make that judgement, or whether investment is really the way forward as they have told us for over half a century and whether the courts should put an end to Platini's, and UEFA's meddling.

 

[Lancet Fluke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So it seems that UEFA have reduced PSG's deal with the Qatar Tourism Authority from €200m per season down to €80m per season for a deal that does not involve stadium naming rights, etc. whilst we're getting hammered over our potential £35m per season deal with Etihad.

It looks like the Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority should be one of our new sponsors then. €80m per season seems fair. Let them sponsor our footbridge and our training kits, they can sponsor everything that Etihad doesn't. And while we're there, let's renegotiate with Etihad, seeing as €80m per season for kit rights only is the new benchmark in European football.

Emirates sponsor PSG's kits, QTA pay them for 'advice'

I wonder what PSG are advising QTA on?

 

[SWP's back]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

....I'm just sitting back until some truth comes out on this. Whole load of scaremongering and exaggerating, it sounds to me.

[/URL]

you're following Tolmie's lead then?

God you are tiresome Johnny.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So it seems that UEFA have reduced PSG's deal with the Qatar Tourism Authority from €200m per season down to €80m per season for a deal that does not involve stadium naming rights, etc. whilst we're getting hammered over our potential £35m per season deal with Etihad.

It looks like the Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority should be one of our new sponsors then. €80m per season seems fair. Let them sponsor our footbridge and our training kits, they can sponsor everything that Etihad doesn't. And while we're there, let's renegotiate with Etihad, seeing as €80m per season for kit rights only is the new benchmark in European football.

It's a classic trap.

Uefa have deliberately set the bar as high as possible.

We cite PSG's supposedly lesser fine, and suddenly' Uefa are prepared to offer City something similar, if we agree, they have us accepting their rule book.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So it seems that UEFA have reduced PSG's deal with the Qatar Tourism Authority from €200m per season down to €80m per season for a deal that does not involve stadium naming rights, etc. whilst we're getting hammered over our potential £35m per season deal with Etihad.

It looks like the Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority should be one of our new sponsors then. €80m per season seems fair. Let them sponsor our footbridge and our training kits, they can sponsor everything that Etihad doesn't. And while we're there, let's renegotiate with Etihad, seeing as €80m per season for kit rights only is the new benchmark in European football.

Emirates sponsor PSG's kits, QTA pay them for 'advice'

I wonder what PSG are advising QTA on?

How to be the biggest football club in France for 30 years and only win one title? :)
Hosting the WC apparently, PSG have lots of experience at hosting massive international sporting events.

 

[lancs blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'm wary of taking a different view to you Chris but it's my understanding that CAS is a Swiss court effectively and operates under Swiss law. They aren't in the EU but CAS does comply with ECHR. The only right of appeal is to a Swiss Federal court and then only on the basis of process, rather than a point of law. So I doubt there would be any ability to refer cases to ECJ.

You are right about CAS being a swiss body and an appeal lying from CAS to Swiss Federal court, but a reference to the ECJ is not an appeal per se, it is a request for a ruling. As I say, I just don't know whether CAS has the power to refer EU law questions to the ECJ or whether the ECJ has the power to accept references from CAS.

It would actually be a more curious situation if references were not admissible by the ECJ than if they were. Plainly, UEFA operates within the EU (albeit not exclusively) and therefore has to comply with EU law. If it did not, it would be operating illegally within the EU member states that are also members of UEFA. City are entitled to rely on provisions of EU law in dealing with UEFA for the simple reason that if UEFA don't want to be subject to EU law they take their competition and play it where EU law doesn't apply. That is a non starter for obvious reasons.

So given that City are able to rely on EU law in the CAS, and the CAS is not and cannot be the final arbiter of EU law, it follows that you could have conflicting judgments - one saying one thing in the CAS, the other saying something contrary in the ECJ. I don't think either court would welcome such a situation.

Having thought about it more, even assuming there cannot be a reference to the ECJ it may be that you get to the same point by a different route - e.g. by the CAS adjourning any proceedings involving City and UEFA until a case can be heard in the ECJ deciding that FFPR does/does not offend EU competition law.

CAS normal make decisions fairly quickly, and in this instance would need to make a decision before next season's Champion's League begins as the punishment would be due at that point. If they adjourn and essentially tell the EU they need to make a ruling, then that will take a lengthy period of time. If that were the case it'll be interesting to see what UEFA does with regards to the punishment, do they apply it and run the risk of it being deemed illegal/unfair at a later point (and the obvious action from City that this would invite) or do they delay any punishment until the final decision is made?

Could City go to the Swiss courts and get an injunction on UEFA to suspend sanctions pending any ECJ ruling?