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

[kippaxking79]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

TBF the crowd in the background on FIFA 15 is only marginally better.

 

[Holcombe bloo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'm on my Dragon 32 right now

 

[cookster]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'm on my Dragon 32 right now

Your missus only 32? You lucky b@stard.

 

[gh_mcfc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

There's a lot of questions there.

Firstly, Dupont isn't arguing any collusion's taken place. He's merely arguing that the current FFP regulations are restrictive. For the moment, the suggestion is that they are restrictive purely as a result of being ill judged with regard to reaching the intended objective (stopping clubs getting into financial problems) and as an unintended consequence, they're unnecessarily restrictive, not good for the industry as a whole, and don't benefit the consumer.

Now, IF there was some smoking gun that detailed actual collusion, then this would be a far bigger story and would put the existence of UEFA at risk. But nobody's anywhere near that stage.

But let's suppose evidence ever did come to light... and that it clearly showed collusion between UEFA and some clubs to 'fix' aspects of the industry....

In that case, the courts would have to look at:

a) Who was involved (was it a handful of people who hid it from their own clubs, and UEFA)?
b) Was it intentional collusion, or merely an unintended consequence?
c) How much was the market affected by the collusion?
d) How much did other parties suffer as a result?
e) How much did the colluding parties gain from it?
and much more.

Could people go to prison for collusion? yes
Can businesses be fined? yes
Can victims be compensation? in theory, yes - but in practice this can be hard to put a figure on, and in some cases, the damage is irrevocable.

Whilst a lot of us fans laugh and joke about collusion, with more than a hint of actual suspicion underneath the humour, there's no concrete evidence it's happened. But sometimes, collusion / price fixing etc can happen without organisations realising they're doing it.

For instance - There are two pubs in a small village, and both agree to call a truce to price wars....
They then agree that one will sell only sell Stella Artois, and the other will only sell Carling.
They then agree that it might be nice to make a bit more money, so they both agree to put up their prices by the same amount.

1) Calling a truce to price wars could be interpreted as agreeing a minimum price.
2) Agreeing which products they will sell between them is fixing the market... even if they think they're doing out of common sense.
3) Agreeing to inflate their prices is cast iron example of price fixing.

In theory price fixing is as applicable to a corner shop / local pub as it is to a multinational company. Both are subject to the same laws. However, such small retailers go under the radar (generally, but not always).

There are also special rules for companies that have a particularly large market share (and that can still be a local pub). In those instances, extra measures are put in place to ensure they can't use their market share unfairly.

Superstar. Cheers for the detailed response. I'm not suggesting it will happen, but I'm sure the more layers of the onion are peeled off, the stronger the argument for collusion would be. Can't see anyone digging that deep unfortunately though & even if they did I'm sure it would be difficult to prove beyond doubt?

Not directly UEFA related, but wasn't there a letter on Arsenal headed paper, signed by Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs— stating the existing FFP proposals did not go far enough and that greater limitations should be placed on owner investment? Why was this letter to the FA marked as Private and Confidential? Surely this debate should have been out in the open?

Isn't that documentary evidence of collusion to stop investment (and in so doing restrict pay and free competition and all the other contravensions of EU law)? How did these clubs agree on the content of the letter? What discussions did they have behind closed doors? Presumably some must have gone on because they all signed it.

Just to clear a few things up. Jean Louis has sent me a copy of the presentation to the courts. Although mostly in French I can just about translate and from also from several conversations I have a half decent understanding of the arguments.

1: The complaint being raised is purely against FFP break even requirement in that it is anti competitive and is a block on investment. Also that other tools are more appropriate to achieve UEFAs stated aims

2: The argument in the document highlight the knock on and negative effective the break even requirement have on all the interested parties (including us supporters)

3: It matters not what the EU / UEFA / Carlos rent a quote the itk foreign Journos think. It only matters what the Brussels court decides on the point of Law and hopefully the the European supreme Court decides on a point of law. The pointless prevarications of the ignorant are irrelevant

4: Jean Louis has is aware of the gang of 4 letter and was interested in it. He is also aware and has indeed quoted extracts from the Samuel / Platini interview in the document to the court. He is interested in "highlighting" the fact the break even requirement of FFP has been brought about as an act of protectionism at the behest of certain clubs. Effectively the actions of a cartel.

 

[Ricster]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Meanwhile, at old trafford.....

[bigimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Sinclair_ZX_Spectrum.jpg[/bigimg]

Design classic.

Maybe nice to look at but it was a shitty keyboard to use.

Brings back memories.

I used to remember the magazine I'd buy every month, and every month it had "THE BEST GAME EVER", all you had to do was key in the program.
You'd get excited towards the end and when you typed in the last part of the program up pops "ERROR, LINE 312."
You'd have to count back through hundreds of lines to alter the mistake you'd made, only for the game to be utter shite!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Superstar. Cheers for the detailed response. I'm not suggesting it will happen, but I'm sure the more layers of the onion are peeled off, the stronger the argument for collusion would be. Can't see anyone digging that deep unfortunately though & even if they did I'm sure it would be difficult to prove beyond doubt?

Not directly UEFA related, but wasn't there a letter on Arsenal headed paper, signed by Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs— stating the existing FFP proposals did not go far enough and that greater limitations should be placed on owner investment? Why was this letter to the FA marked as Private and Confidential? Surely this debate should have been out in the open?

Isn't that documentary evidence of collusion to stop investment (and in so doing restrict pay and free competition and all the other contravensions of EU law)? How did these clubs agree on the content of the letter? What discussions did they have behind closed doors? Presumably some must have gone on because they all signed it.

Just to clear a few things up. Jean Louis has sent me a copy of the presentation to the courts. Although mostly in French I can just about translate and from also from several conversations I have a half decent understanding of the arguments.

1: The complaint being raised is purely against FFP break even requirement in that it is anti competitive and is a block on investment. Also that other tools are more appropriate to achieve UEFAs stated aims

2: The argument in the document highlight the knock on and negative effective the break even requirement have on all the interested parties (including us supporters)

3: It matters not what the EU / UEFA / Carlos rent a quote the itk foreign Journos think. It only matters what the Brussels court decides on the point of Law and hopefully the the European supreme Court decides on a point of law. The pointless prevarications of the ignorant are irrelevant

4: Jean Louis has is aware of the gang of 4 letter and was interested in it. He is also aware and has indeed quoted extracts from the Samuel / Platini interview in the document to the court. He is interested in "highlighting" the fact the break even requirement of FFP has been brought about as an act of protectionism at the behest of certain clubs. Effectively the actions of a cartel.

Wouldn't it be utterly wonderful if that Gang of Four Cunts letter became the smoking gun that did for FFP.

 

[Maly]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Not directly UEFA related, but wasn't there a letter on Arsenal headed paper, signed by Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs— stating the existing FFP proposals did not go far enough and that greater limitations should be placed on owner investment? Why was this letter to the FA marked as Private and Confidential? Surely this debate should have been out in the open?

Isn't that documentary evidence of collusion to stop investment (and in so doing restrict pay and free competition and all the other contravensions of EU law)? How did these clubs agree on the content of the letter? What discussions did they have behind closed doors? Presumably some must have gone on because they all signed it.

Just to clear a few things up. Jean Louis has sent me a copy of the presentation to the courts. Although mostly in French I can just about translate and from also from several conversations I have a half decent understanding of the arguments.

1: The complaint being raised is purely against FFP break even requirement in that it is anti competitive and is a block on investment. Also that other tools are more appropriate to achieve UEFAs stated aims

2: The argument in the document highlight the knock on and negative effective the break even requirement have on all the interested parties (including us supporters)

3: It matters not what the EU / UEFA / Carlos rent a quote the itk foreign Journos think. It only matters what the Brussels court decides on the point of Law and hopefully the the European supreme Court decides on a point of law. The pointless prevarications of the ignorant are irrelevant

4: Jean Louis has is aware of the gang of 4 letter and was interested in it. He is also aware and has indeed quoted extracts from the Samuel / Platini interview in the document to the court. He is interested in "highlighting" the fact the break even requirement of FFP has been brought about as an act of protectionism at the behest of certain clubs. Effectively the actions of a cartel.

Wouldn't it be utterly wonderful if that Gang of Four c**ts letter became the smoking gun that did for FFP.

What would be even funnier than that GDM? How about if all of the clubs & directors/execs involved in the cosy cartel were to get prosecuted for an act of protectionism.....that'd be far more interesting than just FFP going out of the window.

This is some serious shit if any of it could be proven. It could potentially take down some of the 'established' elite. Big fines, potential jail terms and potential restrictions on what the clubs involved (& directors) can and can't do in business in the future. Now that would be most amusing.....

 

[oakiecokie]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just to clear a few things up. Jean Louis has sent me a copy of the presentation to the courts. Although mostly in French I can just about translate and from also from several conversations I have a half decent understanding of the arguments.

1: The complaint being raised is purely against FFP break even requirement in that it is anti competitive and is a block on investment. Also that other tools are more appropriate to achieve UEFAs stated aims

2: The argument in the document highlight the knock on and negative effective the break even requirement have on all the interested parties (including us supporters)

3: It matters not what the EU / UEFA / Carlos rent a quote the itk foreign Journos think. It only matters what the Brussels court decides on the point of Law and hopefully the the European supreme Court decides on a point of law. The pointless prevarications of the ignorant are irrelevant

4: Jean Louis has is aware of the gang of 4 letter and was interested in it. He is also aware and has indeed quoted extracts from the Samuel / Platini interview in the document to the court. He is interested in "highlighting" the fact the break even requirement of FFP has been brought about as an act of protectionism at the behest of certain clubs. Effectively the actions of a cartel.

Wouldn't it be utterly wonderful if that Gang of Four c**ts letter became the smoking gun that did for FFP.

What would be even funnier than that GDM? How about if all of the clubs & directors/execs involved in the cosy cartel were to get prosecuted for an act of protectionism.....that'd be far more interesting than just FFP going out of the window.

This is some serious shit if any of it could be proven. It could potentially take down some of the 'established' elite. Big fines, potential jail terms and potential restrictions on what the clubs involved (& directors) can and can't do in business in the future. Now that would be most amusing.....

We can but pray.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Perhaps M. Dupont could enlighten us on the possible consequences of the "Arsenal" letter and some of the pressure applied to UEFA to introduce the break even rule. The case before the Belgian court concerns simply the legality of the rule itself. Would/could the ECJ decide that there is prima facie evidence of the existence of a cartel and call for further investigation which lead to charges against individuals? If individuals were found guilty (and acting as a cartel to rig the market is about as serious as it gets) because the PL voted in (almost) these "rules" , and (what/whowhat's left of UEFA colluded in their introduction, supported them and applied them they would be expected to take action against the guilty clubs. This I suspect would see some demotions to the conference or the lowest division a la Rangers for the signatories of the letter otherwise the courts would really ruin them!

The aim of the letter to Richard Scudamore, dated 17 December 2012, is to get agreement to measures "to curb the inflationary spending" which is such a problem. This can only be spending on players and the problem is that it is putting the price up. The aim is to keep them down by acting together, but acting together "to restrict the owner funding of operating losses". Cutting through the bull, what it means is, "we can't compete with Sheikh Mansour in the transfer market, so let's bring in a rule to stop him spending his own money." Cynics might say that this is what cartels do rather than clubs of istry and tradition concerned with the good of football!

Martin Samuel also got some frank - and alarming - admissions out of Platini, and I wonder if we saw some realisation from UEFA at least on Monday that from 2008 onwards they might just have adopted a gloatingly triumphalist tone when it wasn't really appropriate. They considered action on debt, extending the break even period and even Rumennigge - who had called for City to be "kicked out" of the CL and couldn't wait to get his hands on "his share" of City's fine - was trying to pretend that FFP is actually a voluntary code, which clubs adhere to because, like Abramovitch and Berlusconi, they see it is in everyone's interest.

 

[Maly]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Perhaps M. Dupont could enlighten us on the possible consequences of the "Arsenal" letter and some of the pressure applied to UEFA to introduce the break even rule. The case before the Belgian court concerns simply the legality of the rule itself. Would/could the ECJ decide that there is prima facie evidence of the existence of a cartel and call for further investigation which lead to charges against individuals? If individuals were found guilty (and acting as a cartel to rig the market is about as serious as it gets) because the PL voted in (almost) these "rules" , and (what/whowhat's left of UEFA colluded in their introduction, supported them and applied them they would be expected to take action against the guilty clubs. This I suspect would see some demotions to the conference or the lowest division a la Rangers for the signatories of the letter otherwise the courts would really ruin them!

The aim of the letter to Richard Scudamore, dated 17 December 2012, is to get agreement to measures "to curb the inflationary spending" which is such a problem. This can only be spending on players and the problem is that it is putting the price up. The aim is to keep them down by acting together, but acting together "to restrict the owner funding of operating losses". Cutting through the bull, what it means is, "we can't compete with Sheikh Mansour in the transfer market, so let's bring in a rule to stop him spending his own money." Cynics might say that this is what cartels do rather than clubs of istry and tradition concerned with the good of football!

Martin Samuel also got some frank - and alarming - admissions out of Platini, and I wonder if we saw some realisation from UEFA at least on Monday that from 2008 onwards they might just have adopted a gloatingly triumphalist tone when it wasn't really appropriate. They considered action on debt, extending the break even period and even Rumennigge - who had called for City to be "kicked out" of the CL and couldn't wait to get his hands on "his share" of City's fine - was trying to pretend that FFP is actually a voluntary code, which clubs adhere to because, like Abramovitch and Berlusconi, they see it is in everyone's interest.

I asked a number of similar questions a couple of pages back pal. See FanchesterCity's response at the top of the page. It would seem that courts COULD investigate further if they feel there are questions to be answered around this, but personally, I can't see it happening, as much as I would love it to.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Perhaps M. Dupont could enlighten us on the possible consequences of the "Arsenal" letter and some of the pressure applied to UEFA to introduce the break even rule. The case before the Belgian court concerns simply the legality of the rule itself. Would/could the ECJ decide that there is prima facie evidence of the existence of a cartel and call for further investigation which lead to charges against individuals? If individuals were found guilty (and acting as a cartel to rig the market is about as serious as it gets) because the PL voted in (almost) these "rules" , and (what/whowhat's left of UEFA colluded in their introduction, supported them and applied them they would be expected to take action against the guilty clubs. This I suspect would see some demotions to the conference or the lowest division a la Rangers for the signatories of the letter otherwise the courts would really ruin them!

The aim of the letter to Richard Scudamore, dated 17 December 2012, is to get agreement to measures "to curb the inflationary spending" which is such a problem. This can only be spending on players and the problem is that it is putting the price up. The aim is to keep them down by acting together, but acting together "to restrict the owner funding of operating losses". Cutting through the bull, what it means is, "we can't compete with Sheikh Mansour in the transfer market, so let's bring in a rule to stop him spending his own money." Cynics might say that this is what cartels do rather than clubs of istry and tradition concerned with the good of football!

Martin Samuel also got some frank - and alarming - admissions out of Platini, and I wonder if we saw some realisation from UEFA at least on Monday that from 2008 onwards they might just have adopted a gloatingly triumphalist tone when it wasn't really appropriate. They considered action on debt, extending the break even period and even Rumennigge - who had called for City to be "kicked out" of the CL and couldn't wait to get his hands on "his share" of City's fine - was trying to pretend that FFP is actually a voluntary code, which clubs adhere to because, like Abramovitch and Berlusconi, they see it is in everyone's interest.

I don't doubt that the sudden munificence being shown in respect of the proposed overhaul of the CL seedings system for example, owes everything to the belated recognition by UEFA that being seen to preside over a rigged competition might not be a good idea with DuPont waiting in the wings.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Not directly UEFA related, but wasn't there a letter on Arsenal headed paper, signed by Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs— stating the existing FFP proposals did not go far enough and that greater limitations should be placed on owner investment? Why was this letter to the FA marked as Private and Confidential? Surely this debate should have been out in the open?

Isn't that documentary evidence of collusion to stop investment (and in so doing restrict pay and free competition and all the other contravensions of EU law)? How did these clubs agree on the content of the letter? What discussions did they have behind closed doors? Presumably some must have gone on because they all signed it.

Just to clear a few things up. Jean Louis has sent me a copy of the presentation to the courts. Although mostly in French I can just about translate and from also from several conversations I have a half decent understanding of the arguments.

1: The complaint being raised is purely against FFP break even requirement in that it is anti competitive and is a block on investment. Also that other tools are more appropriate to achieve UEFAs stated aims

2: The argument in the document highlight the knock on and negative effective the break even requirement have on all the interested parties (including us supporters)

3: It matters not what the EU / UEFA / Carlos rent a quote the itk foreign Journos think. It only matters what the Brussels court decides on the point of Law and hopefully the the European supreme Court decides on a point of law. The pointless prevarications of the ignorant are irrelevant

4: Jean Louis has is aware of the gang of 4 letter and was interested in it. He is also aware and has indeed quoted extracts from the Samuel / Platini interview in the document to the court. He is interested in "highlighting" the fact the break even requirement of FFP has been brought about as an act of protectionism at the behest of certain clubs. Effectively the actions of a cartel.

Wouldn't it be utterly wonderful if that Gang of Four c**ts letter became the smoking gun that did for FFP.

I wouldn't be able to leave myself alone for weeks if that happened!

 

[mad4city]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Obviously, the evolution at City will weigh heavily in the pending arguments.

One side will seek to demonstrate that our spending was accelerated by the initiation of FFP and that it has resulted in success on the pitch which, in turn, brought increased sponsorship/ revenue and is about to allow us to break even (or better?).

The opposition will argue that our new-found financial situation is a result of the demands for greater prudence placed upon us by the introduction of FFP.

Bizarrely, we're gonna be the poster boy of both sides of the argument. It doesn't quite make us power-brokers (and there's always the PSG case to consider also) but we are left with both parties wanting to keep us on side. The question for City now, is which side best meets our long term ambitions. Personally, I fear that's UEFA & the Old Alliance clubs. That said, should the Dupont case succeed (and God knows, it very well may!), we can be seen to have been held almost in contempt by those who will have lost their positions of privilege and, therefore, be well-placed to fill the vacuum that their defeat will inevitably precipitate.
And all because our owners have kept their mouths shut and got on with the job of making City successful.
The more I look at ot, the more I feel that they've played a blinder.

 

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The phrase 'take a pinch' allied to Khaldoon's assertion that when revisited in a number of years we would see who was right about investment models now seems rather well worded.

He's alluding to having to take an unfair/unreasonable fine and course of action in the short term in order to be proven right in the longer term. All the while the club and CFG have not officially 'accepted' FFP but merely worked within those constraints whilst challenging them wherever possible.

It could be that the club are willing to give the ECA and UEFA more than enough rope to hang themselves, maintaining a dignified and professional stance in the meantime.

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Obviously, the evolution at City will weigh heavily in the pending arguments.

One side will seek to demonstrate that our spending was accelerated by the initiation of FFP and that it has resulted in success on the pitch which, in turn, brought increased sponsorship/ revenue and is about to allow us to break even (or better?).

The opposition will argue that our new-found financial situation is a result of the demands for greater prudence placed upon us by the introduction of FFP.

Bizarrely, we're gonna be the poster boy of both sides of the argument. It doesn't quite make us power-brokers (and there's always the PSG case to consider also) but we are left with both parties wanting to keep us on side. The question for City now, is which side best meets our long term ambitions. Personally, I fear that's UEFA & the Old Alliance clubs. That said, should the Dupont case succeed (and God knows, it very well may!), we can be seen to have been held almost in contempt by those who will have lost their positions of privilege and, therefore, be well-placed to fill the vacuum that their defeat will inevitably precipitate.
And all because our owners have kept their mouths shut and got on with the job of making City successful.
The more I look at ot, the more I feel that they've played a blinder.

In a recent post I said that ADUG were 'indifferent' to the legal result.
Perhaps that was the wrong word because they will probably have a preference that i have not considered. However, as you point out we are able to continue our progress whichever way the Court decides.

Other Clubs are hoping for a decision that would assist their particular situation whether that is needing fresh investment or maintaining the status quo.

ADUG can appear to be magnanimous whatever the result because no other Club is willing or able to commit funds to a Global Investment.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Superstar. Cheers for the detailed response. I'm not suggesting it will happen, but I'm sure the more layers of the onion are peeled off, the stronger the argument for collusion would be. Can't see anyone digging that deep unfortunately though & even if they did I'm sure it would be difficult to prove beyond doubt?

Not directly UEFA related, but wasn't there a letter on Arsenal headed paper, signed by Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs— stating the existing FFP proposals did not go far enough and that greater limitations should be placed on owner investment? Why was this letter to the FA marked as Private and Confidential? Surely this debate should have been out in the open?

Isn't that documentary evidence of collusion to stop investment (and in so doing restrict pay and free competition and all the other contravensions of EU law)? How did these clubs agree on the content of the letter? What discussions did they have behind closed doors? Presumably some must have gone on because they all signed it.

Just to clear a few things up. Jean Louis has sent me a copy of the presentation to the courts. Although mostly in French I can just about translate and from also from several conversations I have a half decent understanding of the arguments.

1: The complaint being raised is purely against FFP break even requirement in that it is anti competitive and is a block on investment. Also that other tools are more appropriate to achieve UEFAs stated aims

2: The argument in the document highlight the knock on and negative effective the break even requirement have on all the interested parties (including us supporters)

3: It matters not what the EU / UEFA / Carlos rent a quote the itk foreign Journos think. It only matters what the Brussels court decides on the point of Law and hopefully the the European supreme Court decides on a point of law. The pointless prevarications of the ignorant are irrelevant

4: Jean Louis has is aware of the gang of 4 letter and was interested in it. He is also aware and has indeed quoted extracts from the Samuel / Platini interview in the document to the court. He is interested in "highlighting" the fact the break even requirement of FFP has been brought about as an act of protectionism at the behest of certain clubs. Effectively the actions of a cartel.

I trust that JMDP's presentation highlights that income from CL group qualification is 3 times more than that allowed as investment, thus making it nearly impossible for a club to qualify for the CL who isn't already in the CL.

 

[keith's curle]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

This is from the BBC Gossip column, from a Spanish paper I think:

Spanish champions Atletico Madrid have recruited former Manchester United and Chelsea chief executive Peter Kenyon as an advisor, with a remit to expand the club's international presence.

It looks like everybody now sees that 'going global' is the route to success. If you want to get up there with the big boys (are stay there if you have), you need to have your share of the worldwide fan base.

I think its safe to say that football is cementing its place as the number 1 sport, with Europe and specifically the PL as the top dogs. We may turn out to be in the right place at the right time in the same way United were when the PL was created.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just to clear a few things up. Jean Louis has sent me a copy of the presentation to the courts. Although mostly in French I can just about translate and from also from several conversations I have a half decent understanding of the arguments.

1: The complaint being raised is purely against FFP break even requirement in that it is anti competitive and is a block on investment. Also that other tools are more appropriate to achieve UEFAs stated aims

2: The argument in the document highlight the knock on and negative effective the break even requirement have on all the interested parties (including us supporters)

3: It matters not what the EU / UEFA / Carlos rent a quote the itk foreign Journos think. It only matters what the Brussels court decides on the point of Law and hopefully the the European supreme Court decides on a point of law. The pointless prevarications of the ignorant are irrelevant

4: Jean Louis has is aware of the gang of 4 letter and was interested in it. He is also aware and has indeed quoted extracts from the Samuel / Platini interview in the document to the court. He is interested in "highlighting" the fact the break even requirement of FFP has been brought about as an act of protectionism at the behest of certain clubs. Effectively the actions of a cartel.

Wouldn't it be utterly wonderful if that Gang of Four c**ts letter became the smoking gun that did for FFP.

I wouldn't be able to leave myself alone for weeks if that happened!

So no change then?

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Jean-Louis Dupont has given an interview to <a class="postlink" href="http://www.canal-supporters.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.canal-supporters.com</a>, a site for PSG supporters, about FFP and the significance of Monday's round table. Much of it is not new, but much of it is very much what he let gh_mcfc know, but with some quite exciting phraseology.

He was asked about the round table meeting on Monday, and, in particular about UEFA's apparent willingness to be flexible. Did this (apparent) willingness to change make it more difficult for him to attack the rules, since he could never be sure what the rules actually were! I shall give my translation of his answer, followed in some cases by his actual reply so others can judge the accuracy of the translation. Firstly he said that, in his opinion, the changes proposed made little difference ("Je crois que ces changements soient marginaux") because "the fundamental rule (ie a limiting of the right of owners to invest in their own club) remains unchanged simply because anything which affected this central principle would boil down to an admission that this whole business has been nothing but one enormous blunder, and this would amount to a loss of face by UEFA and the small number of clubs who have been pushing them into it. (..le coeur de la regle [a savoir une limitation du droit des proprietaires d'investir dans leur propre club] ne soit pas modifie et ce, pour une mauvaise raison, a savoir que toucher au coeur de la regle, ce serait admettre que toute cette affaire est juste une enorme bevue, ce qui reviendrait pout l'UEFA [et pour ls quelques grands clubs qui l'ont poussee dans le dos] a perdre la face.) Though he thought that the concessions UEFA were (apparently) considering after Monday had all the appearance of back tracking he thought that this was simply because of the legal challenge and amounted to no more than "a bit more time for some clubs" (to break even).

Interestingly he was asked if his action was hindered by the fact that none of the clubs punished for FFP violations was going to court, and it was here that he identified "the enemy" very specifically: " We are dealing with a very tightly knit cartel led by Mr Platini (of UEFA) and Mr Rummenigge (of the ECA)." His opinion was that City ans PSG were "fully justified in their avoidance of law since " the fact that the sanctioned clubs had "accepted" their punishment simply reflects the near impossibility of a club involved in one of UEFA's competitions challengingone of UEFA's decisions, because UEFA is at one and the same time, rule maker, judge, competition organiser and ...referee on the pitch.." ("Le fait que les clubs sanctiones ont 'accepte' leur sanction reflete simplement le fait qu'il est quasi impossible pour un club implique dans les competitions UEFA de remettre en cause une decision de l'UEFA, qui est tout a la fois le legislateur, le juge, le metteur en scene de la competition, et...l'arbitre sur le terrain...).

It is his opinion that a judgement against FFP could entail claims for damages, not only from clubs such as City and PSG, but from ANY club which had suffered damage and also from any supporters, for instance those where ticket prices had gone up to enable the club to break even, or where the "product" they had bought (eg the quality of their team's play - shown by performance in the league?) was worse than it should have been. Finally, he called on PSG fans to support him in the way City fans have, because in the end, "European Union competition law exists ultimately to protect the (interests of the) consumer from (the activities of) cartels." ("Le but ultime du droit UE de la concurrence, c'est de proteger les consommateurs contre les cartels.")

 

[squirtyflower]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Jean-Louis Dupont has given an interview to <a class="postlink" href="http://www.canal-supporters.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.canal-supporters.com</a>, a site for PSG supporters, about FFP and the significance of Monday's round table. Much of it is not new, but much of it is very much what he let gh_mcfc know, but with some quite exciting phraseology.

He was asked about the round table meeting on Monday, and, in particular about UEFA's apparent willingness to be flexible. Did this (apparent) willingness to change make it more difficult for him to attack the rules, since he could never be sure what the rules actually were! I shall give my translation of his answer, followed in some cases by his actual reply so others can judge the accuracy of the translation. Firstly he said that, in his opinion, the changes proposed made little difference ("Je crois que ces changements soient marginaux") because "the fundamental rule (ie a limiting of the right of owners to invest in their own club) remains unchanged simply because anything which affected this central principle would boil down to an admission that this whole business has been nothing but one enormous blunder, and this would amount to a loss of face by UEFA and the small number of clubs who have been pushing them into it. (..le coeur de la regle [a savoir une limitation du droit des proprietaires d'investir dans leur propre club] ne soit pas modifie et ce, pour une mauvaise raison, a savoir que toucher au coeur de la regle, ce serait admettre que toute cette affaire est juste une enorme bevue, ce qui reviendrait pout l'UEFA [et pour ls quelques grands clubs qui l'ont poussee dans le dos] a perdre la face.) Though he thought that the concessions UEFA were (apparently) considering after Monday had all the appearance of back tracking he thought that this was simply because of the legal challenge and amounted to no more than "a bit more time for some clubs" (to break even).

Interestingly he was asked if his action was hindered by the fact that none of the clubs punished for FFP violations was going to court, and it was here that he identified "the enemy" very specifically: " We are dealing with a very tightly knit cartel led by Mr Platini (of UEFA) and Mr Rummenigge (of the ECA)." His opinion was that City ans PSG were "fully justified in their avoidance of law since " the fact that the sanctioned clubs had "accepted" their punishment simply reflects the near impossibility of a club involved in one of UEFA's competitions challengingone of UEFA's decisions, because UEFA is at one and the same time, rule maker, judge, competition organiser and ...referee on the pitch.." ("Le fait que les clubs sanctiones ont 'accepte' leur sanction reflete simplement le fait qu'il est quasi impossible pour un club implique dans les competitions UEFA de remettre en cause une decision de l'UEFA, qui est tout a la fois le legislateur, le juge, le metteur en scene de la competition, et...l'arbitre sur le terrain...).

It is his opinion that a judgement against FFP could entail claims for damages, not only from clubs such as City and PSG, but from ANY club which had suffered damage and also from any supporters, for instance those where ticket prices had gone up to enable the club to break even, or where the "product" they had bought (eg the quality of their team's play - shown by performance in the league?) was worse than it should have been. Finally, he called on PSG fans to support him in the way City fans have, because in the end, "European Union competition law exists ultimately to protect the (interests of the) consumer from (the activities of) cartels." ("Le but ultime du droit UE de la concurrence, c'est de proteger les consommateurs contre les cartels.")

My claim against Platini is in the post