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

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Pretty sure the challenge has been thrown out because he doesn't have a "legitimate interest" rather than actually decided on the legality of FFP.

Yep, the EC decided that because FFP didn't directly force the agent Dupont was representing to change how he did any of his business, it was none of their concern. Interestingly, the EC got a body that seem to act as their PR to release a piece stating that if any clubs or players wanted to challenge it they would be happy to hear the case. UEFAs press releases at the moment obviously not mentioning this statement :).
Dupont and Striansi (?) can still go to the Belgian Civil courts and from there to the ECJ though.

 

[TrueBlue1705]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Pretty sure the challenge has been thrown out because he doesn't have a "legitimate interest" rather than actually decided on the legality of FFP.

Yep, the EC decided that because FFP didn't directly force the agent Dupont was representing to change how he did any of his business, it was none of their concern. Interestingly, the EC got a body that seem to act as their PR to release a piece stating that if any clubs or players wanted to challenge it they would be happy to hear the case. UEFAs press releases at the moment obviously not mentioning this statement :).
Dupont and Striansi (?) can still go to the Belgian Civil courts and from there to the ECJ though.

What about fans - can they make a complaint/challenge?

 

[Neville Kneville]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Pretty sure the challenge has been thrown out because he doesn't have a "legitimate interest" rather than actually decided on the legality of FFP.

Yep, the EC decided that because FFP didn't directly force the agent Dupont was representing to change how he did any of his business, it was none of their concern. Interestingly, the EC got a body that seem to act as their PR to release a piece stating that if any clubs or players wanted to challenge it they would be happy to hear the case. UEFAs press releases at the moment obviously not mentioning this statement :).
Dupont and Striansi (?) can still go to the Belgian Civil courts and from there to the ECJ though.

That would be their main plan from the start I think.

Doubt they held out much hope for the EC helping, but the bit about clubs & players is interesting.

 

[Cobwebcat]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Dupont would have expected this from the EC I would imagine.

It wont stop him. The ECJ is where it all gets sorted.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Pretty sure the challenge has been thrown out because he doesn't have a "legitimate interest" rather than actually decided on the legality of FFP.

Yep, the EC decided that because FFP didn't directly force the agent Dupont was representing to change how he did any of his business, it was none of their concern. Interestingly, the EC got a body that seem to act as their PR to release a piece stating that if any clubs or players wanted to challenge it they would be happy to hear the case. UEFAs press releases at the moment obviously not mentioning this statement :).
Dupont and Striansi (?) can still go to the Belgian Civil courts and from there to the ECJ though.

What about fans - can they make a complaint/challenge?

Oh yes, we're directly affected parties as consumers, we can take a challenge to either body.
@Neville+Cobwebcat, yep, he's been saying from the start that the only way he'd get the decision he wanted would be to go to the ECJ, this was just going through the motions/ exhausting other avenues first, it's common legal practise.

 

[Sigh]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The issue is standing. Who has standing to bring a case. Naturally, if one does not have standing, most sane jurisdictions permit a challenge to that.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Is the commission entitled to decide who does and who doesn't have a case ?
If they are saying that a player can mount a challenge to Ffraudplay, presumably on the grounds of restriction of trade , then an agent whose income is directly related to the player's earnings would surely be affected by the same rules?
Surely that is why we have courts of law - so that these things can be tested fairly instead of having uefa and their chronies acting as judge and jury?

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Is the commission entitled to decide who does and who doesn't have a case ?
If they are saying that a player can mount a challenge to Ffraudplay, presumably on the grounds of restriction of trade , then an agent whose income is directly related to the player's earnings would surely be affected by the same rules?
Surely that is why we have courts of law - so that these things can be tested fairly instead of having uefa and their chronies acting as judge and jury?

You're missing the point slightly, the Commission are free to turn you down, but they are then answerable to the ECJ, who you are free to bring a case to.

 

[ForzaMancini]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Is the commission entitled to decide who does and who doesn't have a case ?
If they are saying that a player can mount a challenge to Ffraudplay, presumably on the grounds of restriction of trade , then an agent whose income is directly related to the player's earnings would surely be affected by the same rules?
Surely that is why we have courts of law - so that these things can be tested fairly instead of having uefa and their chronies acting as judge and jury?

Don't worry. If Dupont has a legitimate case, it will get its day in court sooner or later.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I believe the EC turned down the application on behalf of Bosman, meaning he didn't get a judgement for four years. I suspect this is one reason City seem to have concentrated on negotiating a settlement.