FFP facing legal challenge (updated pg 12)

LoveCity said:
Well this isn't much help is it? From Herbert's Indy article on it:

Legal specialists believe it may take five years for Striani's case to be dealt with.
Click to expand...

Wonder if a club has appointed these guys on the quiet:

The European Club Association has, indeed, signed up to FFP – a reason why clubs are unable to mount legal challenges to the regime themselves. But that will not be enough to halt the Striani challenge.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Highly likely, seeing as the regulations were brought in to stop us, I'm guessing it was us.
 
I am just wondering.....if a legal challenge to these rules have been mounted,wouldn't that put their implimentation on hold until the court case is over?
 
Here's the bit on FFP at the EU:
<a class="postlink" href="http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/sports/overview_en.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors ... ew_en.html</a>

There is no problem with the principle of FFP. It is the specification & implementation of the FFP rules where the problem lies AND how these cross references with the rights of the the individual AND the principles of the free market. First and foremost, in EU law the rights of the individual to earn a living TRUMP the rights of trade associations every time.

The whole process will take about 5 years and I seriously doubt the rules only allowing a maximum loss (backed by equity injection) of €45m dropping to €30m over a three year rolling period will stand - especially in comparison with the monies that are earned from ONE years participation in the CL. As it stands the investment level allowed will fossilise the teams in the CL and prevents others from bridging the gap - breaking just about every Free Market rule there is.

My guess is that a maximum level of investment of at least 2 x CL prize money per season will be deemed legal - so long as the investment is guaranteed by equity injection and does not appear as money owed to a creditor. This figure would probably go higher if the top clubs earnings from sponsorship continue to escalate.

(edited for accuracy)
 
BlueAnorak said:
Here's the bit on FFP at the EU:
<a class="postlink" href="http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/sports/overview_en.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors ... ew_en.html</a>

There is no problem with the principle of FFP. It is the specification & implementation of the FFP rules where the problem lies AND how these cross references with the rights of the the individual AND the principles of the free market. First and foremost, in EU law the rights of the individual to earn a living TRUMP the rights of trade associations every time.

The whole process will take about 5 years and I seriously doubt the rules only allowing a maximum investment of €35m over a three year rolling period will stand - especially in comparison with the monies that are earned from one years participation in the CL. As it stands the investment level allowed will fossilise the teams in the CL and prevents others from bridging the gap - breaking just about every Free Market rule there is.

My guess is that a maximum level of investment of at least 2 x CL prize money per season will be deemed legal - so long as the investment is guaranteed by an investor and does not appear as money owed to a creditor. This figure would probably go higher if the top clubs earnings continue to escalate.
Click to expand...

So probably nearer the 100m mark?
The thing is champions league money varies on the TV rights or market pool I think it's called. Finishing higher in the league the previous season nets you a larger sum. I'd like to know what the Germans will be getting each this year actually.

And as the above poster questioned, it was wondering the same. Will FFP rules be placed on hold while this is all investigated?
 
Loving this..my brew tastes somewhat sweeter this morning.

This thread will be as long as the Mancini threads eventually.

Will Messi still be young enough for us to sign when FFP gets blown out?
 
EU judgements are based as multiples of the revenue gained/lost the infringement - so they will probably base the maximum loss covered by equity replacement on a multiple of the prize money for winning the Champions League. Say 70 million Euros a season. Just my opinion of course but based on EU precedent. Whether it is 1, 2 or 3 times that level is up to the judges.

By the way I made a mistake above, the maximum loss covered by equity replacement is currently 45m Euros a season (over 2 then 3 seasons) for the first two monitoring periods then dropping to 3o million euros (over 3 seasons). This is clearly way to low a level as it allows clubs who quality for the CL to always dramatically exceed that threshold which can only result in the creation of a Cartel. Further, there isn't a cat in hells chance of this being interpreted in any other way.

BTW just as a plain loss figure (not covered by equity) I think it is entirely reasonable for this to be set at €30m over 3 seasons. It is is connecting this to Investment that is wrong.
 
I'm not surprised by this turn of events. I'm certainly no expert, but I always felt that FFP undermined the principles upon which the EU is based: free movement of capital, labour and services.

If an unremarkable Belgian footballer in Jean-Marc Bosman can bring UEFA to heel, there is little doubt that much more powerful and well resourced vested interests were going to make a decent fist of challenging FFP. It cannot be ruled out that Striani's case is being bankrolled, possibly from Russia.

As to City: it will have little impact imo. Our owners have demonstrated an ability to adapt to whatever the prevailing wind is. They've not overtly complained about FFP and have, in fact, taken hugely active steps to comply with it. That said, the watering down of FFP will definitely hinder united, which has to be a good thing as far as any self-respecting City fan is concerned.

Nice one Monsieur Striani.
 
Courts don't like these cases. They much prefer the Sports' Bodies to sort out their own shit themselves, but if, like the Bosman case, it ever comes to court, for once, the principles upon which the EU seems to have been built and developed are at odds with what the likes of the current CL cartel would have enshrined into the CL rules. i can see the whole sorry mess dragging on for years and it will be the game itself which gets damaged - a lasting testimony to Platini's watch!
 
For those who suggest that UEFA and the EU are in cahoots and any legal challenge will fail because of brown envelopes etc etc you may want to consider the wider picture.

If the ECJ - for it is that body who will decide on this - fails to back the principles of free movement of labour, capital etc then the EU are the biggest losers.

A sporting body headquartered in Switzerland with a dodgy record on tax payments is far from flavour of the month in the EU. And even though Baroso has spoken about the principles of FFPR being OK and the EC saying there is no issue with FFPR as far as state aid law is concerned these are simply statements of fact.

Those statements did not confirm that the EU backs FFPR because the EU doesn't and wont.

The hope at the EU/EC was that any FFPR challenge would have been dealt with by CAS (As Malaga's case is) but the direct attack on FFPR linked to the legal principles that the EU holds so dear WILL bring FFPR as we know it down.
 
I just can't see how UEFA can introduce FFP at this stage, when they know there are legal challenges in place. If they lose the legal case, which is certainly a very real proposition, then they have been enforcing a rule/law that is, based upon EU regulations, illegal. What if they have issued fines or punishments? Say they have ejected a club from the Champion's League based upon FFP. Then, 12 months later, it turns ouf FFP was illegal. Can that club sue UEFA for lost earnings? How do you quantify the loses in terms of prize money, stadium revenue, the attraction of sponsorship etc that a Champion's League campaign would generate? I don't know, but it'll be in the £10m+ bracket you'd think. What about a player who signed a £20,000 a week wage with a club, because they couldn't afford to pay more based on FFP? He's tied into that deal now for the next 4 years, but now FFP is illegal, and he could have got £50,000 a week. Is his contract binding, given it was signed under the shadow of an illegal law? There are just so many legal uncertainties that UEFA would be absolutely mental, and willfully negligent, to push ahead with FFP until the court case has run it's course.
 
Matty said:
I just can't see how UEFA can introduce FFP at this stage, when they know there are legal challenges in place. If they lose the legal case, which is certainly a very real proposition, then they have been enforcing a rule/law that is, based upon EU regulations, illegal. What if they have issued fines or punishments? Say they have ejected a club from the Champion's League based upon FFP. Then, 12 months later, it turns ouf FFP was illegal. Can that club sue UEFA for lost earnings? How do you quantify the loses in terms of prize money, stadium revenue, the attraction of sponsorship etc that a Champion's League campaign would generate? I don't know, but it'll be in the £10m+ bracket you'd think. What about a player who signed a £20,000 a week wage with a club, because they couldn't afford to pay more based on FFP? He's tied into that deal now for the next 4 years, but now FFP is illegal, and he could have got £50,000 a week. Is his contract binding, given it was signed under the shadow of an illegal law? There are just so many legal uncertainties that UEFA would be absolutely mental, and willfully negligent, to push ahead with FFP until the court case has run it's course.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that it seems crazy to carry on with such a doubt about the outcome of the legal proceedings. And lets not forget that this is likely to be the first of many challenges and years of litigation.

UEFA are also limiting clubs but have been taken on by an agent on behalf of players and himself and it is not too crazy an idea that clubs who dont get investment will be an even thornier problem for UEFA, as well we clubs with rich owners who can not move their clubs (investments) forward and challenge for larger revenues because of these limitations.

If you look at who UEFA are likely to have to placate in the coming years in England alone it is quite staggering -

City
Chelsea
Fulham
QPR
Leicester
Leeds
Cardiff
Hull
Notts Forest

All of those clubs rely on investment from owners who have a desire to progress things and get into the PL and CL but can expect to be stopped by UEFA's plans.

I dont think I would like to take on that wealth TBH.

And I dont think the EU can ignore the truly huge inward investment that the EU benefits from either.
 
fbloke said:
Matty said:
I just can't see how UEFA can introduce FFP at this stage, when they know there are legal challenges in place. If they lose the legal case, which is certainly a very real proposition, then they have been enforcing a rule/law that is, based upon EU regulations, illegal. What if they have issued fines or punishments? Say they have ejected a club from the Champion's League based upon FFP. Then, 12 months later, it turns ouf FFP was illegal. Can that club sue UEFA for lost earnings? How do you quantify the loses in terms of prize money, stadium revenue, the attraction of sponsorship etc that a Champion's League campaign would generate? I don't know, but it'll be in the £10m+ bracket you'd think. What about a player who signed a £20,000 a week wage with a club, because they couldn't afford to pay more based on FFP? He's tied into that deal now for the next 4 years, but now FFP is illegal, and he could have got £50,000 a week. Is his contract binding, given it was signed under the shadow of an illegal law? There are just so many legal uncertainties that UEFA would be absolutely mental, and willfully negligent, to push ahead with FFP until the court case has run it's course.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that it seems crazy to carry on with such a doubt about the outcome of the legal proceedings. And lets not forget that this is likely to be the first of many challenges and years of litigation.

UEFA are also limiting clubs but have been taken on by an agent on behalf of players and himself and it is not too crazy an idea that clubs who dont get investment will be an even thornier problem for UEFA, as well we clubs with rich owners who can not move their clubs (investments) forward and challenge for larger revenues because of these limitations.

If you look at who UEFA are likely to have to placate in the coming years in England alone it is quite staggering -

City
Chelsea
Fulham
QPR
Leicester
Leeds
Cardiff
Hull
Notts Forest

All of those clubs rely on investment from owners who have a desire to progress things and get into the PL and CL but can expect to be stopped by UEFA's plans.

I dont think I would like to take on that wealth TBH.

And I dont think the EU can ignore the truly huge inward investment that the EU benefits from either.
Click to expand...

The New Saints FC of Wales?
 
FFP sells itself on ensuring clubs don't go to the wall. If a club gives bank guarantees then that's suffice. I can see this being the decided route out of FFP.
 
I think that Platini has enormous difficulty in trying to convince the ECJ that these regulations at all necessary and so far his reasoning has been illogical, rambling and self-contradictory to the point where he seems to have no clear idea and is afraid to admit his real motivation.One of the major problems with FFPR – and this is another problem that Platini hasn't got to grips with at all – is with the word “competition”. Platini argues that football is a “competition” in which teams seek to prove themselves better than the “competition”. This “competition” is played out on the pitch and millions watch it all over the world week in week out. Platini's argument is that “competition” on the pitch is distorted by profligate spending by certain unnamed clubs which spend money they haven't got and that this undermines the stability of clubs everywhere. He may be right, but he does nothing to deter, let alone stop, these clubs spending profligately, apart from excluding them from UEFA tournaments. This is where he has a real problem, because he is excluding SOME clubs from a major market (the CL) while taking no action against others (any club which is in debt!). The point here is that EU law has nothing to say about debt. The Glaziers, for instance, have done nothing wrong in their leveraged takeover at OT. But where Platini runs into insurmountable trouble is that the “break even” rule seeks not to deal with “profligate spending” but with revenue, and it deals with one aspect of income - shareholder investment – to the exclusion of all others. Sponsorship is fine, gate receipts, hotels etc etc etc are fine, but the man/woman who owns the club must sit idly by and watch the club go to the dogs rather than put in one penny more than “President” Platini will allow. Sheikh Mansour clearly can afford every penny City spend, but he will not be allowed to improve the team and “compete” on the pitch because Platini wants to stop him “competing” commercially with certain other clubs who may have a long tradition of “profligate” spending. Now, European law sees commercial competition as the way to to improvement and prosperity, and the right to invest as central to that aim. Platini will have to convince the ECJ that he is not introducing anti-competitive regulations to protect a cartel from fair competition and I don't see how he can do this. In other words he wants to drive a coach and horses through the legal rights of shareholders so he can distort “competition” on the field even further! And for those who are alarmed that he may get “exemption” from the European Parliament, I think we would find that that actually requires a constitutional amendment (to the treaty) and I don't think he has that kind of clout!

On the second point, that of the “case” taking five years to be resolved, it would seem obvious that football clubs could be ruined within five years and that, if the complaint were upheld, damages against UEFA would ruin it and what was left of football. It would seem sensible that an injunction suspending, at least, the implementation of the regulations, be granted.
 
Uefa General Secretay, Gianni Infantino, was dismissive of Dupont's claim that FFP was legally questionable, when he was asked about it at the SoccerEx convention in Manchester last month. Infantino said that he and Michel Platini had visited Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, and received assurances about the new regime, which means clubs must operate within their means. "We are not worried about it," Infantino said of Dupont's suggestion. "First, because we have the best lawyers working for us. But also because FFP has been agreed by all of the clubs, associations and the European Commission. These haven't been imposed.

The above is from the article in the independent.They seem to be dismissive of any legal challenge because it was agreed. Certainly not by all clubs as I dont remember a ballot. Does anyone else?
 
penalty spot said:
Uefa General Secretay, Gianni Infantino, was dismissive of Dupont's claim that FFP was legally questionable, when he was asked about it at the SoccerEx convention in Manchester last month. Infantino said that he and Michel Platini had visited Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, and received assurances about the new regime, which means clubs must operate within their means. "We are not worried about it," Infantino said of Dupont's suggestion. "First, because we have the best lawyers working for us. But also because FFP has been agreed by all of the clubs, associations and the European Commission. These haven't been imposed.

The above is from the article in the independent.They seem to be dismissive of any legal challenge because it was agreed. Certainly not by all clubs as I dont remember a ballot. Does anyone else?
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter if there was a vote or not. You can't vote democratically to deprive someone of their legal rights, unless in Parliament! UEFA couldn't claim that it had the right to entertain the crowd before kick off at the CL final with a burning of heretics or ritual castration of hooligans because "nearly all clubs" had voted in favour!
 
I agree here just because all the clubs supposedly agreed to it,although really it was happening like it or not,it doesn't make it legal or right.It is still in principle against European employment law,no matter what some faceless prat says.

We are moving in the right direction whatever the outcome so should be ok,it will just slow down our progress a bit.If FFP goes west then we and everybody else knows no one will stop us!
 
I have written a series of articles on the subject for another City forum and one point I make in them is that the ONLY vote that has been held and the ONLY consultation with clubs has been via the ECA.

Now it seems weird that the very clubs who are member of the ECA are those that have, in the last few years, taken part in UEFA competitions. The membership and voting of of the ECA is skewed towards the established big names of European football as well of course.

No matter that over 7,000 professional clubs exist in leagues represented under UEFA jurisdiction the vote by 207 ECA members is deemed by UEFA as gaining consent of ALL clubs.

The point that the 207 have all received funding via UEFA tournaments recently and would like their dominance to continue is purely coincidental isnt it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top