Hamann Pineapple
Well-Known Member
LoveCity said:
Highly likely, seeing as the regulations were brought in to stop us, I'm guessing it was us.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
FFP facing legal challenge (updated pg 12)
- Thread starter Neil_K
- Start date
Highly likely, seeing as the regulations were brought in to stop us, I'm guessing it was us.
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 26,782
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)
<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)
Anthony Kun
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2012
- Messages
- 455
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.
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?
St Helens Blue (Exiled)
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 May 2011
- Messages
- 13,399
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?
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?
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 26,782
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.
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.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader
Well-Known Member
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!
Exeter Blue I am here
Well-Known Member
One thing I do hope happens, is that Sheikh Mansour, or someone similarly positioned, offers Monsieur Striani the use of our legal team. We want as watertight a case as possible, not a half arsed job!
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.
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.