Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Sections 1 & 2 of Article 101 dealing with EU Competition law.
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
Prestwich_Blue said:Sections 1 & 2 of Article 101 dealing with EU Competition law.
Article 101
(ex Article 81 TEC)
1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market, and in particular those which:
(a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;
(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;
(c) share markets or sources of supply;
(d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(e) make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
2. Any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be automatically void.
I have been reminding lots of journalists and 'experts' on UEFA FFP about these things for a while now and most seem not to 'get it' or are deliberately keeping their powder dry for some inexplicable reason.
As you know Col' the freedom of movement of capital is very important to the EU and one of the founding principles of the EEC.
Mess with that and they will get a tad upset.
Prestwich_Blue said:Sections 1 & 2 of Article 101 dealing with EU Competition law.
Article 101
(ex Article 81 TEC)
1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market, and in particular those which:
(a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;
(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;
(c) share markets or sources of supply;
(d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(e) make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
2. Any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be automatically void.
Are we to assume from this PB, that FFP is dead in the water?
The Flash said:Prestwich_Blue said:Sections 1 & 2 of Article 101 dealing with EU Competition law.
Article 101
(ex Article 81 TEC)
1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market, and in particular those which:
(a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;
(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;
(c) share markets or sources of supply;
(d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(e) make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
2. Any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be automatically void.
Are we to assume from this PB, that FFP is dead in the water?
I am no legal expert but i always felt it was constructed upon a sugar pedestal base and when the rains came down,as in a legal challenge,it would melt away.However,before they implimented it they must have taken legal advise,but sometimes people hear what they want to hear and railroad and bluff others with the knowledge,when the truth is very different.
BoyBlue_1985
Well-Known Member
The Flash said:Prestwich_Blue said:Sections 1 & 2 of Article 101 dealing with EU Competition law.
Article 101
(ex Article 81 TEC)
1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market, and in particular those which:
(a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;
(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;
(c) share markets or sources of supply;
(d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(e) make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
2. Any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be automatically void.
Are we to assume from this PB, that FFP is dead in the water?
I always believed they circumnavigated this as Europe is an invitational competition and therefore they can have whatever rules they chose
BoyBlue_1985 said:The Flash said:Prestwich_Blue said:Sections 1 & 2 of Article 101 dealing with EU Competition law.
Are we to assume from this PB, that FFP is dead in the water?
I always believed they circumnavigated this as Europe is an invitational competition and therefore they can have whatever rules they chose
I heard this but when it impacts on players wages and security it may negate that argument.
The Stockport Iniesta
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 11,761
Assuming the legal challenge does go to court, what sort of timetable would we be looking at for the initial hearing?
BluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,562
paulchapo said:BoyBlue_1985 said:The Flash said:Are we to assume from this PB, that FFP is dead in the water?
I always believed they circumnavigated this as Europe is an invitational competition and therefore they can have whatever rules they chose
I heard this but when it impacts on players wages and security it may negate that argument.
UEFA makes a fortune from the TV rights to the CL and from companies (we know who they are!) which sponsor the competition to the point where they can guarantee to pay £50 million to the winners. Clubs eliminated in the group stage will receive somewhere in the region of £25 million. These monies count in calculations to "break even" under the regulations. This idea that it is an "invitational tournament" not governed by norma; rules is rubbish. It is a market, UEFA is a competing party and commercial law governs it as much as any other market.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
That will be for the courts to decide. I'm not a lawyer but I'm guessing that the plaintiff's argument will centre around FFP limiting investment and effectively restricting competition through barriers to access to the financial stimulus that the CL can bring.The Flash said:Prestwich_Blue said:Sections 1 & 2 of Article 101 dealing with EU Competition law.
Article 101
(ex Article 81 TEC)
1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market, and in particular those which:
(a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;
(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;
(c) share markets or sources of supply;
(d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(e) make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
2. Any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be automatically void.
Are we to assume from this PB, that FFP is dead in the water?
The interesting thing for me is that the CL itself is a major source of distortion across the various domestic leagues. A Moldovan team may not be able to compete with Bayern Munich on a pan-European level but simply by getting into the group stage of the CL could earn enough money to out-spend other Moldovan teams. If I were ADUG or someone like them, I would argue that I should be able to spend enough to make my club competitive, if I could afford to do that, without needing to be a member of what is effectively a cartel.
Rammyblues
Well-Known Member
Be difficult because the clubs would have to show what damage or loss has been caused to the business by FFPR. It would be extremely difficult to quantify the actual damages because of the nature of the competition. How could someone prove that because they could not invest that they didn't finish top four thereby missing out on CL money.
In many cases the test case is only specific to the facts as presented in that judgement, the ECJ do not normally deal in large sums of compensation. Furthermore the decisions aren't normally retrospective.
About time they were put to the test Platini is an absolute joke of a man and I hope the whole thing folds like a pack of cards.
For what it is worth this is a man who has pursued the idea of a closed European League for the elite clubs without relegation, by invite only, when you look at it from that perspective you understand how these rules as they stand virtually guarantee that idea.
In many cases the test case is only specific to the facts as presented in that judgement, the ECJ do not normally deal in large sums of compensation. Furthermore the decisions aren't normally retrospective.
About time they were put to the test Platini is an absolute joke of a man and I hope the whole thing folds like a pack of cards.
For what it is worth this is a man who has pursued the idea of a closed European League for the elite clubs without relegation, by invite only, when you look at it from that perspective you understand how these rules as they stand virtually guarantee that idea.
Exeter Blue I am here
Well-Known Member
Prestwich_Blue said:That will be for the courts to decide. I'm not a lawyer but I'm guessing that the plaintiff's argument will centre around FFP limiting investment and effectively restricting competition through barriers to access to the financial stimulus that the CL can bring.The Flash said:Prestwich_Blue said:Sections 1 & 2 of Article 101 dealing with EU Competition law.
Are we to assume from this PB, that FFP is dead in the water?
The interesting thing for me is that the CL itself is a major source of distortion across the various domestic leagues. A Moldovan team may not be able to compete with Bayern Munich on a pan-European level but simply by getting into the group stage of the CL could earn enough money to out-spend other Moldovan teams. If I were ADUG or someone like them, I would argue that I should be able to spend enough to make my club competitive, if I could afford to do that, without needing to be a member of what is effectively a cartel.
Would you advocate City poking their noses in at any stage PB, or just sit back and let the whole thing play out? I am a suspicious old coot, and my distrust of people like Gill and Twatini is so entrenched that I wouldn't put it past them to be the silent driving force behind this legal challenge, with the Belgian agent no more than a stool pigeon briefed to put forward a deliberately weak argument........not that I'm paranoid or a control freak or anything, you understand!
BluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,562
jrb said:Just a thought.
If Platini and UEFA forge ahead with FFPR, and in 5 years time, or whenever the case comes to court, could all the parties affected by FFPR sue both Platini and UEFA, if they lose the case?
There is a very real possibility of this. The regulations' great weakness is that they do little to prevent "profligate spending" and "financial instability" but they sanction, and potentially sanction very severely, those clubs whose owners invest more than el presidente likes. Most of the sanctions seek to reduce income by threats or, ultimately, exclusion from the CL cash cow. Platini's problem is that the consequences of these sanctions are massively more severe than even the sanctions themselves.
A club finds itself in danger of not qualifying for the CL, or one which doesn't qualify, may find its income not sufficient to attract the player(s) it needs. Or it buys them and is excluded... It loses revenue as its league position worsens and sponsors pay less, gates drop, other players want to leave.. We have seen this spiral already, but only at clubs where the spending was profligate. If an owner can argue that they had the resources to avoid this decline, but were deterred by Platini's illegal tactics for five years from using them, they could blame him for the effectively irretrievable ruin of their club, because of the unlawful destruction of its ability to compete. The damages would be astronomical and the courts have shown they don't take such matters lightly.
The only way is to suspend the regulations at least while they are sub judice.
Innsbruckblue
Well-Known Member
I smell the beginnings of a footballing civil war. The European League will happen, spurred on by UEFA and those clubs who advocate the FFP. Let them have it. Hopefully, another, fairer and fully representative governing body will be formed and the rest of Europe's clubs will join that, resulting in two bodies: One MLS-type, which will, after a massive initial sponsorship boost, slowly decline due to lack of supporter interest, and one which will be like the old UEFA, treating every country fairly, respecting fans and we'll see great old names having a crack at winning competitions again.
I so hope the EU tells Platini, Gill and Rummenigge, et al where to go. However, if those clubs really want their super league, they'll get it and shit on the rest of us in the process.
I so hope the EU tells Platini, Gill and Rummenigge, et al where to go. However, if those clubs really want their super league, they'll get it and shit on the rest of us in the process.
Shaelumstash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 8,305
Re: Wall St Journal Article on FFP
Yes but you were also suggesting any citizen could do it at no cost to themselves. I am sure Mr Dupont is not acting out of the goodness of his heart because he so passionately believes in the claimant (the Belgian agent's) European rights! It will be costing him a fortune, and it's clearly worth his while to challenge the rules because it significantly affects his earning potential as a football agent.fbloke said:Remember when i said this -
Just a few pages back.From what I understand of EU law any EU citizen or business can ask for an investigation into such business practices.
<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=280291&start=40" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=280291&start=40</a>
Now we have
In conformity with article 101.2 of the Treaties of the European Union, the complainant requests the European Commission to declare that the Break-even rule is null.
***walks away whislting merrily***
Ballet On Ice
Well-Known Member
Just a thought and I apologise if its already been on here.
I wonder if Mr Dupont is being “employed” by PSG as they must be in line to fail FFP
I wonder if Mr Dupont is being “employed” by PSG as they must be in line to fail FFP
what have i missed?jrb said:That's another £10mill-£15mill in the transfer kitty.
One of Chelsea, Arsenal, or Spurs will be cursing tonight.
FFPR! Don't make me laugh!
Must admit its flown by me as wellped said:what have i missed?jrb said:That's another £10mill-£15mill in the transfer kitty.
One of Chelsea, Arsenal, or Spurs will be cursing tonight.
FFPR! Don't make me laugh!