FFP Question

[dctid]

Irwell you are wrong completely totally and utterely wrong

UEFA grant a license for theire competition and dictate the rules of entry

What you are actually saying is that UEFA have spent time and money using some of their best legal and financial brans to produce a set of rules that are essentially illegal - get a grip.

You are wrong very much wrong

The set of rules isn't illegal, one rule within it is (though that doesn't necessarily mean that the court would rule in our favour). Again, though, you are missing the point. I only brought this up in the first place because you seemed to be under the impression that CAS was the only avenue of recourse, completely missing the fact that illegalities are beyond their jurisdiction.

As for UEFA, yes, I'm saying they are likely to do exactly that. It wouldn't be the first time either would it? Remember the Bosman ruling? Or the ruling that Gibraltar be included in UEFA's definition of Europe? There are all kinds of issues with UEFA's rules. There is also likely to be a challenge to the home grown player rules as soon as a club loses out to it's rivals as a result of them.

Mallorca were refused a license last season despite qualifying for the Europa League (5th i believe in La Liga) - is this not a restraint of trade? usiing your logic yes but cant remember any court cases

UEFA Quote Referencing Mallorca

"On the basis of all expert reviews which have been undertaken, the Control and Disciplinary Body ruled that the club does not fulfil the necessary admission criteria (Article 2.07 of the Regulations of the UEFA Europa League), as the licence of the club was not granted in accordance with the UEFA Club Licensing Regulations, 2008 edition, and the club has not fulfilled its obligations as defined in these regulations"

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theoffside.com/leagues/uefa-kicks-mallorca-out-of-the-europa-league.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theoffside.com/leagues/uefa- ... eague.html</a>

and another

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jul/22/real-mallorca-europa-league-uefa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010 ... eague-uefa</a>

Currently there is a big golf thing going on in Sandwich - the club is a privte members club much like UEFA (nobody forces any club to join it remember and by joining it you accept to comply with the rules as Cookie and co have said numberous times) and only allows men to join - sexists / discriminatory yup but its a privte members club and therefore they cant impose these rules legally and crucially do so

UEFA is no different.

Really cant be arsed anymore on this - you are completely and utterely wrong and i think the truth is far to uncomfortable for you to accept

 

[mcfc1632]

You miss the point, ETIHAD can sponsor as much as they want and no one will stop that. It´s how they will count the money in UEFA that makes the UEFA criteria important.

No, I think it is you that is missing the point to be honest. Refusal of a UEFA license also means you do not get any fee for your participation in the tournament. This is a financial penalty against any company who fails to break even under UEFA's criteria as a result of UEFA's judgement on the value of their sponsorship deal. This financial penalty impedes City and Etihad's ability to regulate how they carry on their trade to their own discretion and choice and so is an illegal restraint of trade.

No sorry mate - and I do not mean this as a criticism as we are all on the same side and want the same outcome

We all have opinions - some based on hope, others more qualified and others based on facts

Unless you are a qualified professional in european law then you will be less qualified than me on this - you simply have it wrong mate

Being deliberately OTT simplistic - you will understand why Swansea are not being invited to play in the CL - because they did not meet the invitation criteria set out my the organises of the competition (in this case finishing in PL top 4). These rules are pre-determined and pre-agreed by all clubs under the scope of UEFA.

UEFA can decide to extend or not extend an invitation based on its interpretation of conformance to its rules. If UEFA decide we have not conformed to their rules they can decline to invite - our only recourse is- if we think that they are wrongly interpreted - then the redress is to the Court of arbitration for sport - not the courts - the european courts (im qualified o) would not be remotely interested.

 

[SWP's back]

dctid really really needs to stop worrying.

 

[dctid]

dctid really really needs to stop worrying.

Merely trying to point out the the poster was indeed incorrect in his assumption / argument

 

[SWP's back]

dctid really really needs to stop worrying.

Merely trying to point out the the poster was indeed incorrect in his assumption / argument

Ok, what are you worried about regarding this deal?

 

[jonmcfc]

i don`t undrstand how swansea are brought up in you debate please enlighten me

 

[Rammyblues]

Not going to get into a debate on this but for what it is worth nothing wrong with the rules IMO the only way these rules will be challenged is if

1) UEFA make a decision which in law is against their own rules
2) Make a decision which flies in the face of evidence presented to it which is manifestly unjust and which no ordinary tribunal properly advised would make.


We will comply, I am not worried.

 

[Irwell]

Mallorca were refused a license last season despite qualifying for the Europa League (5th i believe in La Liga) - is this not a restraint of trade? usiing your logic yes but cant remember any court cases

UEFA Quote Referencing Mallorca

"On the basis of all expert reviews which have been undertaken, the Control and Disciplinary Body ruled that the club does not fulfil the necessary admission criteria (Article 2.07 of the Regulations of the UEFA Europa League), as the licence of the club was not granted in accordance with the UEFA Club Licensing Regulations, 2008 edition, and the club has not fulfilled its obligations as defined in these regulations"

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theoffside.com/leagues/uefa-kicks-mallorca-out-of-the-europa-league.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theoffside.com/leagues/uefa- ... eague.html</a>

and another

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jul/22/real-mallorca-europa-league-uefa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010 ... eague-uefa</a>

Currently there is a big golf thing going on in Sandwich - the club is a privte members club much like UEFA (nobody forces any club to join it remember and by joining it you accept to comply with the rules as Cookie and co have said numberous times) and only allows men to join - sexists / discriminatory yup but its a privte members club and therefore they cant impose these rules legally and crucially do so

UEFA is no different.

Really cant be arsed anymore on this - you are completely and utterely wrong and i think the truth is far to uncomfortable for you to accept

You don't seem to understand still. The issue is not with them not granting licenses on the basis of their rules, UEFA are entitled to not grant entry and the fees associated. The issue is that one of their rules limits the contracts Etihad are able to offer to City, on the basis that if they offer more than UEFA deem to be fair the excess will not be able to be invested by City into their core business. I think we need to agree to disagree on this one.

Either way, you are continuing to take this throwaway example of a potential legal challenge way too seriously. As I said, the point I was trying to make was that you were completely wrong in your assertion that any complaint by City would be dealt with by CAS.

-- Sun Jul 17, 2011 9:11 pm --

dctid really really needs to stop worrying.

Merely trying to point out the the poster was indeed incorrect in his assumption / argument

You argued against my throwaway remark showing your comment about CAS to be incorrect and have completely ignored the CAS element despite me repeatedly pointing you back to it. I was simply trying to show you that legal challenges were possible with a point picked from case law off the top of my head. It was never claimed to be a robust defence, just a point of law that could lead to these regulations being challenged in court.

-- Sun Jul 17, 2011 9:19 pm --

You miss the point, ETIHAD can sponsor as much as they want and no one will stop that. It´s how they will count the money in UEFA that makes the UEFA criteria important.

No, I think it is you that is missing the point to be honest. Refusal of a UEFA license also means you do not get any fee for your participation in the tournament. This is a financial penalty against any company who fails to break even under UEFA's criteria as a result of UEFA's judgement on the value of their sponsorship deal. This financial penalty impedes City and Etihad's ability to regulate how they carry on their trade to their own discretion and choice and so is an illegal restraint of trade.

No sorry mate - and I do not mean this as a criticism as we are all on the same side and want the same outcome

We all have opinions - some based on hope, others more qualified and others based on facts

Unless you are a qualified professional in european law then you will be less qualified than me on this - you simply have it wrong mate

Being deliberately OTT simplistic - you will understand why Swansea are not being invited to play in the CL - because they did not meet the invitation criteria set out my the organises of the competition (in this case finishing in PL top 4). These rules are pre-determined and pre-agreed by all clubs under the scope of UEFA.

UEFA can decide to extend or not extend an invitation based on its interpretation of conformance to its rules. If UEFA decide we have not conformed to their rules they can decline to invite - our only recourse is- if we think that they are wrongly interpreted - then the redress is to the Court of arbitration for sport - not the courts - the european courts (im qualified o) would not be remotely interested.

Law takes precedence over contracts where the two are in conflict and CAS have no jurisdiction over legal issues. Regardless, though, my point was not to prove a case on the basis of that particular point of law, I was simply saying that CAS are not always the correct venue for such challenges. To be honest, though, I think the discussion of this point of case law has detracted from the discussion about FFPR and that wasn't intentional on my part. I think we should just agree to disagree.

I'll simplify what I've been trying to stay from the start and try and get myself back on track. In my opinion City will safely pass FFPR, but should they not I don't believe UEFA would challenge it unless it was by an obscene amount, and even if they did I think there are potential avenues we could challenge the decision under from a legal perspective. That's all I've been trying to say, nothing more and nothing less. :)<br /><br />-- Sun Jul 17, 2011 9:23 pm --<br /><br />

Unless you are a qualified professional in european law then you will be less qualified than me on this

I have a fair grounding in it. :)

 

[dctid]

Mallorca were refused a license last season despite qualifying for the Europa League (5th i believe in La Liga) - is this not a restraint of trade? usiing your logic yes but cant remember any court cases

UEFA Quote Referencing Mallorca

"On the basis of all expert reviews which have been undertaken, the Control and Disciplinary Body ruled that the club does not fulfil the necessary admission criteria (Article 2.07 of the Regulations of the UEFA Europa League), as the licence of the club was not granted in accordance with the UEFA Club Licensing Regulations, 2008 edition, and the club has not fulfilled its obligations as defined in these regulations"

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theoffside.com/leagues/uefa-kicks-mallorca-out-of-the-europa-league.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theoffside.com/leagues/uefa- ... eague.html</a>

and another

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jul/22/real-mallorca-europa-league-uefa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010 ... eague-uefa</a>

Currently there is a big golf thing going on in Sandwich - the club is a privte members club much like UEFA (nobody forces any club to join it remember and by joining it you accept to comply with the rules as Cookie and co have said numberous times) and only allows men to join - sexists / discriminatory yup but its a privte members club and therefore they cant impose these rules legally and crucially do so

UEFA is no different.

Really cant be arsed anymore on this - you are completely and utterely wrong and i think the truth is far to uncomfortable for you to accept

You don't seem to understand still. The issue is not with them not granting licenses on the basis of their rules, UEFA are entitled to not grant entry and the fees associated. The issue is that one of their rules limits the contracts Etihad are able to offer to City, on the basis that if they offer more than UEFA deem to be fair the excess will not be able to be invested by City into their core business. I think we need to agree to disagree on this one.

Either way, you are continuing to take this throwaway example of a potential legal challenge way too seriously. As I said, the point I was trying to make was that you were completely wrong in your assertion that any complaint by City would be dealt with by CAS.

-- Sun Jul 17, 2011 9:11 pm --

dctid really really needs to stop worrying.

Merely trying to point out the the poster was indeed incorrect in his assumption / argument

You argued against my throwaway remark showing your comment about CAS to be incorrect and have completely ignored the CAS element despite me repeatedly pointing you back to it. I was simply trying to show you that legal challenges were possible with a point picked from case law off the top of my head. It was never claimed to be a robust defence, just a point of law that could lead to these regulations being challenged in court.

IV. LEGAL CRITERIA

Article 43 – Declaration in respect of participation in UEFA club competitions
1 The licence applicant must submit a legally valid declaration confirming the
following:
a) It recognises as legally binding the statutes, regulations, directives and
decisions of FIFA, UEFA, the UEFA member association and, if any, the
national league as well as the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport
(CAS) in Lausanne as provided in the relevant articles of the UEFA Statutes

As i sad cant be arsed anymore believe what you wish but the above is crrect - its a cut and past job from the regs.

For clarity the licence applicant would be Man city

 

[hgblue]

Mallorca were refused a license last season despite qualifying for the Europa League (5th i believe in La Liga) - is this not a restraint of trade? usiing your logic yes but cant remember any court cases

UEFA Quote Referencing Mallorca

"On the basis of all expert reviews which have been undertaken, the Control and Disciplinary Body ruled that the club does not fulfil the necessary admission criteria (Article 2.07 of the Regulations of the UEFA Europa League), as the licence of the club was not granted in accordance with the UEFA Club Licensing Regulations, 2008 edition, and the club has not fulfilled its obligations as defined in these regulations"

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theoffside.com/leagues/uefa-kicks-mallorca-out-of-the-europa-league.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theoffside.com/leagues/uefa- ... eague.html</a>

and another

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jul/22/real-mallorca-europa-league-uefa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010 ... eague-uefa</a>

Currently there is a big golf thing going on in Sandwich - the club is a privte members club much like UEFA (nobody forces any club to join it remember and by joining it you accept to comply with the rules as Cookie and co have said numberous times) and only allows men to join - sexists / discriminatory yup but its a privte members club and therefore they cant impose these rules legally and crucially do so

UEFA is no different.

Really cant be arsed anymore on this - you are completely and utterely wrong and i think the truth is far to uncomfortable for you to accept

You don't seem to understand still. The issue is not with them not granting licenses on the basis of their rules, UEFA are entitled to not grant entry and the fees associated. The issue is that one of their rules limits the contracts Etihad are able to offer to City, on the basis that if they offer more than UEFA deem to be fair the excess will not be able to be invested by City into their core business. I think we need to agree to disagree on this one.

Either way, you are continuing to take this throwaway example of a potential legal challenge way too seriously. As I said, the point I was trying to make was that you were completely wrong in your assertion that any complaint by City would be dealt with by CAS.

-- Sun Jul 17, 2011 9:11 pm --

Merely trying to point out the the poster was indeed incorrect in his assumption / argument

You argued against my throwaway remark showing your comment about CAS to be incorrect and have completely ignored the CAS element despite me repeatedly pointing you back to it. I was simply trying to show you that legal challenges were possible with a point picked from case law off the top of my head. It was never claimed to be a robust defence, just a point of law that could lead to these regulations being challenged in court.

IV. LEGAL CRITERIA

Article 43 – Declaration in respect of participation in UEFA club competitions
1 The licence applicant must submit a legally valid declaration confirming the
following:
a) It recognises as legally binding the statutes, regulations, directives and
decisions of FIFA, UEFA, the UEFA member association and, if any, the
national league as well as the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport
(CAS) in Lausanne as provided in the relevant articles of the UEFA Statutes

As i sad cant be arsed anymore believe what you wish but the above is crrect - its a cut and past job from the regs.

For clarity the licence applicant would be Man city

So if Uefa produced a 'rule' that in order to compete in the Champions League clubs would not be able to field any black players then that would not be subject to a legal challenge?