FFP Question

[Irwell]

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

That applies only to arbitration on the interpretation of UEFA's regulations, not on the legality of those regulations. That's why the Bosman ruling wasn't a CAS ruling, it was an ECJ ruling. Incidentally, the Bosman ruling was centred around a challenge based on restraint of trade. It's one of the largest grey areas in corporate law, which is why I plucked that one off the top of my head as my example.

 

[dctid]

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 --


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?

UEFA have to comply with all European Laws and country laws - racism is illegal and therefore UEFA would not exist if this was the case - silly example really

 

[Longsight-memories]

Question... (I don’t know shit about ffp)
This deal for Corinthians...& Tevez...they stated that tevez would take a pay cut think it was 75 k a week the rest would be made up of separate sponsor deals to make up his 260 k a week...
Could say City not do that as a norm on all signings, football deal done with mcfc the club owns the registration of the player & the rest of the contract is made up with add on via the club sponsors??

that way turnover would fit in with the wage bill ?

 

[Blue Haze]

You could have someone sign away their legal rights, but the court would merely invalidate it. If UEFA has violated any EU laws, no signed piece of paper between the club and UEFA will supersede EU law.

I really don't think it will come to that. The sponsorships we receive will probably all be under other similar deals made around the world.

 

[dctid]

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

That applies only to arbitration on the interpretation of UEFA's regulations, not on the legality of those regulations. That's why the Bosman ruling wasn't a CAS ruling, it was an ECJ ruling. Incidentally, the Bosman ruling was centred around a challenge based on restraint of trade. It's one of the largest grey areas in corporate law, which is why I plucked that one off the top of my head as my example.

It applies to the

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

Dont believe anybody is this stupid so from hereon in i am assuming that you are taking the piss

 

[hgblue]

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?

UEFA have to comply with all European Laws and country laws - racism is illegal and therefore UEFA would not exist if this was the case - silly example really

Not really. Your argument appears to be that Uefa can make rules up as they go along and deny a license to a club without having to worry about whether the rule would be found to be in breach of that club's freedom to trade, because 'rules is rules'. I've given you an extreme example of a rule that would certainly be challenged because Uefa are not above the law of the land. You admit in your answer that Uefa have to comply with European laws, and they have in fact been forced to back down in the past by a certain Mr Bosman on grounds of freedom of trade. If Uefa were to deny City a license I believe this would certainly be challenged and Uefa need that like a hole in the head, which is why I believe this is a fight that will never happen.

 

[Irwell]

It applies to the

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

Yes, but from the point of view of your claims about CAS jurisdiction over the FFPR regulations it would only be over the interpretation of those regulations. Surely you understand that they can't rule on actual law? That's basically exactly what that quote says, which is in direct contradiction to your earlier claim that any challenge to FFPR would be heard by CAS.

Dont believe anybody is this stupid so from hereon in i am assuming that you are taking the piss

Thanks for that. Saying things like that doesn't really further your argument does it?

 

[SWP's back]

It applies to the

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

Yes, but from the point of view of your claims about CAS jurisdiction over the FFPR regulations it would only be over the interpretation of those regulations. Surely you understand that they can't rule on actual law? That's basically exactly what that quote says, which is in direct contradiction to your earlier claim that any challenge to FFPR would be heard by CAS.

Dont believe anybody is this stupid so from hereon in i am assuming that you are taking the piss

Thanks for that. Saying things like that doesn't really further your argument does it?

Give up mate, you'd have more luck explaining it to a cat

 

[dctid]

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?

UEFA have to comply with all European Laws and country laws - racism is illegal and therefore UEFA would not exist if this was the case - silly example really

Not really. Your argument appears to be that Uefa can make rules up as they go along and deny a license to a club without having to worry about whether the rule would be found to be in breach of that club's freedom to trade, because 'rules is rules'. I've given you an extreme example of a rule that would certainly be challenged because Uefa are not above the law of the land. You admit in your answer that Uefa have to comply with European laws, and they have in fact been forced to back down in the past by a certain Mr Bosman on grounds of freedom of trade. If Uefa were to deny City a license I believe this would certainly be challenged and Uefa need that like a hole in the head, which is why I believe this is a fight that will never happen.

I guess it depends which way you look at it

UEFA with their best legal and financial brains have spent god knows how much wonga drawing up a set of rules that are illegal and that Platini has not a fookin clue what he is doing

or

Maybe they have though long and hard about these rules run them past the EU and been given the green light and Platini being a french stubborn bastard will enforce the fookers with glee because English clubs will suffer the most

after all they aint denied a UEFA License in the past because this would be a restraint of trade or have they?

Suggest you google Mallorca whom were denied access to the Europa League which is obviously illegal as it is a restraint oif trade -

 

[SWP's back]

Until it's tested we wont know.

As for your "they may have run it past the EU and they have lots if lawyers", funny you use that but ignore it when people the same about City and this deal.

Head, brick and wall spring to mind.

As I say, worry all you like but stop acting a tit and calling posters piss takers for having the patience to explain your error to you.