FFP Question

[Irwell]

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

Nobody is saying they are incompetent, just that corporate law is an extremely complex minefield and just because one group of lawyers say something is legal doesn't mean they won't get a ruling against them in court.

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 -

Restriction on entry to the competition in itself isn't restraint of trade, it is not that broad an issue. The issue as far as this discussion goes is entirely with the implications the FFPR market value rule has with regard to financial agreements between traders.

Again, though, I'll point out that I don't necessarily believe this is a robust line of defence.

 

[hgblue]

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 -

Weren't Mallorca in a mountain of debt? Didn't they go into Administration? I'm not a lawyer but if they'd have come to me looking to appeal that decision I'd have probably taken the case, but not on a 'no win, no fee' basis, and I'd have wanted the money up front.

 

[dctid]

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

Nobody is saying they are incompetent, just that corporate law is an extremely complex minefield and just because one group of lawyers say something is legal doesn't mean they won't get a ruling against them in court.

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 -

Restriction on entry to the competition in itself isn't restraint of trade, it is not that broad an issue. The issue as far as this discussion goes is entirely with the implications the FFPR market value rule has with regard to financial agreements between traders.

Again, though, I'll point out that I don't necessarily believe this is a robust line of defence.

we will have to agree to disagree - the FFP rules have been given the green light by the European Union so its a fair bet that they comply with EU laws -<br /><br />-- Sun Jul 17, 2011 10:33 pm --<br /><br />

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 -

Weren't Mallorca in a mountain of debt? Didn't they go into Administration? I'm not a lawyer but if they'd have come to me looking to appeal that decision I'd have probably taken the case, but not on a 'no win, no fee' basis, and I'd have wanted the money up front.

and what is one of the key stated aims of FFFP?

 

[Irwell]

we will have to agree to disagree - the FFP rules have been given the green light by the European Union so its a fair bet that they comply with EU laws -

Whether or not they have been given the green light or not, which I honestly don't know, that doesn't necessarily mean they actually comply. Precedent is established in court when the interpretation is challenged. This is the basic premise of case law. Even then, that precedent can again be challenged in a court of appeal or ruled against when another case is brought to court. I'm fairly sure they will have researched the legalities of their regulations with regard to their player registration rules as well, but that didn't stop the ECJ ruling against them.

I agree, though, that we should just agree to disagree. Back to the original topic. :)

 

[mcfc1632]

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

dctid - my suggestion would be that you take your own and advice and not be arsed with this anymore.

You have been patient and factual - problem is that some people are in denial and just will not listen

I remember having conversation a year or so ago with legal professionals well versed in european law - over a pint during a break in contract negotiations - their view was crystal clear and I will paraphase as verbatim as I can "............there would be no interest for or conflict with european law unless UEFA were stupid enough to bungle implementation of the regs..................... the key will be in UEFA publishing the regs in a timely manner, allowing appropriate time for interaction and dialogue and ensuring that the participating clubs SIGN UP.

Once these things are done then there would be no interest whatsoever for european law / courts and the CAS is the clearly stated escalation body for any disputes - this is a documented administration process.

I often hear a lot about the Bosnam example - people take comfort in that case study - but it is 100% irrelevant for this topic and there is in fact 0% comfort to be had. That issue was a clear breach of a key aspect of european law that was receiving a high level focus at that time - an organisation taking part in a organised competition crying foul because the organising body has chosen to adhere to the competition regulations that it clearly set out and which the complainant fully signed up to is just a pure nonsense

And all this bollocks of restraint of trade is more just wishful nonsense - from well-meaning blues who mean no harm but are just ill-informed and delusional in their desire to avoid the truth.

In this latest sponsorship example - there is no constraint on the sponsor - the club receive 100% of the sponsorship. Well-meaning blues just feel it is unfair (which it is) and scream about it - that counts for nothing

But if people feel better convincing themselves that our owners / managers can win this in some head to head confrontation then let them do so

Thankfully our owners and management seem to realise that the key here is to get friendly with some key influencing clubs - have a open, persuasive and ongoing dialogue with UEFA - AND MOST IMPORTANTLY GIVE UEFA AN ARGUMENT THAT THEY CAN DEFEND IF THEY BECOME MINDED TO ALLOW THE SPONSORHSIP - NOT BE IN A BATTLE.

I also will back out of this debate

 

[robbie brewer]

This is a unique deal which makes it difficult to judge.
The deal is in 3 parts:
1: Stadium naming 100 million over 10 yrs(Arsenal 100 mil over 15 yrs)
2: Shirt sponsorship 150 mil over 10 yrs(1.5 mill a year)
3: Etihad Campus 150 mil over 10 yrs( there is no other deal out there to compare to)
The figures are approx but you get the general idea. If EUFA find this as illegal it will just show that they are trying to keep the Cartel intact and are trying to stop City.

 

[mcfc1632]

This is a unique deal which makes it difficult to judge.
The deal is in 3 parts:
1: Stadium naming 100 million over 10 yrs(Arsenal 100 mil over 15 yrs)
2: Shirt sponsorship 150 mil over 10 yrs(1.5 mill a year)
3: Etihad Campus 150 mil over 10 yrs( there is no other deal out there to compare to)
The figures are approx but you get the general idea. If EUFA find this as illegal it will just show that they are trying to keep the Cartel intact and are trying to stop City.

Now that I fully agree with - Cook and co have been excellent in bringing something so comprehensive that it will make them stop and think - just a straightforward naming rights issue would have been easily been justified in scaling down

I believe we should be a bit paranoid - these rules have been brought in to protect the old brigade and stopping CITY is their way of being tested

So we need to be inventive - but robustly so - not just the sheik buying a box for £zillion

What we have done is very very clever in all terms

There will still be lobbying (already is) by key clubs to have the allocated value reduced - we need to grow a relationship with UEFA not be at war - as there is no comfort in the machoism of "...we will beat them in the courts..."

On a slightly different point - I have read lots of posts slagging off Cook (and others) for gaffes etc - I hope CITY fans will realise that this is the type of initiative that we should judge our management on - not trivia

 

[S04]

Anyone that think we´ll beat Uefa in the courts are totally deluded..We want the FFP rules in place, Khaldoon himself are very keen on them.

The rules will safeguard our future you might say.

 

[Irwell]

Once these things are done then there would be no interest whatsoever for european law / courts and the CAS is the clearly stated escalation body for any disputes - this is a documented administration process.

They are the escalation body for disputed interpretations of the regulations, not with the legalities of them. Is it really that hard to understand?

I often hear a lot about the Bosnam example - people take comfort in that case study - but it is 100% irrelevant for this topic and there is in fact 0% comfort to be had. That issue was a clear breach of a key aspect of european law that was receiving a high level focus at that time - an organisation taking part in a organised competition crying foul because the organising body has chosen to adhere to the competition regulations that it clearly set out and which the complainant fully signed up to is just a pure nonsense

And all this bollocks of restraint of trade is more just wishful nonsense - from well-meaning blues who mean no harm but are just ill-informed and delusional in their desire to avoid the truth.

This is where the crux of the disagreement is I think. The Bosman ruling was also on the basis of restraint of trade and so surely it is completely relevant? Surely you can see the similarities?

In this latest sponsorship example - there is no constraint on the sponsor - the club receive 100% of the sponsorship. Well-meaning blues just feel it is unfair (which it is) and scream about it - that counts for nothing

I'll try and explain this in terms of numbers (note that they are an example, they do not constitute the actual scenario that would be argued if this point of law was contested)...

City need £40m to buy a player. Imagine City are in the black after buying the player by £10m including all the Etihad sponsorship. UEFA rule that £20m is fair and so City are now in the red by £10m for FFPR. City can no longer invest in the players they need if they want to retain their Champions League related sponsorship levels due to the UEFA ruling and so their ability to trade freely is restricted.

Non-entry to the Champions League then costs City an additional £30m Champions League prize money on top of the £20m UEFA ruled out. This means the amount of money City can count towards FFPR is a negative £10m as a result of the sponsorship. This is obviously not in City's interests and so they would not wish to enter into the sponsorship agreement. This means that Etihad's ability to trade freely had been freely restricted as well.

Again, I'm not saying it is necessarily a robust legal stance, but it is a legal stance nonetheless and could be contested in court. That court would NOT be CAS.<br /><br />-- Sun Jul 17, 2011 11:17 pm --<br /><br />

Anyone that think we´ll beat Uefa in the courts are totally deluded..We want the FFP rules in place, Khaldoon himself are very keen on them.

The rules will safeguard our future you might say.

Agreed. I think we will work within the guidelines and that they will suit us very nicely as the club develops. :)

 

[robbie brewer]

This is a unique deal which makes it difficult to judge.
The deal is in 3 parts:
1: Stadium naming 100 million over 10 yrs(Arsenal 100 mil over 15 yrs)
2: Shirt sponsorship 150 mil over 10 yrs(1.5 mill a year)
3: Etihad Campus 150 mil over 10 yrs( there is no other deal out there to compare to)
The figures are approx but you get the general idea. If EUFA find this as illegal it will just show that they are trying to keep the Cartel intact and are trying to stop City.

Now that I fully agree with - Cook and co have been excellent in bringing something so comprehensive that it will make them stop and think - just a straightforward naming rights issue would have been easily been justified in scaling down

I believe we should be a bit paranoid - these rules have been brought in to protect the old brigade and stopping CITY is their way of being tested

So we need to be inventive - but robustly so - not just the sheik buying a box for £zillion

What we have done is very very clever in all terms

There will still be lobbying (already is) by key clubs to have the allocated value reduced - we need to grow a relationship with UEFA not be at war - as there is no comfort in the machoism of "...we will beat them in the courts..."

On a slightly different point - I have read lots of posts slagging off Cook (and others) for gaffes etc - I hope CITY fans will realise that this is the type of initiative that we should judge our management on - not trivia

People should remember when we were taken over the Sheikh said he wanted to use the ownership of our club to develop the Abu Dhabi around the world.
It should therefore be no suprise that companies in Abu Dhabi are flocking to sponsor City because of the worldwide coverage they get.