Football Leaks/Der Spiegel articles

[BlueAnorak]

Time is a major factor that suits our rivals, at the moment it is 10 months of uncertainty among our players and the players we go after, It is 10 months of our sponsors having a negative reaction on tv and it is 10 months of City being dragged through the mud, it is has and will cost City a fortune , so yes 10 months even without your excellent appraisal is a minimum even without charge

This is very true. But the longer the delay, the less sure they will be of winning.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

City have two ways of attacking an adverse verdict and any punishment UEFA might impose. The first is itself two pronged: they do not challenge the validity of FFP as yet but appeal to CAS that UEFA did not carry out an investigation which conformed to the process UEFA itself has laid down and anyway the evidence, when considered in its entirety, shows that the rules were not broken at all. If this fails City can take the court to the ECJ and argue that FFP is not enforceable because it is a flagrant violation of the right to invest. There are other grounds on which to challenge FFP but this seems the clearest and most obvious.

The FC Sion case did not raise any such question of a fundamental breach of European law. The Bosman case had already established the principle that the football authorities were subject to the law just as other bodies are. Certainly FIFA behaved with arrogance and intimidation in the FC Sion case but they have been served a timely reminder since that the law has a very long arm and Mr Blatter and his colleagues are rather humbler these days. And should City secure a judgement that FFP is contrary to the law any punishment would be invalid and a claim for commercial damage could cost the football authorities a literal fortune. If City showed that FFP was the work of a cartel which also abrogated to itself the enforcement of its own regulations much of the "football establishment"/"football royalty" would be ruined.

I don't know how the adjudicatory commission will respond, because Ceferin appears to represent the minor, especially central and eastern European, leagues who wish to restrain the financial dominance of the major leagues and so see FFP as essential (though inadequate!) but they have to be very careful and realise that they probably have to be on rock solid ground every step of the way. Pandering to a cartel could be disastrous.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Being doing a lot of reading on this and came across this article, it's really long but very interesting. I haven't had the time to follow up on it to find out what happened but I assume FIFA got their way or we would all be familar with it. The gist of the story is FC Sion tried to sue UEFA for banning them from European Competition, a local court in Switzerland agreed with Sion but UEFA just ignored them. Essentially they told the Swiss FA to sanction Sion or they would get FIFA to ban all Swiss teams from playing football at any level. They duly obliged with a 36 point deduction.

Now we aren't Sion and the FA/Premier league aren't the Swiss FA but my reading of it is we won't be suing UEFA regardless of outcome.

http://thestudentlawyer.com/2012/08/22/fc-sion-vs-the-world/

I suppose there's suing and then there's is finding an organization fundamentally in breach of EU law and deliberately targeting and restricting one of it's members. Will be very interesting over the next few months. I suspect UEFA will impose a harsh punishment to save face - but that it will be suspended.

 

[waspish]

I suppose there's suing and then there's is finding an organization fundamentally in breach of EU law and deliberately targeting and restricting one of it's members. Will be very interesting over the next few months. I suspect UEFA will impose a harsh punishment to save face - but that it will be suspended.

We ain't getting punished we have done nothing wrong!

 

[The perfect fumble]

We ain't getting punished we have done nothing wrong!

The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[salfordbluetrue]

Which is why this will go far beyond CAS and result in claims for restrictions of trade and defamation. Astronomical amounts that will force uefa to seek a compromise and slap us on the wrists. Problem is - the cartel have backed them into a corner now and want us punished unfairly or disproportionately. Major fck up by Uefa for being lent on and letting it get to this.

City were disproportionately punished last time and our Owners took it, then as in now depends on how our Owner feels? we only know what we want

 

[salfordbluetrue]

This is very true. But the longer the delay, the less sure they will be of winning.

Without adapting the rules i do not believe they have even got evidence, so the delay is the biggest punishment, in my view

 

[Canyouseethesky]

I suppose there's suing and then there's is finding an organization fundamentally in breach of EU law and deliberately targeting and restricting one of it's members. Will be very interesting over the next few months. I suspect UEFA will impose a harsh punishment to save face - but that it will be suspended.

That is just too messy, it's possible by the time this is all done and dusted EU law won't apply to us anyway. Then there is the fact we could go down that route and start proceedings challenging a law only to be told to do one as it doesn't apply to no EU businesses.

I've never really thought about this until now but how does the Bosman rule affect non EU club's? Can a Russian team for example still demand payment for a player out of contract or have UEFA appiled the rule to all UEFA nations? Assuming it's the latter then I assume once Brexit is complete British football will just agree to follow EU law. As I said above it's too messy with too many unknowns. Also Pep has said in just about every press conference that we will accept the punishment if we're found guilty.

 

[squirtyflower]

City have two ways of attacking an adverse verdict and any punishment UEFA might impose. The first is itself two pronged: they do not challenge the validity of FFP as yet but appeal to CAS that UEFA did not carry out an investigation which conformed to the process UEFA itself has laid down and anyway the evidence, when considered in its entirety, shows that the rules were not broken at all. If this fails City can take the court to the ECJ and argue that FFP is not enforceable because it is a flagrant violation of the right to invest. There are other grounds on which to challenge FFP but this seems the clearest and most obvious.

The FC Sion case did not raise any such question of a fundamental breach of European law. The Bosman case had already established the principle that the football authorities were subject to the law just as other bodies are. Certainly FIFA behaved with arrogance and intimidation in the FC Sion case but they have been served a timely reminder since that the law has a very long arm and Mr Blatter and his colleagues are rather humbler these days. And should City secure a judgement that FFP is contrary to the law any punishment would be invalid and a claim for commercial damage could cost the football authorities a literal fortune. If City showed that FFP was the work of a cartel which also abrogated to itself the enforcement of its own regulations much of the "football establishment"/"football royalty" would be ruined.

I don't know how the adjudicatory commission will respond, because Ceferin appears to represent the minor, especially central and eastern European, leagues who wish to restrain the financial dominance of the major leagues and so see FFP as essential (though inadequate!) but they have to be very careful and realise that they probably have to be on rock solid ground every step of the way. Pandering to a cartel could be disastrous.

Your first reasoning seems very prophetic now

 

[Centurions]

Your first reasoning seems very prophetic now

If he'd posted before the news broke, then yes it would have been prophetic :)

Edit: That is presuming that he'd heard the news beforehand.

 

[aguero93:20]

That is just too messy, it's possible by the time this is all done and dusted EU law won't apply to us anyway. Then there is the fact we could go down that route and start proceedings challenging a law only to be told to do one as it doesn't apply to no EU businesses.

I've never really thought about this until now but how does the Bosman rule affect non EU club's? Can a Russian team for example still demand payment for a player out of contract or have UEFA appiled the rule to all UEFA nations? Assuming it's the latter then I assume once Brexit is complete British football will just agree to follow EU law. As I said above it's too messy with too many unknowns. Also Pep has said in just about every press conference that we will accept the punishment if we're found guilty.

UEFA have to conform to EU law in EU countries and they have to apply their own regulations evenly and consistently across every member association. So EU law will still be relevant with regards football after Brexit, whatever shape it takes. It's also very unlikely that the UK will do anything but retain the IASB laws and the competition laws from EU legislature.

 

[Canyouseethesky]

UEFA have to conform to EU law in EU countries and they have to apply their own regulations evenly and consistently across every member association. So EU law will still be relevant with regards football after Brexit, whatever shape it takes. It's also very unlikely that the UK will do anything but retain the IASB laws and the competition laws from EU legislature.

I get all that what I'm questioning is the right for a non EU business to challenge EU law. What the fuck has it got to do with you would seem the obvious answer if any company outside the EU challenged one of its rules. I suppose we could do it under the guise of Girona or something like that but as i said previously going down a route that could be ineligible in a few months could be problematic.

 

[aguero93:20]

I get all that what I'm questioning is the right for a non EU business to challenge EU law. What the fuck has it got to do with you would seem the obvious answer if any company outside the EU challenged one of its rules. I suppose we could do it under the guise of Girona or something like that but as i said previously going down a route that could be ineligible in a few months could be problematic.

It wouldn't need to be challenged under EU rules, it could be challenged under UK ones. UEFA are a competition organiser working across several legal spheres, any regulations they bring in have to conform to the law in all of those spheres as everyone has to operate under the same regulations.

 

[Canyouseethesky]

It wouldn't need to be challenged under EU rules, it could be challenged under UK ones. UEFA are a competition organiser working across several legal spheres, any regulations they bring in have to conform to the law in all of those spheres as everyone has to operate under the same regulations.

Listen I don't know enough about it to continue with this conversation but I doubt you are right. I can't see UEFA abiding by the local employment laws in Azerbaijan for example, also my original response was in relation to a proposal to challenge FFP under EU law. As with the FC Sion case if it was challenged at local level (UK courts) UEFA would just ignore the outcome.

 

[aguero93:20]

Listen I don't know enough about it to continue with this conversation but I doubt you are right. I can't see UEFA abiding by the local employment laws in Azerbaijan for example, also my original response was in relation to a proposal to challenge FFP under EU law. As with the FC Sion case if it was challenged at local level (UK courts) UEFA would just ignore the outcome.

The EU have the highest standard of employment law, so by drawing up regulations that conform to EU regulations they're in a position to satisfy all the others. There's no point in them even noticing Azerbaijani employment law as satisfying it doesn't mean you'll satisfy the law in the more developed countries. EU law also reaches well outside the borders of the EU.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

The EU have the highest standard of employment law, so by drawing up regulations that conform to EU regulations they're in a position to satisfy all the others. There's no point in them even noticing Azerbaijani employment law as satisfying it doesn't mean you'll satisfy the law in the more developed countries. EU law also reaches well outside the borders of the EU.

I'd have thought that anyone involved in a UEFA competition has by default agreed to abide by UEFA rules, under whatever legal system that may carry - in this case, EU law. Any appeal under law against those rules would therefore end up at the ECJ as the highest authority for the rules.

 

[aguero93:20]

I'd have thought that anyone involved in a UEFA competition has by default agreed to abide by UEFA rules, under whatever legal system that may carry - in this case, EU law. Any appeal under law against those rules would therefore end up at the ECJ as the highest authority for the rules.

Not necessarily. But it FFPR is ruled illegal by one country that UEFA operates in then they can't apply it in that country. Also if there's standards matching between the UK and EU in future (highly likely) then a defeat in the UK courts would almost certainly make a defeat in the ECJ a formality and vice versa.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Not necessarily. But it FFPR is ruled illegal by one country that UEFA operates in then they can't apply it in that country. Also if there's standards matching between the UK and EU in future (highly likely) then a defeat in the UK courts would almost certainly make a defeat in the ECJ a formality and vice versa.

The second part definitely.

I see your point on the first part, although I think that's a different way of looking at the same thing, probably by me not managing to be clear. I think if a club is in UEFA competition, then they will have agreed to the terms of the competition - as I see it, that includes FFP monitoring.
Objecting to those rules in court is what could bring the house of cards down for the reason in the second point, because someone somewhere will have to make a judgement on hte legality of it.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

The reference to "EU law" and possible problems after Brexit is is a concern about nothing in fact. The UK is as committed to free enterprise as any European state and in common with them has, at least since the war, seen investment as the only way to sustained economic growth. MacMillan's government made great efforts to attract foreign investment and companies to Britain and Margaret Thatcher's government succeeded in attracting foreign investment to revive the car industry in Britain, but this has never been a party political issue. The early 60s also saw very heavy fines handed out to airlines which had acted as a cartel to try and ruin Freddie Laker's plans for cheap flights. The problem is that in the UK levels of investment have been lower than in our major rivals, so UK law will certainly do nothing to prevent inward investment at all. We all know that Sheikh Mansour has powerful friends in Westminster. In or out of the EU courts in the UK are unlikely to be any more sympathetic to UEFA's regulations than the ECJ

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Damn all those managers [Mancini, Pellegrini and Pep] who had the sheer audacity to win trophies for our club. If we had retained Hughes and won nothing then we we would never have heard of FFP as it would never have been conjured up at all.