Lionel Messi | Joins Inter Miami (pg4111)

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

If Messi wishes to leave Barcelona - and it is a very big if indeed - the first casualty will be FFP, if it survives M. Dupont's challenge, which is another big if. Messi would fetch a fee and wages out of all proportion to anything seen before, and no club - not City, not Chelsea nor PSG nor even Real Madrid could think about the figures involved while not falling foul of the regulations. This would change the issue at stake radically. The talk would no longer be of the right of the owner - of City or Chelsea or whoever else - to invest their money in their club, but rather of the employment rights of Lionel Messi. He is an Argentine, he's not a citizen of the EU, but that doesn't change the basic issue: a sovereign government of the EU is prepared to grant a work permit so that Messi could play for the club of his choice in the City of his choice (with his best mates?) but UEFA is prepared to try to block this and tell him that he can only work for a list of clubs acceptable to them! This issue was almost raised when Di Maria's transfer to PSG broke down in the summer because the club feared sanctions if it paid the fee demanded. No club would miss out on Messi because UEFA tells them they mustn't buy him! No European court would uphold the right of UEFA to decide which club a playerMUST play for.

Your posts are usually spot on but that one is just plain wrong. It's the club's problem not UEFA's, which is why PSG allegedly pulled out of buying Di Maria. But Messi, along with Ronaldo, is a different kettle of fish as he will bring a financial benefit which mitigates the cost of the deal. Players like Di Maria and Falcao go straight on the bottom line.

UEFA can't block the transfer in any way but can impose sanctions if the financial ramifications mean that the buyer fails FFP. That wouldn't become clear for at least 18 months though and you'd assume the buyer had done their sums to make sure they were OK.

Sorry, but you're actually wrong, PB. A rule enacted by a non-sovereign body cannot overrule protection put in place by a sovereign body. Messi cannot be told where he can and cannot work by UEFA if Barcelona are prepared to cancel his contract with them, if City or Chelsea or any other club are prepared to pay an agreed transfer fee and agreeable wages and if the sovereign powers of the UK are prepared to grant the necessary permission to work in the UK. Football authorities do have a history of trying to ride roughshod over the employment rights of players, but whenever a player has tried to assert his rights, the courts have found in his favour. UEFA cannot use one of its own regulations to intimidate Messi int not doing what he is perfectly entitled to do. FFPR do not impact uniquely on the rights of an owner, or on a club, but they can involve a violation of employment rights as well, and UEFA cannot which rights an individual may and may not retain. It would be clearer if Messi were an EU citizen because UEFA would be inhibiting the free movement of labour, but it's only a matter of time before a player challenges UEFA on this in court.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

Abramovic is worth billions Chelsea and he can easily afford it.

Of course he is but how will they get round FFP? Their turnover is behind ours.

Messi will sort the turnover out with shirt sales. If u think Chelsea can't afford him then ya silly mate (That's not meant in a bad way) they easily could.

But I'd still fancy City to sign him ahead of them but only in the summer.

I'm pretty sure that it's been proved before they shirt sales don't actually bring in that much income. I'm not convinced any team can afford messi with ffp around.

 

[blueparrot]

Just to be clear I think we all agree FFP and affordability wouldn't stop us signing Messi, what nobody seems to know for sure is what our sanctions are, if any, next summer, It's only sanctions that could stop us. It seems to me it suits both UEFA and City to keep the sanctions shrouded in mystery, the only reason I can see for that is to stop others clubs causing problems over our sanctions, which to me suggests they favour our 'just a pinch' view of them.
In the end Messi will choose to play where he wants to play and if he chooses us we would make it happen.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

If Messi wishes to leave Barcelona - and it is a very big if indeed - the first casualty will be FFP, if it survives M. Dupont's challenge, which is another big if. Messi would fetch a fee and wages out of all proportion to anything seen before, and no club - not City, not Chelsea nor PSG nor even Real Madrid could think about the figures involved while not falling foul of the regulations. This would change the issue at stake radically. The talk would no longer be of the right of the owner - of City or Chelsea or whoever else - to invest their money in their club, but rather of the employment rights of Lionel Messi. He is an Argentine, he's not a citizen of the EU, but that doesn't change the basic issue: a sovereign government of the EU is prepared to grant a work permit so that Messi could play for the club of his choice in the City of his choice (with his best mates?) but UEFA is prepared to try to block this and tell him that he can only work for a list of clubs acceptable to them! This issue was almost raised when Di Maria's transfer to PSG broke down in the summer because the club feared sanctions if it paid the fee demanded. No club would miss out on Messi because UEFA tells them they mustn't buy him! No European court would uphold the right of UEFA to decide which club a playerMUST play for.

But wouldn't UEFA say summat along the lines of "he can play for whoever he wants,and they can pay him whatever he wants,he just can't play in our competition"..........they ain't really stopping him signing for anyone IMO.

Fine - but that isn't all UEFA would be saying, is it? The implied intimidation is that if you sign for City the club will be unable to compete in any UEFA tournament and this will make it much less attractive to other players (and you) and that your value to sponsors will decrease, as it may well do to your national team. That is an interference with his employment rights. In the case of Di Maria, he was offered to PSG, he wanted to go there, but the club pulled out because it feared sanction and so the player was offered to City, who were interested but also feared sanction and so took the matter no further. Di Maria went to United, but had he taken UEFA to court for preventing his move to PSG he was odds on to win. Messi would have to go to court and the big deterrent would be the time the case takes (cf Bosman and Eastham), but experience suggests overwhelmingly that he'd win. Whether he'd jeopordize his career to do it is obviously the question....This is what UEFA relies on.

 

[IanBishopsHaircut]

Sheikh Mansour went to spain to buy himself a pressie
Waved a cheque at Bartomeu
And brought back Lionel Messi

 

[NQCitizen]

He currently wears a Nike shirt with Qatar airways on the front,what's the difference with etihad?

Messi has been at Barcelona before those sponsorship agreements. Whereas to actively elect to represent their competition may go down significantly differently.

I know where your coming from,but I can't see anything ever being said about playing for a club who has different sponsors as to his own personal sponsors,if anything he probably calls the shots.And lets be honest,even if they did kick up a stink,he wouldn't exactly struggle for others.

To be honest I've no idea what sort of terms and stipulations are included in a footballer's sponsorship contracts but it makes you wonder if he was 50/50 us vs Chelsea how much of a sway those standing corporate intetests would have and what penalties exist for breaking terms like that. I feel like Messi represents the first transfer that clubs can't just execute on their own.

 

[SPIDERBOY]

If Messi wishes to leave Barcelona - and it is a very big if indeed - the first casualty will be FFP, if it survives M. Dupont's challenge, which is another big if. Messi would fetch a fee and wages out of all proportion to anything seen before, and no club - not City, not Chelsea nor PSG nor even Real Madrid could think about the figures involved while not falling foul of the regulations. This would change the issue at stake radically. The talk would no longer be of the right of the owner - of City or Chelsea or whoever else - to invest their money in their club, but rather of the employment rights of Lionel Messi. He is an Argentine, he's not a citizen of the EU, but that doesn't change the basic issue: a sovereign government of the EU is prepared to grant a work permit so that Messi could play for the club of his choice in the City of his choice (with his best mates?) but UEFA is prepared to try to block this and tell him that he can only work for a list of clubs acceptable to them! This issue was almost raised when Di Maria's transfer to PSG broke down in the summer because the club feared sanctions if it paid the fee demanded. No club would miss out on Messi because UEFA tells them they mustn't buy him! No European court would uphold the right of UEFA to decide which club a playerMUST play for.

But wouldn't UEFA say summat along the lines of "he can play for whoever he wants,and they can pay him whatever he wants,he just can't play in our competition"..........they ain't really stopping him signing for anyone IMO.

Fine - but that isn't all UEFA would be saying, is it? The implied intimidation is that if you sign for City the club will be unable to compete in any UEFA tournament and this will make it much less attractive to other players (and you) and that your value to sponsors will decrease, as it may well do to your national team. That is an interference with his employment rights. In the case of Di Maria, he was offered to PSG, he wanted to go there, but the club pulled out because it feared sanction and so the player was offered to City, who were interested but also feared sanction and so took the matter no further. Di Maria went to United, but had he taken UEFA to court for preventing his move to PSG he was odds on to win. Messi would have to go to court and the big deterrent would be the time the case takes (cf Bosman and Eastham), but experience suggests overwhelmingly that he'd win. Whether he'd jeopordize his career to do it is obviously the question....This is what UEFA relies on.

Agree with that mate,they have been very crafty,the way they have gone about it.

 

[meltonblue]

"Di Maria went to United, but had he taken UEFA to court for preventing his move to PSG he was odds on to win."

Only if you think DuPonts challenge is odds on to win though, which I don't think it is is it? I hope it does (to an extent), but I'm not overly confident.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

If Messi wishes to leave Barcelona - and it is a very big if indeed - the first casualty will be FFP, if it survives M. Dupont's challenge, which is another big if. Messi would fetch a fee and wages out of all proportion to anything seen before, and no club - not City, not Chelsea nor PSG nor even Real Madrid could think about the figures involved while not falling foul of the regulations. This would change the issue at stake radically. The talk would no longer be of the right of the owner - of City or Chelsea or whoever else - to invest their money in their club, but rather of the employment rights of Lionel Messi. He is an Argentine, he's not a citizen of the EU, but that doesn't change the basic issue: a sovereign government of the EU is prepared to grant a work permit so that Messi could play for the club of his choice in the City of his choice (with his best mates?) but UEFA is prepared to try to block this and tell him that he can only work for a list of clubs acceptable to them! This issue was almost raised when Di Maria's transfer to PSG broke down in the summer because the club feared sanctions if it paid the fee demanded. No club would miss out on Messi because UEFA tells them they mustn't buy him! No European court would uphold the right of UEFA to decide which club a playerMUST play for.

Your posts are usually spot on but that one is just plain wrong. It's the club's problem not UEFA's, which is why PSG allegedly pulled out of buying Di Maria. But Messi, along with Ronaldo, is a different kettle of fish as he will bring a financial benefit which mitigates the cost of the deal. Players like Di Maria and Falcao go straight on the bottom line.

UEFA can't block the transfer in any way but can impose sanctions if the financial ramifications mean that the buyer fails FFP. That wouldn't become clear for at least 18 months though and you'd assume the buyer had done their sums to make sure they were OK.

Sorry, but you're actually wrong, PB. A rule enacted by a non-sovereign body cannot overrule protection put in place by a sovereign body. Messi cannot be told where he can and cannot work by UEFA if Barcelona are prepared to cancel his contract with them, if City or Chelsea or any other club are prepared to pay an agreed transfer fee and agreeable wages and if the sovereign powers of the UK are prepared to grant the necessary permission to work in the UK. Football authorities do have a history of trying to ride roughshod over the employment rights of players, but whenever a player has tried to assert his rights, the courts have found in his favour. UEFA cannot use one of its own regulations to intimidate Messi int not doing what he is perfectly entitled to do. FFPR do not impact uniquely on the rights of an owner, or on a club, but they can involve a violation of employment rights as well, and UEFA cannot which rights an individual may and may not retain. It would be clearer if Messi were an EU citizen because UEFA would be inhibiting the free movement of labour, but it's only a matter of time before a player challenges UEFA on this in court.

Sorry - I partly misinterpreted your post but I still don't think you're quite right. There is nothing intrinsically wrong or illegal about UEFA putting in place a process to ensure the financial stability of the sport and clubs under its wing. The pressure is indirect but the FFP process creates that pressure, which is what you were saying.

You can compare it to banking liquidity requirements to some degree, which constrain banks from doing business they might want to do. The difference between regimes like Basel 2 and FFP is that, if you're a bank, you put up more capital and you can do more business. With FFP you can't do that as the relevant measure is based solely on adjusted net profit. That's the basis of the legal challenge to FFP; not that it's intrinsically illegal per se but that the break-even requirement is anti-competitive.

We know that we could afford the outlay for Messi because we're backed by Abu Dhabi money but what if it was a club that went heavily into debt to do something like that? FFP is hugely imperfect for all sorts of reasons but it can't stop us doing the deal if the numbers are right.

 

[bitsmith]

But Messi is some solid piece of ****. Last time he wanted new contract he started following us on Instagram, and now when he want Enrique out he followed Chelsea. And not just him but his wife too.