Lionel Messi | Joins Inter Miami (pg4111)

[mrtwiceaseason]

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.

Next time Sergio or yaya do an interview with football mags they will be clad in puma gear same as Vinny with warrior /nb stuff

 

[Plain Speaking]

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.

How long does it take to acquire EU citizenship through residency/naturalisation?

Transfermarkt appears to have Messi down as having a dual Argentinan and Spanish nationality.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/lionel-messi/profil/spieler/28003" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/lionel-m ... eler/28003</a>

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

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.

FFP is a set of ill thought out regulations "designed" to deal with a particular problem but UEFA has never actually analysed what that problem really is. Hence the regulations put in place a set of crude requirements which do little to ensure financial stabiltity but force football into an anti-competitive straight jacket. This is the basis of Dupont's challenge - that FFP ensures that Brussels, Amsterdam, Basel, Norwich etc etc etc will never be allowed the investment to build a club which can compete with the elite. FFP quite clearly violates European law on competition, though UEFA never says this is the intention. Though UEFA will never admit that its intention is also to violate football players' employment rights it quite clearly is! The break even principle clearly aims at preventing certain clubs signing certain players: the example Dupont uses is that Liege is allowed to sign only 20% of Ronaldo or face swinging fines. If you turn that around, FFP prevents Ronaldo signing for Liege, whatever his personal ambitions. Now Shearer was a Geordie whose ambition was to play for Newcastle. He was good enough to command a large fee and Newcastle could not have bought him without severe sanctions had FFP been in place. It is unlikely that Hazard will ever be able to return to his native Belgium to play professionally, even if a philanthropist were prepared to put the money into a Belgian club, because the rules prevent this even though the law says he is perfectly entitled. For Messi things are even worse. He is the (second?) best player in the world and is worth a fortune. Realistically only City, Chelsea and PSG can afford him, but UEFA would clearly hammer City if they either (a) paid the transfer fee or (b) paid the wages Messi can command. This is true for every other club (perhaps!). FFP is actually violating Messi's employment rights to work where he wants, for whom he wants, to the point where it isreally saying that, since no-one can buy him and stay within these non-statutory rules, he cannot leave Barcelona. UEFA will use its rules to bully a club which does buy him and pay him market value into regretting it, and make it (and Messi) suffer for doing so. If things go that far the "Messi case" will become a real cause celebre, but just think for a moment how many players in the football league will have their employment right trampled underfoot: would Kinkladze or Wiekins have been allowed to come to City?! This is the problem with FFP - it applies to every player, every club, all of the time and it claims that the break even principle must override ever other legally established right. This is clearly unacceptable but a real pointer to the arrogance of UEFA and Platini.

 

[nowantads]

FC Barcelona Fl @ FCBarcelonaFl 14m
The 3 other captains (Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets) persuaded Luis Enrique not to do it. The captains will speak to Messi tomorrow [sport]
View details ·
FC Barcelona Fl @ FCBarcelonaFl 15m
Luis Enrique wanted to open a complaint to the club about Messi. Luis Enrique didn't believe Messi had gastroenteritis yesterday [sport]
View details ·

Popcorn.gif

 

[Azul Luna]

It's clear as day he's pulling strings to either get a new contract, or for Enrique to be sacked. Looks good for us, put them in a shit spot ready to play us. Nice one Leo;)

On the small chance he does move, nothing will stop us going all in. It would be a real cock up for our interests if he goes to one of our PL rivals, the seniors at the club won't allow it, not without a fight.

If I was a betting man, I'd say he'll still be at Barca, under a new boss or/and sitting on a even better contract.

Would love him here though.

 

[razman]

Rafael Hernández ‏@RafaelH117 1m1 minute ago

BREAKING: Cadena Cope claims Luis Enrique is in his final hours at the club and that Messi is relieved.

we always knew it and this is just another pointer

MESSI IS BIGGER THAN BARCELONA

 

[pudge]

Messi que un club

 

[cibaman]

The thought of City signing Messi horrifies me.

Too many eggs in one basket. He'll be burnt out by 30. One bad injury and we're up shit creek.

And he'll expect too much power. Want to pick the manager, decide who else we sign.

 

[robbieh]

Messi que un club

Very good. Very droll.

And if this is true that he has deliberately destabilized the manager then I think we should be very careful. Tevez anyone?

Apart from anything else I think his best football is behind him. We should be looking for the next Messi and I am sure we are.

 

[bluechampion7891]

The thought of City signing Messi horrifies me.

Too many eggs in one basket. He'll be burnt out by 30. One bad injury and we're up shit creek.

And he'll expect too much power. Want to pick the manager, decide who else we sign.

yep this is my worry

He will bring much greater exposure and increased revenue, so maybe any short term issues might be worth it. but these things do make me anxious, he had bust ups with guardiola too