Martin Samuel tells it again..

[Rammyblues]

If it is ratified by fourteen prem clubs and we are opposed to it, it would be nice if we appeal it to the courts to see if it is compliant with EU law. If not and if these regs are based on the European Fair Play model could see the whole thing falling like a pack of cards. No one cared about players at the end of their contracts till a no mark footballer from Belgium took his case to court smart move by Mr Bosman.

 

[sniff]

If it is ratified by fourteen prem clubs and we are opposed to it, it would be nice if we appeal it to the courts to see if it is compliant with EU law. If not and if these regs are based on the European Fair Play model could see the whole thing falling like a pack of cards. No one cared about players at the end of their contracts till a no mark footballer from Belgium took his case to court smart move by Mr Bosman.

You dont have any legal recourse in the case of FFP.. No more than you do for limiting squad size, or a cup draw etc..

They are all rules of entry to the competition, if you dont agree do not apply. Thats the long and short of it.

The difference in the Bosman ruling is that he was an employee, as a result his employer has to treat him within employment law. FFP isnt stopping city, it just restricts the competitions they can enter.

 

[MCC]

Martin is spot in as usual.

 

[SWP's back]

If it is ratified by fourteen prem clubs and we are opposed to it, it would be nice if we appeal it to the courts to see if it is compliant with EU law. If not and if these regs are based on the European Fair Play model could see the whole thing falling like a pack of cards. No one cared about players at the end of their contracts till a no mark footballer from Belgium took his case to court smart move by Mr Bosman.

You dont have any legal recourse in the case of FFP.. No more than you do for limiting squad size, or a cup draw etc..

They are all rules of entry to the competition, if you dont agree do not apply. Thats the long and short of it.

The difference in the Bosman ruling is that he was an employee, as a result his employer has to treat him within employment law. FFP isnt stopping city, it just restricts the competitions they can enter.

Could be possibly argued restraint of trade.

 

[Bluemoon115]

I'm all for financial fair play.

But not these bollocks rules that make it impossible for clubs to progress.

 

[blue order]

Apart from the excellent Martin Samuel, the simple expression from the Wigan owner which really says what everyone knows and, a reference to it's obvious real intent (Jacobs on H&J TS) there has been relatively nothing in the media about the obvious and blatant hypocrisy in this rule and the paradoxical use of the word 'fair'.

Journo's/pundits/presenters just seem to accept it without question.

In conjunction with what they are doing to comply (on the basis that it will come in and be enforced), City should embark in parralel on a massive and serious PR enlightenment campaign to show it for what it is not just in football but in business society in general and show what Gill's vile and self interested attempts really are.

I speak to many fans of many clubs who know exactly what it is and yet the industry seems to accept the arrival of this silent assassin in a lemming like way.

City were a breath of fresh air last year. Look at how the fans of other clubs reacted to us winning it/Aguero's winner. How can something that would artificially aid United back to dominance, pushed like a drug by a United CEO be allowed to come in with so little resistance is beyond me?

 

[Rammyblues]

I accept that the Eurpoean Fair Play rules would be harder to argue against in as much as they only involve add on competitions but supposed the prem league sanctions were to expel you from the league in respect of a breach. Of course these would be ultimate sanctions, the likely scenario would be warning, fine, loss of points.

The other thing is EU law especially trade laws would actively encourage inward investment these regs by the very nature prevent that.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Lol at your examples of decent papers.

The lowest readership of all the daily's, less than 350,000 combined, the Indy's circulation is rapidly dwindling to levels that make it's existence very precarious.

I know the Indy is going downhill although part of that is the self-cannibalising effect of the arrival of the i. But what it and Guardian have is an absence of controlling and interventionist owners. All the others are owned by appalling human beings - Sun/Times (Murdoch), Express (Desmond), Mail (Rothermere/Dacre). The Telegraph is owned by the Barclay Bros who are fairly hands-off. The Mirror is just a dreadful paper.

Whether you like the other publications mentioned or not, it seems these controlling and interventionist owners have their fingers on the pulse to a far greater effect. The Independant is not a good paper IMO, it is bland in the extreme and will probably disappear because of this.

 

[jake28]

Apart from the excellent Martin Samuel, the simple expression from the Wigan owner which really says what everyone knows and, a reference to it's obvious real intent (Jacobs on H&J TS) there has been relatively nothing in the media about the obvious and blatant hypocrisy in this rule and the paradoxical use of the word 'fair'.

Journo's/pundits/presenters just seem to accept it without question.

In conjunction with what they are doing to comply (on the basis that it will come in and be enforced), City should embark in parralel on a massive and serious PR enlightenment campaign to show it for what it is not just in football but in business society in general and show what Gill's vile and self interested attempts really are.

I speak to many fans of many clubs who know exactly what it is and yet the industry seems to accept the arrival of this silent assassin in a lemming like way.

City were a breath of fresh air last year. Look at how the fans of other clubs reacted to us winning it/Aguero's winner. How can something that would artificially aid United back to dominance, pushed like a drug by a United CEO be allowed to come in with so little resistance is beyond me?

I hear your every word mate...its baffling,it really is.

 

[rushts]

Apart from the excellent Martin Samuel, the simple expression from the Wigan owner which really says what everyone knows and, a reference to it's obvious real intent (Jacobs on H&J TS) there has been relatively nothing in the media about the obvious and blatant hypocrisy in this rule and the paradoxical use of the word 'fair'.

Journo's/pundits/presenters just seem to accept it without question.

In conjunction with what they are doing to comply (on the basis that it will come in and be enforced), City should embark in parralel on a massive and serious PR enlightenment campaign to show it for what it is not just in football but in business society in general and show what Gill's vile and self interested attempts really are.

I speak to many fans of many clubs who know exactly what it is and yet the industry seems to accept the arrival of this silent assassin in a lemming like way.

City were a breath of fresh air last year. Look at how the fans of other clubs reacted to us winning it/Aguero's winner. How can something that would artificially aid United back to dominance, pushed like a drug by a United CEO be allowed to come in with so little resistance is beyond me?

Spot on Blue Order.