Martin Samuel: The plot to shackle City & Chelsea

[Hamann Pineapple]

We certainly should be offering proposals about restricting owners like the Glazers, Shinawatra and the Venkys taking over clubs. Something like the NFL, where secured debt is strictly limited to $200m and prospective owners have to demonstrate their financial strength and managerial competence. If we want to avoid another Portsmouth then stop owners like Gaydamak from taking them over in the first place.

Like OB1, I don't have time for all of this. But it's too early, PB. Sitting tight and seeing the hand being played by Gill & Co is correct. Any decent lawyer knows that you don't bid against yourself and so why should ADUG join in this ephemeral debate? When they are directly asked to act in a certain way, you'll see some action and, in my view, ADUG, Chelsea, PSG and others will win. The market always does...

I think the club are paying a very clever hand. Like Don Corleone they will take all the insults then act from a position of strength. I know that in another contentious area they have done this already. But we don't have to actually say anything explicit ourselves. Journalists never say no to a good story for example. I'm sure they've got things in hand.

Stop teasing, spill the beans

 

[bluelol]

I agree, surely it's time to ditch our dignified silence after watching these teams sneakily try and work behind our back? Get on the phone to Chelsea and get in court.

The FA stalled us over 100 years ago as anyone who has read Gary James' book knows. City had won the FA Cup playing great football and were on the cusp of a golden age with huge attendances when the snooty FA decided to put the northern upstarts in their place, invented some charges, and banned half the team (plus our first great manager) from playing the following season. The Meredith 'bribery' scandal came after that.

History repeating itself eh, food for thought.

 

[NipHolmes]

We certainly should be offering proposals about restricting owners like the Glazers, Shinawatra and the Venkys taking over clubs. Something like the NFL, where secured debt is strictly limited to $200m and prospective owners have to demonstrate their financial strength and managerial competence. If we want to avoid another Portsmouth then stop owners like Gaydamak from taking them over in the first place.

Like OB1, I don't have time for all of this. But it's too early, PB. Sitting tight and seeing the hand being played by Gill & Co is correct. Any decent lawyer knows that you don't bid against yourself and so why should ADUG join in this ephemeral debate? When they are directly asked to act in a certain way, you'll see some action and, in my view, ADUG, Chelsea, PSG and others will win. The market always does...

I think the club are paying a very clever hand. Like Don Corleone they will take all the insults then act from a position of strength. I know that in another contentious area they have done this already. But we don't have to actually say anything explicit ourselves. Journalists never say no to a good story for example. I'm sure they've got things in hand.

I think many are naive.

Owners as rich and powerful as ours will and most likely have got some people with a file the width of a yellow pages or two about how this is defunct, how we are trying to comply and how its illegal to impose. I simply believe we are waiting for others to challenge when it comes to UEFA and also I believe the domestic problems will be dealt with behind the scenese in private communications to Scudamore etc.

No way we come all this way to be halted.

 

[fbloke]

FFP regulations are dependant on being pro-competitive to be acceptable under EU law. If they are found to be anti-competitive it is likely that they will be severely tested in the European courts. Peeters and Szymanski state that “the 1995 Bosman judgment of the European Court of Justice had demonstrated that regulation which restricted competition in the market for players that was not backed by pro-competitive reasoning was doomed to failure under EU law. The relevant European law in the Bosman case concerned the freedom of movement of labour, but UEFA also became embroiled with the European Commission over the collective sale of broadcast rights, a competition law issue” (Page 6). I agree with Peeters and Szymanski’s assessment that FFP is vertically restrictive, and is therefore anti-competitive. However, I do not agree that revenues will remain unaffected. If competition is restricted we should see, in the long run, a reduction in supporter interest, and therefore a fall in media revenues resulting in smaller television distribution deals, and ultimately falling revenues for clubs. The overriding suggestion is, however, that FFP is doomed to failure in the long run due to its anti-competitive constraints.

<a class="postlink" href="http://journaloffootball.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/normal-0-abrief-review-of-peeters-and.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://journaloffootball.blogspot.co.uk ... s-and.html</a>

 

[LoveCity]

FFP regulations are dependant on being pro-competitive to be acceptable under EU law. If they are found to be anti-competitive it is likely that they will be severely tested in the European courts. Peeters and Szymanski state that “the 1995 Bosman judgment of the European Court of Justice had demonstrated that regulation which restricted competition in the market for players that was not backed by pro-competitive reasoning was doomed to failure under EU law. The relevant European law in the Bosman case concerned the freedom of movement of labour, but UEFA also became embroiled with the European Commission over the collective sale of broadcast rights, a competition law issue” (Page 6). I agree with Peeters and Szymanski’s assessment that FFP is vertically restrictive, and is therefore anti-competitive. However, I do not agree that revenues will remain unaffected. If competition is restricted we should see, in the long run, a reduction in supporter interest, and therefore a fall in media revenues resulting in smaller television distribution deals, and ultimately falling revenues for clubs. The overriding suggestion is, however, that FFP is doomed to failure in the long run due to its anti-competitive constraints.

<a class="postlink" href="http://journaloffootball.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/normal-0-abrief-review-of-peeters-and.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://journaloffootball.blogspot.co.uk ... s-and.html</a>

I read not long ago that UEFA had worked hard and met with top European brass to ensure FFP is iron clad and any challenges in court will fail. I hope that's not true but the fat old boys' club are determined to maintain the status quo at any cost as these latest developments show. :/

 

[NipHolmes]

FFP regulations are dependant on being pro-competitive to be acceptable under EU law. If they are found to be anti-competitive it is likely that they will be severely tested in the European courts. Peeters and Szymanski state that “the 1995 Bosman judgment of the European Court of Justice had demonstrated that regulation which restricted competition in the market for players that was not backed by pro-competitive reasoning was doomed to failure under EU law. The relevant European law in the Bosman case concerned the freedom of movement of labour, but UEFA also became embroiled with the European Commission over the collective sale of broadcast rights, a competition law issue” (Page 6). I agree with Peeters and Szymanski’s assessment that FFP is vertically restrictive, and is therefore anti-competitive. However, I do not agree that revenues will remain unaffected. If competition is restricted we should see, in the long run, a reduction in supporter interest, and therefore a fall in media revenues resulting in smaller television distribution deals, and ultimately falling revenues for clubs. The overriding suggestion is, however, that FFP is doomed to failure in the long run due to its anti-competitive constraints.

<a class="postlink" href="http://journaloffootball.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/normal-0-abrief-review-of-peeters-and.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://journaloffootball.blogspot.co.uk ... s-and.html</a>

Hence why Slurgie pushes the 'its invitation' angle.

That can be argued in court as unfair too, compensation paid out as you base defense on illegal rulings and elite clubs protecting their own interests. I'd be truly astounded if the elite or UEFA are willing to go to court over this. It'd show them all up and show what this load of bollocks is all about.

What's the odds it'll all go quiet? It reminds me if the BBBoC stance on Hate v Chisora, they'll do this that and the other but the fight still happened at Upton Park and was televised to millions.

 

[citysix]

FFP regulations are dependant on being pro-competitive to be acceptable under EU law. If they are found to be anti-competitive it is likely that they will be severely tested in the European courts. Peeters and Szymanski state that “the 1995 Bosman judgment of the European Court of Justice had demonstrated that regulation which restricted competition in the market for players that was not backed by pro-competitive reasoning was doomed to failure under EU law. The relevant European law in the Bosman case concerned the freedom of movement of labour, but UEFA also became embroiled with the European Commission over the collective sale of broadcast rights, a competition law issue” (Page 6). I agree with Peeters and Szymanski’s assessment that FFP is vertically restrictive, and is therefore anti-competitive. However, I do not agree that revenues will remain unaffected. If competition is restricted we should see, in the long run, a reduction in supporter interest, and therefore a fall in media revenues resulting in smaller television distribution deals, and ultimately falling revenues for clubs. The overriding suggestion is, however, that FFP is doomed to failure in the long run due to its anti-competitive constraints.

<a class="postlink" href="http://journaloffootball.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/normal-0-abrief-review-of-peeters-and.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://journaloffootball.blogspot.co.uk ... s-and.html</a>

thanks for posting..the future is ours

 

[fbloke]

FFP regulations are dependant on being pro-competitive to be acceptable under EU law. If they are found to be anti-competitive it is likely that they will be severely tested in the European courts. Peeters and Szymanski state that “the 1995 Bosman judgment of the European Court of Justice had demonstrated that regulation which restricted competition in the market for players that was not backed by pro-competitive reasoning was doomed to failure under EU law. The relevant European law in the Bosman case concerned the freedom of movement of labour, but UEFA also became embroiled with the European Commission over the collective sale of broadcast rights, a competition law issue” (Page 6). I agree with Peeters and Szymanski’s assessment that FFP is vertically restrictive, and is therefore anti-competitive. However, I do not agree that revenues will remain unaffected. If competition is restricted we should see, in the long run, a reduction in supporter interest, and therefore a fall in media revenues resulting in smaller television distribution deals, and ultimately falling revenues for clubs. The overriding suggestion is, however, that FFP is doomed to failure in the long run due to its anti-competitive constraints.

<a class="postlink" href="http://journaloffootball.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/normal-0-abrief-review-of-peeters-and.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://journaloffootball.blogspot.co.uk ... s-and.html</a>

I read not long ago that UEFA had worked hard and met with top European brass to ensure FFP is iron clad and any challenges in court will fail. I hope that's not true but the fat old boys' club are determined to maintain the status quo at any cost as these latest developments show. :/

The only public utterance from the EU via the European Commission was to accept that FFPR does not breach EU State Subsidy Law.

It was spun by other who shaved away fact and detail to claim that EU OK's FFPR, which it never has.

The truth is that UEFA have been told that they cannot expect special consideration in terms of employment and anti-competition laws from the EU even though that's what they want.

In short UEFA have been told to fuck off by the EU.

It might not be great for UEFA that they pay no tax in ANY EU country.

 

[NipHolmes]

FFP regulations are dependant on being pro-competitive to be acceptable under EU law. If they are found to be anti-competitive it is likely that they will be severely tested in the European courts. Peeters and Szymanski state that “the 1995 Bosman judgment of the European Court of Justice had demonstrated that regulation which restricted competition in the market for players that was not backed by pro-competitive reasoning was doomed to failure under EU law. The relevant European law in the Bosman case concerned the freedom of movement of labour, but UEFA also became embroiled with the European Commission over the collective sale of broadcast rights, a competition law issue” (Page 6). I agree with Peeters and Szymanski’s assessment that FFP is vertically restrictive, and is therefore anti-competitive. However, I do not agree that revenues will remain unaffected. If competition is restricted we should see, in the long run, a reduction in supporter interest, and therefore a fall in media revenues resulting in smaller television distribution deals, and ultimately falling revenues for clubs. The overriding suggestion is, however, that FFP is doomed to failure in the long run due to its anti-competitive constraints.

<a class="postlink" href="http://journaloffootball.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/normal-0-abrief-review-of-peeters-and.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://journaloffootball.blogspot.co.uk ... s-and.html</a>

I read not long ago that UEFA had worked hard and met with top European brass to ensure FFP is iron clad and any challenges in court will fail. I hope that's not true but the fat old boys' club are determined to maintain the status quo at any cost as these latest developments show. :/

Could they say otherwise if they wanted to appear as they're in a strong position. As I said earlier, its no different from Kwik Fit telling 'Joes Garage' that they can't lose money in their business by investing in new ramps and equipment. It's fundamentally encroaching business laws and practises. Clintons recently went into administration and then reinvested in shops to boost revenue and the future of the company. To stop them may have halted the company from securing its future and its employees.

Also what nobodies factored in is the goodwill of City. The college, the redevelopment of local land and employment of hundreds if not thousands. Compare that to say Liverpool or Tottenham. Say that halting us harm's our visions and plans for the future. I'm sure that'd be a great angle.

 

[Deleted member 52846]

FFP regulations are dependant on being pro-competitive to be acceptable under EU law. If they are found to be anti-competitive it is likely that they will be severely tested in the European courts. Peeters and Szymanski state that “the 1995 Bosman judgment of the European Court of Justice had demonstrated that regulation which restricted competition in the market for players that was not backed by pro-competitive reasoning was doomed to failure under EU law. The relevant European law in the Bosman case concerned the freedom of movement of labour, but UEFA also became embroiled with the European Commission over the collective sale of broadcast rights, a competition law issue” (Page 6). I agree with Peeters and Szymanski’s assessment that FFP is vertically restrictive, and is therefore anti-competitive. However, I do not agree that revenues will remain unaffected. If competition is restricted we should see, in the long run, a reduction in supporter interest, and therefore a fall in media revenues resulting in smaller television distribution deals, and ultimately falling revenues for clubs. The overriding suggestion is, however, that FFP is doomed to failure in the long run due to its anti-competitive constraints.

<a class="postlink" href="http://journaloffootball.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/normal-0-abrief-review-of-peeters-and.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://journaloffootball.blogspot.co.uk ... s-and.html</a>

Good post.

Could you imagine this sort of thing going on in the airline industry, for just one example? Etihad are told that they will possibly face fines if they invest in their business too heavily because Emirates, Turkish Airlines and Jet2.com are unhappy with the way they're advancing so quickly. It's laughable.