Martin Samuel: The plot to shackle City & Chelsea

[Sigh]

The solution today is the same as the solution "yesterday."

The application of pressure (I'm not going to say force, as that may cause others to draw an inference to external restraint) to the most vulnerable presentation of the enemy's aspect.

Beginning with the selection of those with proven experience in the collection of data more likely than not to be inflammatory, prejudicial & relevant to the end desired, & terminating with "brown envelopes" on the desks of those with a true interest in maintaining the contents of said envelopes a matter between them - the recipient - and the envelope:

or, persist in doing that which will NOT work as the conflicting interests are mutually exclusive. Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

 

[Anthony Kun]

Re: The plot to shackle City & Chelsea

The contrary view, guess who:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.redcafe.net/f7/so-these-financial-fair-play-rules-then-329050/index12.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.redcafe.net/f7/so-these-fina ... dex12.html</a>

That Eboue is talking sense on their.

Are you city in disguise?

 

[pavelsrnicek]

<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.

In truth nobody within the EU can say "yes this complies with EU law" with any certainty until such time as it is tested by the European Court of Justice. Yes some members of the Commission can say nice things about UEFA after a talking shop meeting with Platini et al but until laws are tested by the courts no one can say for certain.

Personally I think the FFPR are in danger both on anti-competition laws and possibly on the notion of legitimate expectations but unless the courts examine the regulations no one can say for certain.

On another point I wonder if the big 4 cartel get their way and FFP in enshrined in premier league rules when is year zero? There has been a reasonable lag between the institution and implementation of FFPR so when would the first year of monitoring start for the premier league? It can't be retrospective so it can't predate the regulations so that even if it is to start from next season we would already be a long way down the road to compliance even before it is introduced.

 

[stonerblue]

The solution today is the same as the solution "yesterday."

The application of pressure (I'm not going to say force, as that may cause others to draw an inference to external restraint) to the most vulnerable presentation of the enemy's aspect.

Beginning with the selection of those with proven experience in the collection of data more likely than not to be inflammatory, prejudicial & relevant to the end desired, & terminating with "brown envelopes" on the desks of those with a true interest in maintaining the contents of said envelopes a matter between them - the recipient - and the envelope:

or, persist in doing that which will NOT work as the conflicting interests are mutually exclusive. Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

3 times and i'm still no wiser.

 

[fbloke]

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.

In truth nobody within the EU can say "yes this complies with EU law" with any certainty until such time as it is tested by the European Court of Justice. Yes some members of the Commission can say nice things about UEFA after a talking shop meeting with Platini et al but until laws are tested by the courts no one can say for certain.

Personally I think the FFPR are in danger both on anti-competition laws and possibly on the notion of legitimate expectations but unless the courts examine the regulations no one can say for certain.

On another point I wonder if the big 4 cartel get their way and FFP in enshrined in premier league rules when is year zero? There has been a reasonable lag between the institution and implementation of FFPR so when would the first year of monitoring start for the premier league? It can't be retrospective so it can't predate the regulations so that even if it is to start from next season we would already be a long way down the road to compliance even before it is introduced.

The clubs that want these rules had better pray it happens soon as for now the number might just be enough for them to be voted through, just. (Although I personally doubt it.)

Right now there are clubs aiming to get promoted from the Championship whose attitudes will be very much different to Wigan's

Leicester, Cardiff, Leeds, Nottingham Forest are as far from the Wigan POV as can be and so when they are part of the PL would they vote for mediocrity?

 

[thedogsbollocks]

I wonder how Sky will feel about these proposals ? There are serious implications for them as a company in the UK and globally.

Surely they wont support it ?, it would literally be like a Turkey voting for Christmas

I am almost 100% sure that the new record busting televisions deal with the Premiership must be linked to viewing figures. Point being they simply had to have the high class quality product in its present format at all costs, based on the amount off subscribers they have. Obviously viewing figures have increased since Chelsea and us have made the Premier League more competitive

What is proposed by these Clubs will directly affect the quality off the product that Sky sell on to the public.

Viewers all over the globe tune in to watch the plethora off international talent on display at City and Chelsea.Both Clubs must have a following in countries all around the globe.

These 4 Clubs want to kill the competition only to line their own pockets. They are too stupid to see it will directly affect the quality off the product that is sold to Sky and eventually hit them in the pockets.The reality is they should be thanking Chelsea and us for improving the quality and appeal off the product

Sky have many subscribers because off the Sports package,many only have the complete package because off the Sports.Point being if I didn't have Sky Sports I wouldn't have the movies.Most only have the complete package because the movies cost peanuts,so figure they might as well have the lot.

How many will just get rid off Sky all together having grown bored off watching 3 bitches roll over to take the metaphorical up the back pipe from the scum.

This could kill Sky, what is proposed could destroy the appeal of the Premiership. They know the football is their golden goose. It won't just be subscribers getting rid off the Sports; most will get rid off the lot. I for one could not bare to watch football like it was in the 80s and 90s, and I suspect many others will switch off too.

Will be interesting to see if they support the anti-competitive proposals. Which will undoubtedly wring the neck off the golden goose

 

[OB1]

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>

Interesting post. I've said consistently that the FFPR are anti-competitive (I'm pretty sure we discussed that on Twitter) and I have long been convinced that Mansour would have his lawyers crawling all over it but also that he would only take us down the route of a legal challenge as a last resort.

 

[LoveCity]

Given that David Gill would have been United's signature on that letter has no one realised that the FA's second-in-command has secretly worked against two teams that the FA is supposed to fairly govern over? I wonder if City can make anything of this.

 

[pavelsrnicek]

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>

Interesting post. I've said consistently that the FFPR are anti-competitive (I'm pretty sure we discussed that on Twitter) and I have long been convinced that Mansour would have his lawyers crawling all over it but also that he would only take us down the route of a legal challenge as a last resort.

Because as yet nobody has been punished or sanctioned under the FFPR no one has needed to test the regulations in court. If that day comes then we could have the most significant legal/ football decision since the Bosman case.

 

[thedogsbollocks]

Given that David Gill would have been United's signature on that letter has no one realised that the FA's second-in-command has secretly worked against two teams that the FA is supposed to fairly govern over? I wonder if City can make anything of this.

That is the best point i have read all day.