Martin Samuel: The plot to shackle City & Chelsea

[pavelsrnicek]

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.

Won't really be seen as a conflict of interest his role as FA vice chairman (I think) would probably encompass suggesting/ framing regulations and policy. Besides as we all know these rules are for the good of the game and to protect clubs and supporters from unscrupulous owners...

 

[oakiecokie]

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.

Hahah.Thanks fuck for that.Thought it was just me,being thick as pigshit.

 

[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>

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.

I think its fair to say that anyone who knows enough about FFPR to offer any sort of informed opinion realises that its a nonsense.

UEFA are attempting to square a circle and are acting as if the backing of BIG clubs makes things a fait accompli which it doesnt.

I find it interesting that PSG seem quite simply to have decided to stick two fingers up to UEFA and quite bluntly announce a massive sponsorship which seems designed to directly challenge UEFA to use FFPR rules against them.

Why would they do that? Well UEFA have expended huge amount of time, money, effort and political influence to get where they are and one challenge in the European Courts of Justice would kill it stone dead in an instant. That said a club needs to be harmed by the rules and so they create an environment for that harm to happen.

The long term damage to UEFA (Platini in particular) will perhaps also mean that CL matches/ league matches for certain clubs could be played in Qatar or other similar countries?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

There is another factor which may bear upon this matter, more so than is the case with UEFA FFP, and that is political. More specifically domestic politics.

The Premier League has become an enormous national asset. It is also an ever increasing net contributor to the Treasury.

In an increasingly interconnected World it could very well become a key strategic industry as far as UK PLC is concerned, both in terms of tax revenue, but also about how our country is perceived abroad.

If any other industry of such importance was seeking to impose such rules upon itself, I am certain that those in power would at least stray into the territory of commenting on it, and maybe legislating on it.

Surely this is a matter of too great a national importance to be entirely dictated by the whims of a few self-interested club owners.

 

[fbloke]

I asked @swissramble for confirmation of UEFA's non-EU tax paying and he has just answered with a link to his look at their finances.

<a class="postlink" href="http://swissramble.blogspot.ch/2012/06/uefas-trans-europe-express.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://swissramble.blogspot.ch/2012/06/ ... press.html</a>

They pay tax in non-eu Switzerland and as such have a gall talking about European Law and Financial Fair Play dont you think?

 

[bernabias home shirt]

Surely sky would have some say in this,they are afterall putting a hell of a lot of money into the prem
Do they really want to see city and chelsea punished and our superstars move back abroad.
Its a great product at the moment with a few teams challenging for the title.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I wonder if there's an industry out there that pays a higher percentage of its turnover to the Treasury? Whisky distilling maybe.

A whiff of foreign investment usually has ministers climbing all over each other to see how much fawning they can perform. Here we have a previously failing British company that has had untold amounts of money invested in it, a successful investment at that, and yet it is almost never commented on in those terms.

Are the powers that be going to allow this small group of greedy men put a "closed for business" sign up on any meaningful future Premier League investment in this country?

 

[kenkladze]

Re: The plot to shackle City & Chelsea

Mods please clean this fucking thread for the fuckers who CAN read !!!
For those who have difficulty, FUCK OFF onto the other threads about that Red Card !!!!
Rant over.

Well said that man,my thoughts exactly!

 

[OB1]

I think its fair to say that anyone who knows enough about FFPR to offer any sort of informed opinion realises that its a nonsense.

UEFA are attempting to square a circle and are acting as if the backing of BIG clubs makes things a fait accompli which it doesnt.

I find it interesting that PSG seem quite simply to have decided to stick two fingers up to UEFA and quite bluntly announce a massive sponsorship which seems designed to directly challenge UEFA to use FFPR rules against them.

Why would they do that? Well UEFA have expended huge amount of time, money, effort and political influence to get where they are and one challenge in the European Courts of Justice would kill it stone dead in an instant. That said a club needs to be harmed by the rules and so they create an environment for that harm to happen.

The long term damage to UEFA (Platini in particular) will perhaps also mean that CL matches/ league matches for certain clubs could be played in Qatar or other similar countries?

I was kind of hoping that City would just spend and be damned but they have chosen a different route, which may prove to be very sensible. I can afford to be flippant about the rules. Qatar came to the party a bit later so may feel they cannot afford to play the same game as City or may just have taken a different strategy because they have a different outlook. Maybe they think that UEFA know that they cannot ultimately enforce the rules and that UEFA have hoped the influence of the elite clubs and a lack of bravery on the part of others would hold the rules in place? Are UEFA that stupid? I don't know but I don't usually hold those that run football in high regard.

I said earlier in the thread that teams like City and PSG could form the basis of some kind of European Super League, to run in competition to the UCL. They have the means to eclipse the financial rewards of the UCL and that could produce interesting dilemmas for other top teams and top players. I would assume that, ultimately, UEFA could do nothing to prevent teams playing in such a league, alongside their normal domestic games: that would surely be illegal? Chelsea would presumably be happy to join such a league and if you enticed in the likes of Barca, A.C. Milan and Real Madrid, other big clubs would surely follow the money and so would the best players and the T.V..

What people have to remember is that City may be owned by Mansour, who is wealthy enough, but they are now closely, perhaps inextricably, linked to the world's richest city. UEFA are paupers in comparison.

 

[Braggster]

I wonder if there's an industry out there that pays a higher percentage of its turnover to the Treasury? Whisky distilling maybe.

Tobacco and oil exploration and production. Marginal tax rate on certain north sea oil fields can exceed 80%!