PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
This Superleague ruling one claim they have made is ‘For the fans, we propose free viewing of all Super League matches’. It’s an admirable idea, however how do they intend to keep the revenues coming in when the clubs biggest source of income is tv money paid for via subscriptions to platforms like Sky?
Click to expand...

Because they will support that for two years with initial funding, then miraculously have a vote on a broadcasting deal. Don't believe a word these cowboys say. I would trust FIFA and UEFA more than these guys.
 
hgblue said:
I remember arguing this at the time, but apparently we were prepared to accept a slap on the wrist in order not to upset the apple cart. I thought this was a mistake at the time, because FFP should have been a mechanism to prevent clubs going into excessive debt, not to prevent investment and suppress competition. Water under the bridge now I suppose but it appears to have come back to bite us on the arse with the premier league.
Click to expand...

Your picturing the exact same scenario we are in but with no FFP.

The whole scenario could have back fired and no guarantee this ruling means we would have won.

The football/ success is hard to believe could have been beaten. We have been treated in a way very few fans have.

The fact PSG never went after it either (who I would consider have less to lose at the time).

Only time will tell but I would say they have played it perfectly but we do have one big ? that we need to pass.
 
City's failure to test FFP in the courts has nothing at all to do with a wish to be liked or trying to win friends. The club is certainly not "soft". Khaldoon was very clear on the matter in 2014. His instinct had been to use every means available to the club to fight UEFA, but as a businessman he knew that litigation was time consuming and drew attention away from long term objectives. He was certain (and he was right) that City would have no further difficulties in meeting FFP demands in the future. FFP was little more than a minor blip on the road to dominance. No point in a long legal battle just to pull our tongue out at UEFA.

FFP has never been tested in the courts. No sporting exception has been accepted. Quite the reverse since in the Bosman ruling UEFA were told that all future matters arising would be decide on what the law was and not what UEFA saw as its own interests. Most favourable opinion of FFP has come from the European commission which is not a judicial body (which gave its full backing to UEFA in the Bosman case) but even they said UEFA's governance must be consistent with competition law. Attempts to challenge FFP have failed for a variety of procedural reasons but there has not been a frontal assault on the principle of the regulations. To me it seems the attempt to limit owner investment (FFP doesn't actually forbid it) is clearly in violation of EU (and UK) competition law but it is impossible to prove that is the INTENTION of the limit (as has been argued. It can be argued - and I think successfully - that the CONSEQUENCE of the limit is anti-competitive.

Promising grounds for a challenge have become available this week with the ruling that governing bodies must concern themselves solely with sporting matters but must not concern themselves with commercial matters. The offside law is a concern of UEFA's but not how much shareholders should invest in a club or what is market value for a sponsorship deal or even how much debt can be taken on board.

If UEFA has any sense (if!) it will take advice from reputable law practices, listen to that advice and begin to tidy up the mess that it has got itself into over the last 30 years. The PL might profitably do the same.
 
paulchapo said:
They really need to challenge the ffp bollocks in court now, something they should have done years ago. Nobody thought Bosman would win but he did.
Click to expand...
Jean-Marc Bosman ended up a penniless and ruined man, ironically. The case broke him financially and emotionally. It’s a sad reflection on human nature than none of the beneficiaries of that ruling appear to have ever helped him out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.