Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP
moomba said:
Just to put things into perspective. If wage rises were restricted to 10% in 2000/01 we would currently be allowed to pay a maximum of just under £57m a year on wages. This would be an increase of £38m in 12 years.
Chelsea would now be able to pay a maximum of £157m a year on wages, an increase of £107m in 12 years.
The ability of either club to pay those wages is not a consideration.
And people have the nerve to say that FFP enhances competiteness.
Where did you read that the base for wage increases is 2000/1???? My understanding is that a percentage increase would mean that City were allowed an increase on a figure that is already over £200 million pa!! This would, of course, be subject to the "break even" rule!! The whole thing is nonsense.
But I go back to the wording of our Competition Act and the EC Treaty which prohibit agreements which
limit or
control investment. By this agreement the gang of four clearly limit investment by shareholders/owners to £105 million ponds over three years, then forbid it altogether. The courts have shown that they do not accept that football is a "special case", both over Bosman and squad composition, and that the law applies in full to football. If the gang of four wish to impose these rules they have to prove that the rules contribute "to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit, and which does not:
(a) impose on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of these objectives;
(b) afford such undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question."
There are obvious and enormous problems here. It is hard, if not impossible, to see what improvements "the production or distribution of goods" are intended or would result, and when one gets to "promoting technical or economic progress the difficulties really mount! And then we get to the "consumers" who have to be treated to "a fair share of the resulting benefit". Consumers would appear to have to include those who watch football. No mention is made of ticket prices and no consideration at all given to fans. The only benefit envisaged appears to be even more bumper TV deals (benefitting whom?), but the argument would be that this would result in much higher subscriptions and ticket prices, and possibly much lower attendances at some clubs' matches!
But the real crunch comes with a claim for exclusion under (b). Roughly translated it says, "if you've got together as a cartel and drawn up an agreement aintended to prevent other businesses competing in the market, FORGET IT." It may be that some form of financial regulation is necessary and may be consistent with the law, but these regulations, and Platini's, are clearly not and will not stand up.
