This guy determined we will fail FFPR

[hgblue]

The government will not stop companies spending their own money on investing in their business but they will intervene if businesses do things that are anti-competitive.

Not totally convinced with that. It's true that supermarkets as an example will be limited in their applications to expand their businesses in certain areas, but unless their applications are opposed by other supermarkets, their plans will get the go-ahead on the basis they will bring jobs to an area. Unfortunately, smaller businesses in the locality will have their own objections brushed aside. Life isn't fair, never has been and never will be, and this will spread to the world of football. If City are the new power in the game, then the smaller clubs will be pushed aside in the same manner as the smaller business examples that I have illustrated.

I make no observation as to the moral argument here, only the practical one. It would be highly unlikely that UEFA could impose sanctions on City or any other club for carrying out what is normal business practice, and it wouldn't be in the interests of UEFA to act in a way that is contrary to accepted business practices that are normal throughout the EU.

Not totally convinced! We have competition laws in the UK and bodies like t he OFT and Competition Commission. My point was a broad one that goverments do not just let businesses do what they want and will legislate. Therefore, it is not anamalous for the governing body of a sport to have rules regarding competition. The rules may be different in how they go about achieving the desired end result.

But a sports governing body can't introduce financial constraints that are against the law of the land imo.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Not totally convinced with that. It's true that supermarkets as an example will be limited in their applications to expand their businesses in certain areas, but unless their applications are opposed by other supermarkets, their plans will get the go-ahead on the basis they will bring jobs to an area. Unfortunately, smaller businesses in the locality will have their own objections brushed aside. Life isn't fair, never has been and never will be, and this will spread to the world of football. If City are the new power in the game, then the smaller clubs will be pushed aside in the same manner as the smaller business examples that I have illustrated.

I make no observation as to the moral argument here, only the practical one. It would be highly unlikely that UEFA could impose sanctions on City or any other club for carrying out what is normal business practice, and it wouldn't be in the interests of UEFA to act in a way that is contrary to accepted business practices that are normal throughout the EU.

Not totally convinced! We have competition laws in the UK and bodies like t he OFT and Competition Commission. My point was a broad one that goverments do not just let businesses do what they want and will legislate. Therefore, it is not anamalous for the governing body of a sport to have rules regarding competition. The rules may be different in how they go about achieving the desired end result.

But a sports governing body can't introduce financial constraints that are against the law of the land imo.

Of course they can't. To suggest otherwise would be absurd.

 

[sinnerman]

Not totally convinced with that. It's true that supermarkets as an example will be limited in their applications to expand their businesses in certain areas, but unless their applications are opposed by other supermarkets, their plans will get the go-ahead on the basis they will bring jobs to an area. Unfortunately, smaller businesses in the locality will have their own objections brushed aside. Life isn't fair, never has been and never will be, and this will spread to the world of football. If City are the new power in the game, then the smaller clubs will be pushed aside in the same manner as the smaller business examples that I have illustrated.

I make no observation as to the moral argument here, only the practical one. It would be highly unlikely that UEFA could impose sanctions on City or any other club for carrying out what is normal business practice, and it wouldn't be in the interests of UEFA to act in a way that is contrary to accepted business practices that are normal throughout the EU.

Not totally convinced! We have competition laws in the UK and bodies like t he OFT and Competition Commission. My point was a broad one that goverments do not just let businesses do what they want and will legislate. Therefore, it is not anamalous for the governing body of a sport to have rules regarding competition. The rules may be different in how they go about achieving the desired end result.

But a sports governing body can't introduce financial constraints that are against the law of the land imo.

Firstly, when we join or become affiliated to a sporting body we accept the rules of that governing body and agree to abide with them, and secondly, Eufa won't stop us spending money, they'll just decline to invite us to their competition.

Don't take this post as me agreeing with FFPR...

 

[Lancet Fluke]

Not totally convinced! We have competition laws in the UK and bodies like t he OFT and Competition Commission. My point was a broad one that goverments do not just let businesses do what they want and will legislate. Therefore, it is not anamalous for the governing body of a sport to have rules regarding competition. The rules may be different in how they go about achieving the desired end result.

But a sports governing body can't introduce financial constraints that are against the law of the land imo.

Of course they can't. To suggest otherwise would be absurd.

So much of FFP is relying on nobody to challenge it. If someone takes it to the EU courts, it'll be doomed. I just can't work out whether I want FFP to thrive or be challenged. On one hand, I think FFP is wrong, a couple of years ago it was something we all had huge concerns about but as we have just got through the door in time, it would probably now suit City for it to not be challenged.

 

[ffplay]

Prestwich's information on IAS is interesting. UEFA's RPT do appear to be the same (or at worse, almost the same) as International Accounting Standard 24. EU countries have been using IAS since 2002. Of course all countries in UEFA are not in the EU.

Accounting Standards do change so perhaps UEFA were keen to fix the position given that the rules applied to current and future seasons and perhaps that is why UEFA felt the need to spell out the rules in detail in their rule book. However part of the reason for spelling out the rules may be to ensure they have control over the application of the RPT rules. As we know, the ECA VP expressed concern expressed about 'tame' auditors in Russia.

Compliance with the FFP rules will judged by the independent CFCB panel (technically not part of UEFA). Each club is required to complete an online form containing all their financial figure and submit details to UEFA and their licensing body. The figures need to be audited figures.
The CFCB are able to make further enquiries and are able to discount or adjust some of figures supplied if they don’t comply with the rulebook or if a RPT isn't considered to be 'fair value'.

The CFCB are able to decided that an item that was originally not classified as not an RPT by the club and its auditors, is actually an RPT and requires an adjustment. Clearly that would rather contentious but the CFCB have the power to interpret the rules as they seem fit.
The independence of the CFCB was established for this very purpose - UEFA itself is much less exposed to legal action.

There is an interesting precedent here. As many will recall, in the Tevez case, an independent panel set up by the FA decided that West Ham would be fined for failing to disclose a third party ownership contract - no points were deducted. An appeal was lodged and this second panel essentially said that although they would have imposed a more severe punishment, due process had been followed by the first independent panel and the decision wasn't so 'perverse' that it had to be overruled. The FA were protected from any legal action by use of the independent panel.

The point here is that the CFCB are able to make their own interpretation (using the rule-book) and that might be different to one the club's auditors have come up with.

This link is interesting.
<a class="postlink" href="http://m.espn.go.com/soccer/story?storyId=1632748&src=desktop&wjb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://m.espn.go.com/soccer/story?story ... esktop&wjb</a>

PSG's accountants have said their huge QTA sponsorship is not a RPT. However UEFA have called them in to ask about the transaction. If the CFCB are not happy with the interpretation used by the club accountants, under the FFP rules they are able to make their own interpretation. As long as it isn't a 'perverse' interpretation, it should (in theory) withstand the inevitable challenge.

 

[hgblue]

Not totally convinced! We have competition laws in the UK and bodies like t he OFT and Competition Commission. My point was a broad one that goverments do not just let businesses do what they want and will legislate. Therefore, it is not anamalous for the governing body of a sport to have rules regarding competition. The rules may be different in how they go about achieving the desired end result.

But a sports governing body can't introduce financial constraints that are against the law of the land imo.

Firstly, when we join or become affiliated to a sporting body we accept the rules of that governing body and agree to abide with them, and secondly, Eufa won't stop us spending money, they'll just decline to invite us to their competition.

Don't take this post as me agreeing with FFPR...

Then we'll see them in court, because declining to invite a club into a competition based on a rule that is illegal, would be taken to the cleaners by any half decent lawyer.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

 

[Lancet Fluke]

Each club is required to complete an online form containing all their financial figure and submit details to UEFA and their licensing body. The figures need to be audited figures.

Then presumably UEFA use the UK's leading expert on FFP's shitty FFP calculator to work out who passes and fails?

 

[sinnerman]

Prestwich's information on IAS is interesting. UEFA's RPT do appear to be the same (or at worse, almost the same) as International Accounting Standard 24. EU countries have been using IAS since 2002. Of course all countries in UEFA are not in the EU.

Accounting Standards do change so perhaps UEFA were keen to fix the position given that the rules applied to current and future seasons and perhaps that is why UEFA felt the need to spell out the rules in detail in their rule book. However part of the reason for spelling out the rules may be to ensure they have control over the application of the RPT rules. As we know, the ECA VP expressed concern expressed about 'tame' auditors in Russia.

Compliance with the FFP rules will judged by the independent CFCB panel (technically not part of UEFA). Each club is required to complete an online form containing all their financial figure and submit details to UEFA and their licensing body. The figures need to be audited figures.
The CFCB are able to make further enquiries and are able to discount or adjust some of figures supplied if they don’t comply with the rulebook or if a RPT isn't considered to be 'fair value'.

The CFCB are able to decided that an item that was originally not classified as not an RPT by the club and its auditors, is actually an RPT and requires an adjustment. Clearly that would rather contentious but the CFCB have the power to interpret the rules as they seem fit.
The independence of the CFCB was established for this very purpose - UEFA itself is much less exposed to legal action.

There is an interesting precedent here. As many will recall, in the Tevez case, an independent panel set up by the FA decided that West Ham would be fined for failing to disclose a third party ownership contract - no points were deducted. An appeal was lodged and this second panel essentially said that although they would have imposed a more severe punishment, due process had been followed by the first independent panel and the decision wasn't so 'perverse' that it had to be overruled. The FA were protected from any legal action by use of the independent panel.

The point here is that the CFCB are able to make their own interpretation (using the rule-book) and that might be different to one the club's auditors have come up with.

This link is interesting.
<a class="postlink" href="http://m.espn.go.com/soccer/story?storyId=1632748&src=desktop&wjb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://m.espn.go.com/soccer/story?story ... esktop&wjb</a>

PSG's accountants have said their huge QTA sponsorship is not a RPT. However UEFA have called them in to ask about the transaction. If the CFCB are not happy with the interpretation used by the club accountants, under the FFP rules they are able to make their own interpretation. As long as it isn't a 'perverse' interpretation, it should (in theory) withstand the inevitable challenge.

So what you're saying is that even though IAS and Uefa's RPT rules are exactly the same, almost word for word, they could both come to different conclusions on RPT. How does that work then?

 

[Lancet Fluke]

Prestwich's information on IAS is interesting. UEFA's RPT do appear to be the same (or at worse, almost the same) as International Accounting Standard 24. EU countries have been using IAS since 2002. Of course all countries in UEFA are not in the EU.

Accounting Standards do change so perhaps UEFA were keen to fix the position given that the rules applied to current and future seasons and perhaps that is why UEFA felt the need to spell out the rules in detail in their rule book. However part of the reason for spelling out the rules may be to ensure they have control over the application of the RPT rules. As we know, the ECA VP expressed concern expressed about 'tame' auditors in Russia.

Compliance with the FFP rules will judged by the independent CFCB panel (technically not part of UEFA). Each club is required to complete an online form containing all their financial figure and submit details to UEFA and their licensing body. The figures need to be audited figures.
The CFCB are able to make further enquiries and are able to discount or adjust some of figures supplied if they don’t comply with the rulebook or if a RPT isn't considered to be 'fair value'.

The CFCB are able to decided that an item that was originally not classified as not an RPT by the club and its auditors, is actually an RPT and requires an adjustment. Clearly that would rather contentious but the CFCB have the power to interpret the rules as they seem fit.
The independence of the CFCB was established for this very purpose - UEFA itself is much less exposed to legal action.

There is an interesting precedent here. As many will recall, in the Tevez case, an independent panel set up by the FA decided that West Ham would be fined for failing to disclose a third party ownership contract - no points were deducted. An appeal was lodged and this second panel essentially said that although they would have imposed a more severe punishment, due process had been followed by the first independent panel and the decision wasn't so 'perverse' that it had to be overruled. The FA were protected from any legal action by use of the independent panel.

The point here is that the CFCB are able to make their own interpretation (using the rule-book) and that might be different to one the club's auditors have come up with.

This link is interesting.
<a class="postlink" href="http://m.espn.go.com/soccer/story?storyId=1632748&src=desktop&wjb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://m.espn.go.com/soccer/story?story ... esktop&wjb</a>

PSG's accountants have said their huge QTA sponsorship is not a RPT. However UEFA have called them in to ask about the transaction. If the CFCB are not happy with the interpretation used by the club accountants, under the FFP rules they are able to make their own interpretation. As long as it isn't a 'perverse' interpretation, it should (in theory) withstand the inevitable challenge.

So what you're saying is that even though IAS and Uefa's RPT rules are exactly the same, almost word for word, they could both come to different conclusions on RPT. How does that work then?

It doesn't, he's still talking the same bollocks and refusing to admit that he's wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence.