Bosman ruling lawyer in Uefa complaint

[zuricity]

Yeah, why not?
Mancini will probably be regretting the lawyer didn't challenge its legality this time last year, though

i bet the lawyer has already received his first million in downpayment for his troubles. That's 299 available for the summer spending spree.

[john@staustell]

FFP is starting to look more daft and illegal as time goes on. The points he makes are pretty obvious.

I'm still bemused as to why clubs have voted in majority for 'English FFP' - with clubs like Liverpool (terrible financial results) having their fans bleat how many millions they should spend this summer. Cloud cuckoo land or what? The owners have done the fans over, guaranteeing they wont have to dip in their pockets, but can rake in any profits.

[Wooders]

Just a quick thought on this before we get carried away:-
Yes, this guy is a credible lawyer with a landmark case under his belt, however, I suspect we have had a few credible lawyers of our own pour over the detail, if this was worth challenging, wouldn't we have done it by now?

[Yaya Toure is a LAD]

Are we too rich for you?

Fuck FFP

[aaron bond]

Just a quick thought on this before we get carried away:-
Yes, this guy is a credible lawyer with a landmark case under his belt, however, I suspect we have had a few credible lawyers of our own pour over the detail, if this was worth challenging, wouldn't we have done it by now?

I imagine we do have lawyers on the case, and we would like to challenge, however, the general consesus - unfortunately AND wrongly - is that FFP is for the good of the game. The old, established clubs at the top publicly talk about stopping another 'Portsmouth' happening, or about how teams shouldn't be able to 'buy' their way to the title, and this gets a lot of media attention. Then there is the fact that many smaller clubs want to go along with this, as they seem quite content with their mid-table status and don't have a genuine desire to challenge at the top.

Because of this, I think we don't want to tarnish our image and be known as 'big, bad Man City' who don't have the interests of the game at heart.

Very few journalists can see what the effects of FFP will be - Martin Samuel is one of the few who openly and regularly criticises it, but he's in the minority. When more journalists write about the impact of FFP then the tide may turn, but I fear then it may be too late.

We're already seeing the effect of it with West Ham recently complaining they'll be unable to buy Andy Carroll, yet they voted for the Premier League rules. I think Liverpool will be the next ones to complain - for a club with huge global fanbase, their turnover is very low, and they struggle to breakeven today. I don't see how they will be able to spend signifcant sums on players in the future, when that is their only hope of getting back to the top. Again, they voted for these rules.

If a case against FFP builds up momentum and several clubs join the action, then I think we may get involved. But until then I think we'll hold back and see what happens.

[Blue Since 76]

Just a quick thought on this before we get carried away:-
Yes, this guy is a credible lawyer with a landmark case under his belt, however, I suspect we have had a few credible lawyers of our own pour over the detail, if this was worth challenging, wouldn't we have done it by now?

As others have said, which club wanted to be the one to challenge it and, worse, potentially lose? An agent and lawyer can do it if they've got enough money - and I suspect their fighting fund could get some contributions from rich people with an interest in the outcome but no wish to be the public face.

[Rag_hater]

Just a quick thought on this before we get carried away:-
Yes, this guy is a credible lawyer with a landmark case under his belt, however, I suspect we have had a few credible lawyers of our own pour over the detail, if this was worth challenging, wouldn't we have done it by now?

Don't think there was any point in doing it before,the time is right now.

[Dameerto]

FFP is starting to look more daft and illegal as time goes on. The points he makes are pretty obvious.

I'm still bemused as to why clubs have voted in majority for 'English FFP' - with clubs like Liverpool (terrible financial results) having their fans bleat how many millions they should spend this summer. Cloud cuckoo land or what? The owners have done the fans over, guaranteeing they wont have to dip in their pockets, but can rake in any profits.

Some chairmen (READING) have been got at by the cartel, others just see an opportunity for making money out of it. No idea what QPR were playing at when they voted in favour though. Liverpool are relying on their worldwide reputation to give them an advantage.

[zuricity]

Just a quick thought on this before we get carried away:-
Yes, this guy is a credible lawyer with a landmark case under his belt, however, I suspect we have had a few credible lawyers of our own pour over the detail, if this was worth challenging, wouldn't we have done it by now?

It is sometimes perceived as better if such cases are initiated by an independent body. this guy doesn't appear to be plying anybody's cause.

I'm sure clubs of the same opinion will be happy to support him.

[john68]

@ Kinkylola,
Thanks for your thanks Mate but unnecessary, I was merely adding detail to your original post that wasn't included in the item you flagged up.
Like you, I am glad it is being handled by the lawyer who had the Bosman success but before anyone gets carried away, there is no guarantee that he will be successful in this challenge, as some seem to be assuming.
I would urge a little caution before standing to cheer the open top bus on Deansgate to celebrate the downfall off the FFPrs. They were put together by some fine legal minds and are backed by some extremely powerful legal and political international institutions. It looks hopeful but we all know how twisted justice can be at the top. Operacion Puerto is an example of that.

@Wooders,
I have thought that for a long time Mate and came to the conclusion that we took a politically strategic decision to seek compliance. Considering the main purpose in City's project is to be a vehicle to create an expanded global profile for Abu Dhabi, being football pariahs wouldn't be a good position to be in.Also, we have to deal on a daily basis with the football industry a position we need to be able operate comfortably in.

[zuricity]

@ Kinkylola,
Thanks for your thanks Mate but unnecessary, I was merely adding detail to your original post that wasn't included in the item you flagged up.
Like you, I am glad it is being handled by the lawyer who had the Bosman success but before anyone gets carried away, there is no guarantee that he will be successful in this challenge, as some seem to be assuming.
I would urge a little caution before standing to cheer the open top bus on Deansgate to celebrate the downfall off the FFPrs. They were put together by some fine legal minds and are backed by some extremely powerful legal and political international institutions. It looks hopeful but we all know how twisted justice can be at the top. Operacion Puerto is an example of that.

@Wooders,
I have thought that for a long time Mate and came to the conclusion that we took a politically strategic decision to seek compliance. Considering the main purpose in City's project is to be a vehicle to create an expanded global profile for Abu Dhabi, being football pariahs wouldn't be a good position to be in.Also, we have to deal on a daily basis with the football industry a position we need to be able operate comfortably in.

An interesting article in the NZZ this morning about Bayern . A meeting of the board yesterday, Hoeness keeps all jobs, they are going to do nothing about his problems. Which probably means he'll get away with a ticking off from the tax man.

As a side note to the article. It pointed out that Adidas and Audi, both with approx 10% each of Bayern shares. Were not pleased . Yeah really !


FFP , my A*se

[john68]

@Kinkylola,

That is why I don't see this as done and dusted. As football fans, we concentrate on the implications for the game and particularly for our clubs. We see the politics and self interest of the old elite G14 clubs trying to safeguard their position at the trough and maintain their hegemony within the game.

What is less apparent are the wider issues that have been largely ignored. Not only the implications on agents' and player's earnings, how the possibility of fewer transfers may affect outside interests but also the implications on some of the games global sponsors and commercial partners.

UeFA have lined up a sizeable and powerful commercial, legal and political force to push this through. We have all seen legal systems treated as plasticene and moulded and twisted to suit the interests of the most rich and powerful.

[Swales4ever]

The day when accountants and obscure fonctionnaires whall rule over lawyers and investors is the day Prince Charming shall die virgin.

Or when I'll be shagging Jessica Alba and singing "glory, glory manU*d".









can't think of more ludicrous metaphores

[Rag_hater]

In short, the current prohibition – even assuming it to be justifiable (quod non) in the light of the pursued objective (i.e. integrity) – is in practice illegal because the rule is not proportionate (since it can be replaced by another measure, equally efficient but less damaging as far as EU freedoms are concerned).


That's the kind of lawyer speak that fills me with confidence.

[Blue Since 76]

UeFA have lined up a sizeable and powerful commercial, legal and political force to push this through. We have all seen legal systems treated as plasticene and moulded and twisted to suit the interests of the most rich and powerful.

Interesting that they're trying to protect the interests of the established rich. However, they aren't the richest or most powerful anymore.

I don't believe this has anything to do with racism, it's everything to do with self-preservation, but it'll be Arab owners who are hardest hit, together with Russian Oligarchs. Will be interesting how this plays out as to where the real power is in Europe - the old gentleman's club which is UEFA together with the EU, or with the people who set oil and gas prices; own vast areas of the main capital cities; and are major share holders in lots of important companies, including those which provide the sponsorship.

You can see why no club wants to be associated with where this could go, but I think we're either heading to the confirmation of the old guard as running football for ever or football's Arab Spring, with a complete power shift.

The biggest audience and market is from the Arab states to China and that's also where the money is. So far, they've not attracted more than the odd, over the hill player, but how much would it take for them to move the best footballers en masse to that market? That's the issue threatening UEFA's cartel if they manage to shut the new money out.

Interesting times.

[john68]

I don't think we are quite there yet but your point is extremely valid. As operating businesses, we and those like us with new money are still trailing the likes of Bayern, the rags, Barca and Madrid by quite a margin. The fact that we have massive resources behind us is scaring the old money to death.

I think all clubs are working hard to get a foothold into the new markets, particularly the USA.

In City's case, even if the FFPrs were successful, they would only delay us.

[Risby]

UEFA's response to the challenge doesn't seem strong or convincing.
They believe the European court won't overturn the FFP rules. But this is based on what their idea of good business is not what the law actually says. The bloke challenging it hasn't found loop holes or errors, he has found a set of rules that contradict what is actually law. Preventing investment where bank guarantees cover any spending in full is against European freedom.
UEFA say their rules encourage responsible spending and not living beyond their means.
ENCOURAGE!!!! Like threatening a club with exile from a competition is encouragement!
I hope he smashes UEFA over the head with the rule book.

[john68]

UEFA's response to the challenge doesn't seem strong or convincing.
They believe the European court won't overturn the FFP rules. But this is based on what their idea of good business is not what the law actually says. The bloke challenging it hasn't found loop holes or errors, he has found a set of rules that contradict what is actually law. Preventing investment where bank guarantees cover any spending in full is against European freedom.
UEFA say their rules encourage responsible spending and not living beyond their means.
ENCOURAGE!!!! Like threatening a club with exile from a competition is encouragement!
I hope he smashes UEFA over the head with [strike]the rule book[/strike] a frying pan.

Playing Devil's advocate...they are NOT threatening anyone with anything. They are merely setting conditions to ENTER their competitions. That is entirely legal and is done in just about every league throughout Europe.

By setting these particular conditions, they are ensuring that clubs cannot spend beyond their means and thus are ensuring the financial integrity of the clubs and the competition.

Striani is agreeing with all of that, what he is saying is that financial (bank) guarantees will do the same job without holding back the freedom to spend of those clubs that can afford to do so.

I agree that Striani should take a frying pan to their heads though...:-)

[Risby]

Playing Devil's advocate...they are NOT threatening anyone with anything. They are merely setting conditions to ENTER their competitions. That is entirely legal and is done in just about every league throughout Europe.

By setting these particular conditions, they are ensuring that clubs cannot spend beyond their means and thus are ensuring the financial integrity of the clubs and the competition.

Striani is agreeing with all of that, what he is saying is that financial (bank) guarantees will do the same job without holding back the freedom to spend of those clubs that can afford to do so.

I agree that Striani should take a frying pan to their heads though...:-)

I understand what you're saying, but the sanctions put in place for not complying with the rules means that unless your turn over is very high, you will struggle to improve each year without real investment. This only benefits the rich right now.
UEFA aren't interested in the likes of Portsmouth or any other club not in their bumming list, they are keeping the so called 'big teams' happy by forcing these rules.
This is what I have a problem with. I understand the reasons behind it all and none of us want to see clubs fold and stop running, but to say if you don't play by our dirty rules then you can't play sounds like a bullying tactic.
It is only my opinion and I know plenty will disagree, but again, we are new to competing with the best teams in Europe and the quicker we get to a level playing field, the more interesting our journey in European competitions will be.