Page 1 of 2
Bosman ruling lawyer in Uefa complaint
Posted:
Mon May 06, 2013 4:05 pmby kinkylola
Interesting article here, didn't see a topic on it ... but looks like there's finally going to be a fight over FFP ... looking forward to seeing the outcome.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22426733
Re: Bosman ruling lawyer in Uefa complaint
Posted:
Mon May 06, 2013 4:18 pmby Moonchesteri
Well done mr.Dupont!
Re: Bosman ruling lawyer in Uefa complaint
Posted:
Mon May 06, 2013 4:23 pmby zuricity
The timing of his tackle on ffp is perfect. We should sign this guy up !
Re: Bosman ruling lawyer in Uefa complaint
Posted:
Mon May 06, 2013 5:52 pmby Lee_R
What I don't get is why the money clubs don't just spend anyway. There's enough of them and if they're signing the top players then I can't see how uefa are going to benefit by refusing them on their stage. I hope this throws it out anyway.. chequebook time.
Re: Bosman ruling lawyer in Uefa complaint
Posted:
Mon May 06, 2013 7:40 pmby Lev Bronstein
Lee_R wrote:What I don't get is why the money clubs don't just spend anyway. There's enough of them and if they're signing the top players then I can't see how uefa are going to benefit by refusing them on their stage. I hope this throws it out anyway.. chequebook time.
They'll feel the need to make an example of someone, and it won't be Barca, RM, Bayern, Psg or any of the rest - guess who?
Re: Bosman ruling lawyer in Uefa complaint
Posted:
Mon May 06, 2013 8:17 pmby zuricity
Lev Bronstein wrote:
They'll feel the need to make an example of someone, and it won't be Barca, RM, Bayern, Psg or any of the rest - guess who?
i can already hear the pitter patter of tiny feet , wobbling up to the table of this thread, rolling the knapkins into their shirt collars , and ordering lobsters from the menu.... this thread has legs and pages ahead of it.
Re: Bosman ruling lawyer in Uefa complaint
Posted:
Mon May 06, 2013 9:05 pmby john68
zuricity wrote:Lev Bronstein wrote:
They'll feel the need to make an example of someone, and it won't be Barca, RM, Bayern, Psg or any of the rest - guess who?
i can already hear the pitter patter of tiny feet , wobbling up to the table of this thread, rolling the knapkins into their shirt collars , and ordering lobsters from the menu.... this thread has legs and pages ahead of it.
:-)
Not me mate,I am too busy cuddling my toy and waiting for Piccs to find a way to blame Mancini for it.
Re: Bosman ruling lawyer in Uefa complaint
Posted:
Mon May 06, 2013 9:12 pmby gillie
john68 wrote:zuricity wrote:Lev Bronstein wrote:
They'll feel the need to make an example of someone, and it won't be Barca, RM, Bayern, Psg or any of the rest - guess who?
i can already hear the pitter patter of tiny feet , wobbling up to the table of this thread, rolling the knapkins into their shirt collars , and ordering lobsters from the menu.... this thread has legs and pages ahead of it.
:-)
Not me mate,I am too busy cuddling my toy and waiting for Piccs to find a way to blame Mancini for it.
I knew you had a cuddly toy lol
Re: Bosman ruling lawyer in Uefa complaint
Posted:
Mon May 06, 2013 9:13 pmby Risby
The problem is that no one wants to be the first one to question it or fight it. You can understand why with some of the sanctions that could be enforced and what could result in loss of revenue.
A team fighting FFP in its own doesn't really have a chance. The only way to beat it is unity from a few big clubs and simpler rules that allows owners to invest.
Re: Bosman ruling lawyer in Uefa complaint
Posted:
Mon May 06, 2013 9:53 pmby Rag_hater
Risby wrote:The problem is that no one wants to be the first one to question it or fight it. You can understand why with some of the sanctions that could be enforced and what could result in loss of revenue.
A team fighting FFP in its own doesn't really have a chance. The only way to beat it is unity from a few big clubs and simpler rules that allows owners to invest.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013 ... -fair-play.
Hopefully this fellow is the one.
Re: Bosman ruling lawyer in Uefa complaint
Posted:
Mon May 06, 2013 9:56 pmby Cocacolajojo1
gillie wrote:john68 wrote:zuricity wrote:Lev Bronstein wrote:
They'll feel the need to make an example of someone, and it won't be Barca, RM, Bayern, Psg or any of the rest - guess who?
i can already hear the pitter patter of tiny feet , wobbling up to the table of this thread, rolling the knapkins into their shirt collars , and ordering lobsters from the menu.... this thread has legs and pages ahead of it.
:-)
Not me mate,I am too busy cuddling my toy and waiting for Piccs to find a way to blame Mancini for it.
I knew you had a cuddly toy lol
Re: Bosman ruling lawyer in Uefa complaint
Posted:
Mon May 06, 2013 9:57 pmby TheReturnOfTheSpecialOne
It was bound to happen, eventually
But in any event UEFA will never be able to enforce FFP the way that its lobbyists, The Rags, Barca-Real, Bayern, and other elite established clubs wanted them to
They were always going to have to row back on it
Re: Bosman ruling lawyer in Uefa complaint
Posted:
Mon May 06, 2013 10:50 pmby Socrates
I found this interesting...
He added that even if the ban on overspending was ruled legal, he would have further grounds to appeal because Uefa, football's European governing body, could achieve its aims by a less restrictive measure such as forcing clubs to makes guarantees on any spending beyond projected income
The angle that the aims could be achieved with a less restrictive measure could at least lead to a modification in our favour.
Re: Bosman ruling lawyer in Uefa complaint
Posted:
Mon May 06, 2013 11:04 pmby Peter Doherty (AGAIG)
They need to get football recognised as a business first and foremost, everything else would follow quite easily.
Re: Bosman ruling lawyer in Uefa complaint
Posted:
Mon May 06, 2013 11:23 pmby carl_feedthegoat
I fuckign told you this would happen.
Lets spend 300 million this summer.
Re: Bosman ruling lawyer in Uefa complaint
Posted:
Mon May 06, 2013 11:34 pmby john68
The complaint has actually been made by Belgian agent: Daniel Striani.
It challenges restrictions of competitions caused by the "Break Even Rule", (Article 57 of the UeFA FFP regulation)
It Specifically challenges; even assuming the present rules to be justifiable in the light of its objectives (financial integrity),it is illegal in practice because it is "NOT PROPORTIONATE"....Meaning it can be replaced bu other means, equally as efficient but less damaging to EU freedoms)
Simply put, they agree with what UeFA are trying to do. That is to ensure the financial integrity of the clubs and the competition but say that can be just as effectively done by bank guarantees on any overspend before the competition begins.
More simply put, If Sheik Mansour can guarantee that any debt or overspend incurred by City will be covered. That should be ok.
.
Re: Bosman ruling lawyer in Uefa complaint
Posted:
Mon May 06, 2013 11:39 pmby TheReturnOfTheSpecialOne
carl_feedthegoat wrote:I fuckign told you this would happen.
Lets spend 300 million this summer.
Yeah, why not?
Mancini will probably be regretting the lawyer didn't challenge its legality this time last year, though
Re: Bosman ruling lawyer in Uefa complaint
Posted:
Mon May 06, 2013 11:51 pmby Socrates
john68 wrote:The complaint has actually been made by Belgian agent: Daniel Striani.
It challenges restrictions of competitions caused by the "Break Even Rule", (Article 57 of the UeFA FFP regulation)
It Specifically challenges; even assuming the present rules to be justifiable in the light of its objectives (financial integrity),it is illegal in practice because it is "NOT PROPORTIONATE"....Meaning it can be replaced bu other means, equally as efficient but less damaging to EU freedoms)
Simply put, they agree with what UeFA are trying to do. That is to ensure the financial integrity of the clubs and the competition but say that can be just as effectively done by bank guarantees on any overspend before the competition begins.
More simply put, If Sheik Mansour can guarantee that any debt or overspend incurred by City will be covered. That should be ok.
.
They could argue that guarantees aren't enough as circumstances may change over time and enforcement would be difficult and they would be quite right in saying that but on the same basis, how can they argue that hard cash put into the club as equity (share capital) has a similar risk attached? Answer is that they cannot. The proportionality argument can therefore be used to argue that the formula should be (revenue + equity capital injections) = expenditure. That would achieve the original objectives and still allow hope for growth for smaller clubs.
Re: Bosman ruling lawyer in Uefa complaint
Posted:
Tue May 07, 2013 12:52 amby john68
Socs,
I am out of my depth at this point Mate but felt it the forum would be well served and better informed if I posted the necessary details. I got the info from Soccernomics website, should you wish to view it.
I'm not sure but I believe the call is for a bank guarantee to cover debts or overspend. That would surely cover any risk caused by change, other than a bank collapse...and banks never collapse...erm!
Daniel Striani is a Belgian agent and I think his take is that the present UeFA regulation has an unnecessary deflationary impact of players wages and transfer fees and activity.
I am glad such a test has come from an agent and can understand why it was politically expediant for a club (City?) to seek compliance rather than risk becoming parihas in the football world.
Re: Bosman ruling lawyer in Uefa complaint
Posted:
Tue May 07, 2013 3:12 amby kinkylola
John, thank you for the correction on who made the actual complaint, but i'm definitely more excited that it's being handled by the lawyer who got the bosman ruling through ... 1 landmark case down, 1 more to come.
Also, the beauty of this is that they agree with FFP in principle but disagree with the ridiculous inhibition on competition that it will currently implement, as others pointed out. Why shouldn't a wealthy owner be allowed to spend as much as he wants? Especially if it's guaranteed, it is only for the good of the game for more money to come in. This would also mean that a smaller club that has been living within it's means, can stretch at times when the opportunity arises to invest in their squad, as long as the owner backs it up.
Boom, no more portsmouth's ... and everyone still gets to spend their money. Totally ridiculous that someone would want to limit FRESH MONEY coming in ... especially when it's usually paid upfront and is coming from a practically unlimited source. Can't believe that anyone with any business sense would even contemplate that ... just goes to show that there must be some ulterior motives involved.
really optimistic about this ... and I hope it is dealt with in short order for the summer window!