FFP - time to challenge it's legality

[Hazy2]

MEN reporting unnamed French sources that any relaxation of FFP rules may not apply to us or PSG until 2019 because we have infringed existing rules. Let me get this straight. We allegedly 'infringed' existing rules which are now on the brink of collapse under the weight of legal challenges. I hope the Club realise that it's no more Mr nice guy with this shit. We're in profit this year so the suspended part of the punishment disappears. Our summer transfer net spend will be heavy but any row with UEFA would be next year, I suppose. We cannot give houseroom to any attempt to create new rules to catch us. We must fight if it comes to it. Thankfully Khaldoun sounded determined to push on with our investment. No more 'pinches' can be accepted.

The Neymer Deal for a start, whoever is imposing sanctions on them is doing them with a feather. City or PSG pull that stunt and we would be in the conference or Ligue 5, Juve broke rules and got a 2 division relegation, Barca and Plattini are far to cozy for it to be healthy. Great team Massive club, playing to different rules. Fifa Uefa all smoke and mirrors.

[phips]

i would assume the club knows something about these supposed "relaxed rules" before planning on shelling out large sums of money (if the papers are to be believed). i don't think they would overspend without knowing if that'd get them sanctioned again.

[Dameerto]

If these rumours are true we need to go for the jugular - no more trying to comply with bent fuclers who change their interpretation of the rules at the last minute to catch us out.

[blues2win]

If you'll remember the Club thought they had complied the first time round and in the end decided to accept a'pinch'. If retrospective sanctions are used for alleged breaches of superceded rules we would surely have no alternative but to take legal action. Supposedly the decision will be taken at the end of this month. In my view the key thing is to distinguish between equity investment put in by owners to their own business and debt which could be said to threaten the long term viability of a Club. Interesting to see how big a profit we made in the year past when the figures are published. Hopefully turnover will rise even more in the next financial year and then we get the telly money.....

[Mase]

If this goes through I wouldn't mind is telling UEFA to go fuck themselves and withdrawing from the Champions League of our own decision.

[iwasthere2012]

I don't do Twatter but if any of you do, there are reports coming out that The FFP court case in Belgium is being referred to the European Court of Justice and that any of the changes regarding the cutting of the acceptable losses figure form 45Mil to 30mil is to be frozen. Looks like the court is insinuating that there is a legal issue but they are not the ones to make a ruling on it.
I haven't seen anything reported in the papers yet, or Reuters etc.

Edit: That's pretty much how it was predicted to go. The link below is a lengthy read, but the conclusion the guy reached at the end is spot on it seems.
http://www.lawinsport.com/articles/item ... are-we-now

CONCLUSION

The issue of FFP remains a fertile battleground for lawyers. After a considerable amount of media attention and debate – both within the legal / academic community and the footballing community – we have now reached the stage where a Court of competent jurisdiction is soon due to issue a judgment on the lawfulness of the FFP Regulations. Whilst the judgment of the Belgian Court of First Instance is eagerly awaited and will no doubt be closely analysed by lawyers and football ‘stakeholders’ alike, it seems unlikely that it will be the final word on the issue. Rather, the answer to the question ‘FFP: Fair or Foul?’ seems destined to be resolved, via a long and winding road, in Luxembourg.

[Ted Hughes]

I don't do Twatter but if any of you do, there are reports coming out that The FFP court case in Belgium is being referred to the European Court of Justice and that any of the changes regarding the cutting of the acceptable losses figure form 45Mil to 30mil is to be frozen. Looks like the court is insinuating that there is a legal issue but they are not the ones to make a ruling on it.
I haven't seen anything reported in the papers yet, or Reuters etc.

Edit: That's pretty much how it was predicted to go. The link below is a lengthy read, but the conclusion the guy reached at the end is spot on it seems.
http://www.lawinsport.com/articles/item ... are-we-now

CONCLUSION

The issue of FFP remains a fertile battleground for lawyers. After a considerable amount of media attention and debate – both within the legal / academic community and the footballing community – we have now reached the stage where a Court of competent jurisdiction is soon due to issue a judgment on the lawfulness of the FFP Regulations. Whilst the judgment of the Belgian Court of First Instance is eagerly awaited and will no doubt be closely analysed by lawyers and football ‘stakeholders’ alike, it seems unlikely that it will be the final word on the issue. Rather, the answer to the question ‘FFP: Fair or Foul?’ seems destined to be resolved, via a long and winding road, in Luxembourg.

Here is an up to date link from that site, which says that the deficit has been frozen at 45 mil doodahs.

http://www.lawinsport.com/sports/item/u ... ory_id=152.

[iwasthere2012]

I don't do Twatter but if any of you do, there are reports coming out that The FFP court case in Belgium is being referred to the European Court of Justice and that any of the changes regarding the cutting of the acceptable losses figure form 45Mil to 30mil is to be frozen. Looks like the court is insinuating that there is a legal issue but they are not the ones to make a ruling on it.
I haven't seen anything reported in the papers yet, or Reuters etc.

Edit: That's pretty much how it was predicted to go. The link below is a lengthy read, but the conclusion the guy reached at the end is spot on it seems.
http://www.lawinsport.com/articles/item ... are-we-now

CONCLUSION

The issue of FFP remains a fertile battleground for lawyers. After a considerable amount of media attention and debate – both within the legal / academic community and the footballing community – we have now reached the stage where a Court of competent jurisdiction is soon due to issue a judgment on the lawfulness of the FFP Regulations. Whilst the judgment of the Belgian Court of First Instance is eagerly awaited and will no doubt be closely analysed by lawyers and football ‘stakeholders’ alike, it seems unlikely that it will be the final word on the issue. Rather, the answer to the question ‘FFP: Fair or Foul?’ seems destined to be resolved, via a long and winding road, in Luxembourg.

Here is an up to date link from that site, which says that the deficit has been frozen at 45 mil doodahs.

http://www.lawinsport.com/sports/item/u ... ory_id=152.

Thanks Ted, just after copping it on Bluemoon and was going to plagiarise it.
This also seems to mean that they can't go making any phase two changes before a ruling is made. I think the writing is on the wall for FFP.

[Ted Hughes]

I don't do Twatter but if any of you do, there are reports coming out that The FFP court case in Belgium is being referred to the European Court of Justice and that any of the changes regarding the cutting of the acceptable losses figure form 45Mil to 30mil is to be frozen. Looks like the court is insinuating that there is a legal issue but they are not the ones to make a ruling on it.
I haven't seen anything reported in the papers yet, or Reuters etc.

Edit: That's pretty much how it was predicted to go. The link below is a lengthy read, but the conclusion the guy reached at the end is spot on it seems.
http://www.lawinsport.com/articles/item ... are-we-now

CONCLUSION

The issue of FFP remains a fertile battleground for lawyers. After a considerable amount of media attention and debate – both within the legal / academic community and the footballing community – we have now reached the stage where a Court of competent jurisdiction is soon due to issue a judgment on the lawfulness of the FFP Regulations. Whilst the judgment of the Belgian Court of First Instance is eagerly awaited and will no doubt be closely analysed by lawyers and football ‘stakeholders’ alike, it seems unlikely that it will be the final word on the issue. Rather, the answer to the question ‘FFP: Fair or Foul?’ seems destined to be resolved, via a long and winding road, in Luxembourg.

Here is an up to date link from that site, which says that the deficit has been frozen at 45 mil doodahs.

http://www.lawinsport.com/sports/item/u ... ory_id=152.

Thanks Ted, just after copping it on Bluemoon and was going to plagiarise it.
This also seems to mean that they can't go making any phase two changes before a ruling is made. I think the writing is on the wall for FFP.

It reads like the lawyers are saying to UEFA, get it sorted now, or else.

[Wonderwall]

heres the Fail saying PSG and City fans are claiming FFP Victory
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... ctory.html

[blues2win]

The Belgian Court hasn't ruled on the merits but they have decided that it should be looked at by the European Court of Justice for possible infringement of a number of articles of the European Treaties. Meanwhile the second phase of FFP is frozen so the tougher rules on losses won't come into effect until the ECJ rules on the case which would take a long time. That means yes 45 million euro losses allowed rather than 30 million as provided by phase 2. Ball now in UEFA's court but there is a meeting on July 1 of I think the European Clubs Association to discuss changing FFP. Striani suggests they'd be very well advised to move out of the way of the ECJ.

[blues2win]

UEFA response is to challenge the authority of the Court to hear the case. They don't seem to be intending to appeal the decision so the second phase of FFP is stalled. Of course they express confidence they will win in the ECJ. Of course if FFP is substantially changed the Court case may be dropped.....

[JamieMCFC]

UEFA has questioned a ruling made by the Brussels Court of First Instance in relation to a case challenging Financial Fair Play rules (FFP).

The Belgian court referred the case – brought by several claimants including football agent Daniel Striani – to the European Court of Justice, a decision that UEFA - who remain confident their FFP plans remain within the law - are querying.

FFP regulations are designed to ensure clubs in European competition only spend what they earn – with some flexibility – with the likes of Manchester City and Inter already falling foul of the law, although those rules could be eased in the coming weeks.

In a statement, the governing body said: "UEFA takes note of the recent decision of the Brussels Court of First Instance in the Striani case challenging the UEFA Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules.

"The Brussels Court has declared itself incompetent to hear this case on the merits. However, at the same time, the court referred a question to the European Court of Justice and also indicated that the reduction of the so called 'acceptable deviation' from €45 million to €30 million should be provisionally put on hold.

"UEFA considers it strange that a national court having no competence to hear a dispute on the merits would, at the same time, refer a question to the European Court of Justice or make a provisional order.

"In any event, UEFA remains fully confident that FFP is entirely in line with EU law, and that the European Court will in due course simply confirm this to be the case.

"In the meantime, UEFA will appeal this decision of the Brussels Court to the Court of Appeal. Since an appeal automatically suspends the ruling of the lower court, it means that UEFA can proceed with the next phase of implementation of FFP, as already planned and as supported by the vast majority of stakeholders in European football as well as the European Commission, European Parliament and Council of Europe.

"UEFA is, in addition, considering further adjustments to the FFP rules in light of the substantially improved position in European football club finance which has been brought about directly as a result of the implementation of FFP. This matter will be considered by the UEFA Executive Committee when it meets in Prague next week.

http://us.soccerway.com/news/2015/June/ ... p/n611291/

[blues2win]

Sorry I hadn't seen that UEFA had appealed the decision. I don't know how long it will take but they might find that penalties levied under phase 2 get struck down in due course. UEFA are not allowed to breach EU law; there is no football exception and a Belgian Court clearly thought there was a prima facie case that they were breaching numerous articles of the EU Treaties. I think the key thing is to see what changes, if any, are agreed in the next week. It may make the whole thing moot. If not we await the decision of the Belgian Appeal Court in due course.

[Mikhail Chigorin]

UEFA has questioned a ruling made by the Brussels Court of First Instance in relation to a case challenging Financial Fair Play rules (FFP).

The Belgian court referred the case – brought by several claimants including football agent Daniel Striani – to the European Court of Justice, a decision that UEFA - who remain confident their FFP plans remain within the law - are querying.

FFP regulations are designed to ensure clubs in European competition only spend what they earn – with some flexibility – with the likes of Manchester City and Inter already falling foul of the law, although those rules could be eased in the coming weeks.

In a statement, the governing body said: "UEFA takes note of the recent decision of the Brussels Court of First Instance in the Striani case challenging the UEFA Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules.

"The Brussels Court has declared itself incompetent to hear this case on the merits. However, at the same time, the court referred a question to the European Court of Justice and also indicated that the reduction of the so called 'acceptable deviation' from €45 million to €30 million should be provisionally put on hold.

"UEFA considers it strange that a national court having no competence to hear a dispute on the merits would, at the same time, refer a question to the European Court of Justice or make a provisional order.

"In any event, UEFA remains fully confident that FFP is entirely in line with EU law, and that the European Court will in due course simply confirm this to be the case.

"In the meantime, UEFA will appeal this decision of the Brussels Court to the Court of Appeal. Since an appeal automatically suspends the ruling of the lower court, it means that UEFA can proceed with the next phase of implementation of FFP, as already planned and as supported by the vast majority of stakeholders in European football as well as the European Commission, European Parliament and Council of Europe.

"UEFA is, in addition, considering further adjustments to the FFP rules in light of the substantially improved position in European football club finance which has been brought about directly as a result of the implementation of FFP. This matter will be considered by the UEFA Executive Committee when it meets in Prague next week.

http://us.soccerway.com/news/2015/June/ ... p/n611291/

This comment from UEFA is a bit rich and seems to smack of the FIFA syndrome in that they believe they are virtually above any law.

It's almost akin to someone in Scotland being tried for murder and, because he/she voted for Scottish independence in the recent referendum, saying that they didn't recognise the validity and jurisdiction of the British Court to dispense justice in such circumstances.

UEFA have been caught with their fingers in the till and are now trying to bluster their way out of it.

[Original Dub]

This is perfect.
Exactly how I hoped it would pan out. If it was me, I would have went after uefa immediately.

Our owners are far too clever for that. Let the european court battle with uefa and we sit back with a big fucking bucket of popcorn.

[Beefymcfc]

Whoop whoop. We all knew who this was aimed at, now we'll get the answer.

Interesting that there's a conflict of interest stated and that UEFA have referred to the courts as having no rights ................................... REALLY???

This was originally thrown out by the man who is classed as having 'a conflict of interests' but now it's hitting the supreme level with restrictions already in place. Although set in stone (for me), I do wonder who funded this case? It costs fucking loads for all these lawyers!

For anybody who thinks this wasn't an aim at stopping our/PSG et al growth, just look at the impending changes to allow growth for te likes of the Milan clubs, quoted by Rummeniege, earlier then expected.

[Im_Spartacus]

UEFA has questioned a ruling made by the Brussels Court of First Instance in relation to a case challenging Financial Fair Play rules (FFP).

The Belgian court referred the case – brought by several claimants including football agent Daniel Striani – to the European Court of Justice, a decision that UEFA - who remain confident their FFP plans remain within the law - are querying.

FFP regulations are designed to ensure clubs in European competition only spend what they earn – with some flexibility – with the likes of Manchester City and Inter already falling foul of the law, although those rules could be eased in the coming weeks.

In a statement, the governing body said: "UEFA takes note of the recent decision of the Brussels Court of First Instance in the Striani case challenging the UEFA Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules.

"The Brussels Court has declared itself incompetent to hear this case on the merits. However, at the same time, the court referred a question to the European Court of Justice and also indicated that the reduction of the so called 'acceptable deviation' from €45 million to €30 million should be provisionally put on hold.

"UEFA considers it strange that a national court having no competence to hear a dispute on the merits would, at the same time, refer a question to the European Court of Justice or make a provisional order.

"In any event, UEFA remains fully confident that FFP is entirely in line with EU law, and that the European Court will in due course simply confirm this to be the case.

"In the meantime, UEFA will appeal this decision of the Brussels Court to the Court of Appeal. Since an appeal automatically suspends the ruling of the lower court, it means that UEFA can proceed with the next phase of implementation of FFP, as already planned and as supported by the vast majority of stakeholders in European football as well as the European Commission, European Parliament and Council of Europe.

"UEFA is, in addition, considering further adjustments to the FFP rules in light of the substantially improved position in European football club finance which has been brought about directly as a result of the implementation of FFP. This matter will be considered by the UEFA Executive Committee when it meets in Prague next week.

http://us.soccerway.com/news/2015/June/ ... p/n611291/

This comment from UEFA is a bit rich and seems to smack of the FIFA syndrome in that they believe they are virtually above any law.

It's almost akin to someone in Scotland being tried for murder and, because he/she voted for Scottish independence in the recent referendum, saying that they didn't recognise the validity and jurisdiction of the British Court to dispense justice in such circumstances.

No it's not like that at all.

UEFA are making a perfectly valid point, in that the court has admitted itself that it is not the right court to make the decisions needed in this case, so if it doesn't have competence, how can it suspend some of the provisions of FFP.

It's like a magistrates court saying that they aren't competent to rule on a fraud case so referring it to crown court, yet at the same time saying that they 'think' the accused has committed fraud and must stop the disputed activity until they have been tried in crown court.

Essentially, continuing with the domestic court analogy, what appears to be needed is an injunction on UEFA to prevent them applying the disputed rules until the case is heard in full in the crown court (ECJ)

Let's see what the rule changes bring next week, if not acceptable to clubs, I expect some kind of injunction to directly prevent UEFA applying the rules will be applied for in order to bring clarity to clubs transfer plans this summer, otherwise everyone sits in limbo for years

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

I think we will be gobsmacked and outraged at what UEFA cooks up next week. They're still after us

[Im_Spartacus]

I think we will be gobsmacked and outraged at what UEFA cooks up next week. They're still after us

Given the spending of united last summer, it would appear that even though Arsenal, Chelsea were within the rules, United and particularly Liverpool were still struggling to keep up. If United have to spend another £200/300m to become competitive again, it's because their manager and owner are incompetent, not because of Manchester City's investment in players 'inflating the market'

The fact that both Milan clubs finished mid-table last season reinforces that

The realisation in UEFA that PSG and City are not the target, lies in the evidence that FFP has not reinforced the status quo in countries where PSG and City don't exist, but bad management of clubs at board and team level is what ultimately prevented the Milan clubs and the likes of United from competing in their domestic league. I expect however that UEFA could turn thsee clubs' performances as evidence for FFP not being a cartel type activity though.

That alone should be the signal that FFP has failed in its primary purpose, to reduce the costs of running a football club for those at the top of the game.

Take Pogba for example. If City and PSG weren't involved does anyone think the price would be any lower for Barca or Real Madrid given that they have both spent astronomical sums in recent years on individuals like Bale, Rodrigues, Suarez. They set the market with those signings, not us and PSG whose signings look small fry in comparison, and it is they who continue to drive the cost of ownership up for other clubs, because they run no risk of failing to qualify for the champions league year in year out because their league is so uncompetitive.

I don't know what the fuck the answer is though. I think everyone agrees some regulation would be good if only to stop fans being priced out, but any regulation will impact on some teams more than others, and the powerful teams aren't going to sanction anything that hobbles them. And if they do, like FFP if it turns out down the line that it does hobble them, it will end up overturned anyway.