undislosed fees and fifa fair play.

[Goataldo]

Wow, extremely interesting reading. Whole thing's well bent. Even more benterer than I could have thought.

[Rag_hater]

You need to stop wasting your brain and breath trying to find ways round FFP Ted, UEFA can make the rules for their own competitions and they have the backing of the clubs. In any case, the club has absolutely no interest in challenging it as it can see the commercial advantage in the drawbridge being drawn up with us safely across it...

I'm sure you're right about Uefa being able to make rules for their own competition but if those rules are unfair or can be argued in court as being unfair then surely Uefa will have to change its rules.

[john68]

Rag Hater,
You are right to a point, but it would seem that in compiling their rules, UeFA have already complied with European law and also Swiss Law. As Socs said, it looks pretty watertight. They have also ensured the support of the (almost) all powerful European Commission, so the political muscle is there too.
UeFA's proposed sliding scale of penalties for non compliance does mean they will have to ensure that clubs are treated equally. Failure to do so would open opportunities to challenge.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the FFP is merely the current tool being used to safeguard the political and financial gains made by the elite clubs and as such, the political ambitions of the elite clubs could remain the major threat to City in the longer term. We remain pretty isolated at present, disliked by the jealous clubs we have left behind us and certainly not (yet?) accepted by the elite clubs, who perceive us as a threat.
The political factor could inhibit our wish to challenge even if we had a case. I think our masters would much prefer to comply and not create any further enemies or animosity at the top.

[Rag_hater]

Rag Hater,
You are right to a point, but it would seem that in compiling their rules, UeFA have already complied with European law and also Swiss Law. As Socs said, it looks pretty watertight. They have also ensured the support of the (almost) all powerful European Commission, so the political muscle is there too.
UeFA's proposed sliding scale of penalties for non compliance does mean they will have to ensure that clubs are treated equally. Failure to do so would open opportunities to challenge.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the FFP is merely the current tool being used to safeguard the political and financial gains made by the elite clubs and as such, the political ambitions of the elite clubs could remain the major threat to City in the longer term. We remain pretty isolated at present, disliked by the jealous clubs we have left behind us and certainly not (yet?) accepted by the elite clubs, who perceive us as a threat.
The political factor could inhibit our wish to challenge even if we had a case. I think our masters would much prefer to comply and not create any further enemies or animosity at the top.

The prohibition on discrimination is guaranteed by Article 14 of the ECHR, which guarantees equal treatment in the enjoyment of the other rights set down in the convention. Protocol 12 (2000) to the ECHR, not yet ratified by all EU Member States, expands the scope of the prohibition of discrimination by guaranteeing equal treatment in the enjoyment of any right (including rights under national law).
According to the Explanatory Report to the protocol, it was created out of a desire to strengthen protection against discrimination which was considered to form a core element of guaranteeing human rights. The protocol emerged out of debates over how to strengthen sex and racial equality in particular.Uefa cannot have rules that basically discriminate against roch clubs,it is illeagal.

[blues-clues]

Rag Hater,
You are right to a point, but it would seem that in compiling their rules, UeFA have already complied with European law and also Swiss Law. As Socs said, it looks pretty watertight. They have also ensured the support of the (almost) all powerful European Commission, so the political muscle is there too.
UeFA's proposed sliding scale of penalties for non compliance does mean they will have to ensure that clubs are treated equally. Failure to do so would open opportunities to challenge.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the FFP is merely the current tool being used to safeguard the political and financial gains made by the elite clubs and as such, the political ambitions of the elite clubs could remain the major threat to City in the longer term. We remain pretty isolated at present, disliked by the jealous clubs we have left behind us and certainly not (yet?) accepted by the elite clubs, who perceive us as a threat.
The political factor could inhibit our wish to challenge even if we had a case. I think our masters would much prefer to comply and not create any further enemies or animosity at the top.

The prohibition on discrimination is guaranteed by Article 14 of the ECHR, which guarantees equal treatment in the enjoyment of the other rights set down in the convention. Protocol 12 (2000) to the ECHR, not yet ratified by all EU Member States, expands the scope of the prohibition of discrimination by guaranteeing equal treatment in the enjoyment of any right (including rights under national law).
According to the Explanatory Report to the protocol, it was created out of a desire to strengthen protection against discrimination which was considered to form a core element of guaranteeing human rights. The protocol emerged out of debates over how to strengthen sex and racial equality in particular.Uefa cannot have rules that basically discriminate against roch clubs,it is illeagal.

Discrimination against wealth is certainly allowed!!

If it were not then higher rates of tax for top earners would not be permitted. The problem is that one man's discrimination is another man's equality, one man's freedom is another man's oppression.

[Rag_hater]

Rag Hater,
You are right to a point, but it would seem that in compiling their rules, UeFA have already complied with European law and also Swiss Law. As Socs said, it looks pretty watertight. They have also ensured the support of the (almost) all powerful European Commission, so the political muscle is there too.
UeFA's proposed sliding scale of penalties for non compliance does mean they will have to ensure that clubs are treated equally. Failure to do so would open opportunities to challenge.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the FFP is merely the current tool being used to safeguard the political and financial gains made by the elite clubs and as such, the political ambitions of the elite clubs could remain the major threat to City in the longer term. We remain pretty isolated at present, disliked by the jealous clubs we have left behind us and certainly not (yet?) accepted by the elite clubs, who perceive us as a threat.
The political factor could inhibit our wish to challenge even if we had a case. I think our masters would much prefer to comply and not create any further enemies or animosity at the top.

The prohibition on discrimination is guaranteed by Article 14 of the ECHR, which guarantees equal treatment in the enjoyment of the other rights set down in the convention. Protocol 12 (2000) to the ECHR, not yet ratified by all EU Member States, expands the scope of the prohibition of discrimination by guaranteeing equal treatment in the enjoyment of any right (including rights under national law).
According to the Explanatory Report to the protocol, it was created out of a desire to strengthen protection against discrimination which was considered to form a core element of guaranteeing human rights. The protocol emerged out of debates over how to strengthen sex and racial equality in particular.Uefa cannot have rules that basically discriminate against roch clubs,it is illeagal.

Discrimination against wealth is certainly allowed!!

If it were not then higher rates of tax for top earners would not be permitted. The problem is that one man's discrimination is another man's equality, one man's freedom is another man's oppression.

I would argue you are wrong.

All of the rights and freedoms contained in the Human Rights Act must be protected and applied without discrimination.
Article 14 requires there be no discrimination in the application of human rights on any ground.

[blues-clues]

Rag Hater,
You are right to a point, but it would seem that in compiling their rules, UeFA have already complied with European law and also Swiss Law. As Socs said, it looks pretty watertight. They have also ensured the support of the (almost) all powerful European Commission, so the political muscle is there too.
UeFA's proposed sliding scale of penalties for non compliance does mean they will have to ensure that clubs are treated equally. Failure to do so would open opportunities to challenge.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the FFP is merely the current tool being used to safeguard the political and financial gains made by the elite clubs and as such, the political ambitions of the elite clubs could remain the major threat to City in the longer term. We remain pretty isolated at present, disliked by the jealous clubs we have left behind us and certainly not (yet?) accepted by the elite clubs, who perceive us as a threat.
The political factor could inhibit our wish to challenge even if we had a case. I think our masters would much prefer to comply and not create any further enemies or animosity at the top.

The prohibition on discrimination is guaranteed by Article 14 of the ECHR, which guarantees equal treatment in the enjoyment of the other rights set down in the convention. Protocol 12 (2000) to the ECHR, not yet ratified by all EU Member States, expands the scope of the prohibition of discrimination by guaranteeing equal treatment in the enjoyment of any right (including rights under national law).
According to the Explanatory Report to the protocol, it was created out of a desire to strengthen protection against discrimination which was considered to form a core element of guaranteeing human rights. The protocol emerged out of debates over how to strengthen sex and racial equality in particular.Uefa cannot have rules that basically discriminate against roch clubs,it is illeagal.

Discrimination against wealth is certainly allowed!!

If it were not then higher rates of tax for top earners would not be permitted. The problem is that one man's discrimination is another man's equality, one man's freedom is another man's oppression.

I would argue you are wrong.

All of the rights and freedoms contained in the Human Rights Act must be protected and applied without discrimination.
Article 14 requires there be no discrimination in the application of human rights on any ground.

Arguing is pointless. The human rights act will never be applied in this way. I don't believe that you think otherwise!

It is flawed legislation, built upon a perceived moral code that does not reflect the beliefs or behaviour of those it is designed to protect. The inevitable and consequential result is that it is repeatedly ignored or abused in its application, manipulated to point that the outcome is contrary to the common perception of justice.

[Rag_hater]

Rag Hater,
You are right to a point, but it would seem that in compiling their rules, UeFA have already complied with European law and also Swiss Law. As Socs said, it looks pretty watertight. They have also ensured the support of the (almost) all powerful European Commission, so the political muscle is there too.
UeFA's proposed sliding scale of penalties for non compliance does mean they will have to ensure that clubs are treated equally. Failure to do so would open opportunities to challenge.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the FFP is merely the current tool being used to safeguard the political and financial gains made by the elite clubs and as such, the political ambitions of the elite clubs could remain the major threat to City in the longer term. We remain pretty isolated at present, disliked by the jealous clubs we have left behind us and certainly not (yet?) accepted by the elite clubs, who perceive us as a threat.
The political factor could inhibit our wish to challenge even if we had a case. I think our masters would much prefer to comply and not create any further enemies or animosity at the top.

The prohibition on discrimination is guaranteed by Article 14 of the ECHR, which guarantees equal treatment in the enjoyment of the other rights set down in the convention. Protocol 12 (2000) to the ECHR, not yet ratified by all EU Member States, expands the scope of the prohibition of discrimination by guaranteeing equal treatment in the enjoyment of any right (including rights under national law).
According to the Explanatory Report to the protocol, it was created out of a desire to strengthen protection against discrimination which was considered to form a core element of guaranteeing human rights. The protocol emerged out of debates over how to strengthen sex and racial equality in particular.Uefa cannot have rules that basically discriminate against roch clubs,it is illeagal.

Discrimination against wealth is certainly allowed!!

If it were not then higher rates of tax for top earners would not be permitted. The problem is that one man's discrimination is another man's equality, one man's freedom is another man's oppression.

I would argue you are wrong.

All of the rights and freedoms contained in the Human Rights Act must be protected and applied without discrimination.
Article 14 requires there be no discrimination in the application of human rights on any ground.

Arguing is pointless. The human rights act will never be applied in this way. I don't believe that you think otherwise!

It is flawed legislation, built upon a perceived moral code that does not reflect the beliefs or behaviour of those it is designed to protect. The inevitable and consequential result is that it is repeatedly ignored or abused in its application, manipulated to point that the outcome is contrary to the common perception of justice.

You show me a law that says taxing people at different rates is illeagal or discrimitory,however there are laws that prohibit Uefa applying one set of laws for us to adhere to and seperate laws for the elite.If they allow them to participate whilst running at a loss they must allow us.If they spend a 100 mill on players they must allow us.
Human rights are there regardless of how stupid and PC some think them.

[blues-clues]

You show me a law that says taxing people at different rates is illeagal or discrimitory,however there are laws that prohibit Uefa applying one set of laws for us to adhere to and seperate laws for the elite.If they allow them to participate whilst running at a loss they must allow us.If they spend a 100 mill on players they must allow us.
Human rights are there regardless of how stupid and PC some think them.

Without detailing how you thought it applied to MCFC, you proposed that treating people differently on the basis of wealth is discriminatory and therefore illegal. I used taxation as an example of a law that shows that discrimination on the basis of wealth is legal and there are many examples including benefits, healthcare and education where rich and poor humans are treated disadvantageously differently. I was arguing your point that you cannot have laws that treat people differently on the basis of their wealth. You can. We do.

[Rag_hater]

You show me a law that says taxing people at different rates is illeagal or discrimitory,however there are laws that prohibit Uefa applying one set of laws for us to adhere to and seperate laws for the elite.If they allow them to participate whilst running at a loss they must allow us.If they spend a 100 mill on players they must allow us.
Human rights are there regardless of how stupid and PC some think them.

Without detailing how you thought it applied to MCFC, you proposed that treating people differently on the basis of wealth is discriminatory and therefore illegal. I used taxation as an example of a law that shows that discrimination on the basis of wealth is legal and there are many examples including benefits, healthcare and education where rich and poor humans are treated disadvantageously differently. I was arguing your point that you cannot have laws that treat people differently on the basis of their wealth. You can. We do.

From what I have been able to learn on the subject discrimination is illegal,however the example you used to illustrate your point using the fact that people get taxed at different rates thus proving discrimination is legal is not right.The fact that people get taxed at different rates has nothing to do with discrimination.

[blues-clues]

You show me a law that says taxing people at different rates is illeagal or discrimitory,however there are laws that prohibit Uefa applying one set of laws for us to adhere to and seperate laws for the elite.If they allow them to participate whilst running at a loss they must allow us.If they spend a 100 mill on players they must allow us.
Human rights are there regardless of how stupid and PC some think them.

Without detailing how you thought it applied to MCFC, you proposed that treating people differently on the basis of wealth is discriminatory and therefore illegal. I used taxation as an example of a law that shows that discrimination on the basis of wealth is legal and there are many examples including benefits, healthcare and education where rich and poor humans are treated disadvantageously differently. I was arguing your point that you cannot have laws that treat people differently on the basis of their wealth. You can. We do.

From what I have been able to learn on the subject discrimination is illegal,however the example you used to illustrate your point using the fact that people get taxed at different rates thus proving discrimination is legal is not right.The fact that people get taxed at different rates has nothing to do with discrimination.

What is your definition of discrimination?

[Rag_hater]

You show me a law that says taxing people at different rates is illeagal or discrimitory,however there are laws that prohibit Uefa applying one set of laws for us to adhere to and seperate laws for the elite.If they allow them to participate whilst running at a loss they must allow us.If they spend a 100 mill on players they must allow us.
Human rights are there regardless of how stupid and PC some think them.

Without detailing how you thought it applied to MCFC, you proposed that treating people differently on the basis of wealth is discriminatory and therefore illegal. I used taxation as an example of a law that shows that discrimination on the basis of wealth is legal and there are many examples including benefits, healthcare and education where rich and poor humans are treated disadvantageously differently. I was arguing your point that you cannot have laws that treat people differently on the basis of their wealth. You can. We do.

From what I have been able to learn on the subject discrimination is illegal,however the example you used to illustrate your point using the fact that people get taxed at different rates thus proving discrimination is legal is not right.The fact that people get taxed at different rates has nothing to do with discrimination.

What is your definition of discrimination?

Unfair treatment .
In this case applying rules unfairly.
I'm sure that taxing people at different rates is not unlawful or unfair.

[blues-clues]

Unfair treatment .
In this case applying rules unfairly.
I'm sure that taxing people at different rates is not unlawful or unfair.

Sorry - I missed something. What case are you referring to?

[Rag_hater]

Unfair treatment .
In this case applying rules unfairly.
I'm sure that taxing people at different rates is not unlawful or unfair.

Sorry - I missed something. What case are you referring to?

We have not had our license revoked or been banned from Europe so at the moment nothing.However people are saying that these things may happen.As far as I can see we have not done anything that other clubs have done and if Uefa single us out for punishment then they are doing something that is illeagal.

[blues-clues]

Unfair treatment .
In this case applying rules unfairly.
I'm sure that taxing people at different rates is not unlawful or unfair.

Sorry - I missed something. What case are you referring to?

We have not had our license revoked or been banned from Europe so at the moment nothing.However people are saying that these things may happen.As far as I can see we have not done anything that other clubs have done and if Uefa single us out for punishment then they are doing something that is illeagal.

So to clarify. Everything is ok at the moment but you are worried that something illegal or unfair might happen?

[Blue Since 76]

I think our Etihad deal could have looked suspect. But then Liverpool and the rags came to the rescue.

It didn't help that ours was reported as a £400m deal and the likes of Arsenal were complaining that they gave their ground sponsorship deal away for £6m a season. Considering the rags got £10m a season for sponsoring a training top it will be difficult to publicise, then £40m sounds reasonable for everything that Etihad get. Throw in the Liverpool deal as well, and the Etihad deal becomes untouchable.

They could then complain about the likes of Etisalat being linked. But if football wants sponsors and the PL is the biggest league (look at the tv deal) then why wouldn't someone like Etisalat sponsor a team? Since they're from Abu Dhabi, why would they want to sponsor say Arsenal, who are in with Dubai? It would be like banning Chevrolet from sponsoring the rags, because they're both owned by Americans.

The club appears to be doing everything it can to show a willingness to comply and with the likes of PSG and the Russian clubs, I think there are plenty of new targets for Platini (although he seems very quiet on PSG for some reason) and the comfy elite to worry about. We're through the doors now and the rules will help protect us, although I still think they're totally wrong.

[john68]

Rag Hater,
There is absolutely no descrimination Mate. None at all...not at the moment.
As it stands, UeFA have set a series of conditions that "ALL" clubs (rich or poor) MUST comply with in order to be granted a licence to play in their competitions. It is their competition and they have every right to set whatever conditions of compliance they choose, as long as those conditions are equally applied to all clubs.

Because they have announced a number of various sanctions that they may use against clubs who fail to comply, they must treat clubs they sanction equally. If City fail to meet the FFP requirements, they MUST be treated exactly the same way as any other club who fails for the same reasons.

As it stands, UeFA are not descriminating against any clubs, as the conditions apply to all.

[Rag_hater]

Rag Hater,
There is absolutely no descrimination Mate. None at all...not at the moment.
As it stands, UeFA have set a series of conditions that "ALL" clubs (rich or poor) MUST comply with in order to be granted a licence to play in their competitions. It is their competition and they have every right to set whatever conditions of compliance they choose, as long as those conditions are equally applied to all clubs.

Because they have announced a number of various sanctions that they may use against clubs who fail to comply, they must treat clubs they sanction equally. If City fail to meet the FFP requirements, they MUST be treated exactly the same way as any other club who fails for the same reasons.

As it stands, UeFA are not descriminating against any clubs, as the conditions apply to all.

That's basically what I'm saying.However it seems to me that some people want to use this issue to scare.What I'm trying to say is that I think Uefa cannot use this issue to make an example of us, we have not done anything that other people have not done.We may have done it better but thats no reason to ban us and if they try surely we have a legal case.