Grobarisation soon to arrive ?

[Alex Sapphire]

John 68, I think the only way to put an end to what will be an on-going, protectionist reaction from the big clubs will be to go down the legal route. But nobody seems to want to do this, despite the obvious illegality of the restraint of trade that the new rules involve (and given football does not have special dispensation with regard to trade in the eyes of European law).

I think Al Fayed is threatening exacty that and his people are consulting lawyers

[Original Dub]

Or why has he chosen to say it in the first place when 30 secs research could have told him the truth ?

I think we know the answer to that.

And to think some fucktards on this site still can't see media bias.

It is pointed out to them every week and they think those that can see it are deluded?

Mad.

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

John 68, I think the only way to put an end to what will be an on-going, protectionist reaction from the big clubs will be to go down the legal route. But nobody seems to want to do this, despite the obvious illegality of the restraint of trade that the new rules involve (and given football does not have special dispensation with regard to trade in the eyes of European law).

I think Al Fayed is threatening exacty that and his people are consulting lawyers

Good old Al Fayed. If there's one guy that doesn't like the establishment, it's that guy!

[City64]

Oh well might aswell join in ........




Fuck off dickhead !

[john68]

Peter,

From a City perspective, I think City will meet the FFPR Requirements in Europe and the Prem. I also think that if City look like failing, our owners will know far enough in advance to react legally, if they believe we have a case.

The restraint of trade argument was done ages ago and I think the conclusion is that as a private competition, UeFA have the right to set their own terms and conditions of entry. UeFA set no regulations on any club's spending, they merely say; You can't play in our competitions.
All competitions already set terms and conditions of entry now. I also think that if there were any legal loopholes, there are plenty of clubs affected by this that someone,somewhere would have already done so.
My big issue for City is that the FFPR has already had an effect on our spending policy.

Whether there are any future protectionist moves by the elite is open to conjecture but if there are, the rags/Arsenal partnership is very handily and powerfully placed.

The obvious next move would be the setting up of a European League. This has been the threat for a longtime, but now there is a slight difference. With enough seats at the core of power in FIFA and UeFA, the old elite, could possibly push it through.

[carl_feedthegoat]

Peter,

From a City perspective, I think City will meet the FFPR Requirements in Europe and the Prem. I also think that if City look like failing, our owners will know far enough in advance to react legally, if they believe we have a case.

The restraint of trade argument was done ages ago and I think the conclusion is that as a private competition, UeFA have the right to set their own terms and conditions of entry. UeFA set no regulations on any club's spending, they merely say; You can't play in our competitions.
All competitions already set terms and conditions of entry now. I also think that if there were any legal loopholes, there are plenty of clubs affected by this that someone,somewhere would have already done so.
My big issue for City is that the FFPR has already had an effect on our spending policy.

Whether there are any future protectionist moves by the elite is open to conjecture but if there are, the rags/Arsenal partnership is very handily and powerfully placed.

I think UEFA will get taken to court by some club , althogh the comps are theirs they are literally blackmailing clubs otherwise they will exclude them,hence ensur

The obvious next move would be the setting up of a European League. This has been the threat for a longtime, but now there is a slight difference. With enough seats at the core of power in FIFA and UeFA, the old elite, could possibly push it through.

I think UEFA will get taken to court by some power house club one day , althogh the comps are theirs they are literally blackmailing clubs to abide by their FINANCIAL laws otherwise they will ensure that club loses money.

Laws of the game in a competition is one thing , financial blackmail another.

[NZBlue]

The issue I have with the article is the statement about us copying United.

City are trying to establish commercial partnerships to advertise the 'brand' in China/US/Mexico not set up some naff friendly terms with Belgium teams to get around the British working visa laws.

Just out of curiosity does anyone know what could stop wealthy benefactors setting up another European style club tournament similar to the CL? Lets say for example the UAE decided to put up more cash for the winners/participants of their competition and invite clubs to play in this rather than the UEFA CL.

[john68]

The issue I have with the article is the statement about us copying United.

City are trying to establish commercial partnerships to advertise the 'brand' in China/US/Mexico not set up some naff friendly terms with Belgium teams to get around the British working visa laws.

Just out of curiosity does anyone know what could stop wealthy benefactors setting up another European style club tournament similar to the CL? Lets say for example the UAE decided to put up more cash for the winners/participants of their competition and invite clubs to play in this rather than the UEFA CL.

Using other sports as a guide, I don't suppose there is anything to stop anyone creating any competition. The only thing I would say is that the football hierarchy is pretty well established in concrete. Teams have to affiliate to the local county FA, who are affiliated to the National FA, who are affiliated to UeFA, who are affiliated to FIFA. (ankles bones connected to the...sorry just got that tune going round my head whist typing that). Opposing that hierarchy may cause some problems.

Some years ago when the G14 threatened they would set up their own European League, UeFA (Platini) told them they would be banned from UeFA if they did. The G14 reply (Rumminigge) was "Ban us and tomorrow we close the UeFA shop". Basically telling UeFA that the G14 established clubs were bigger than UeFA.

I suppose, like all things in life, the big boys tend to bully the little boys and get their own way.

[zuricity]

The issue I have with the article is the statement about us copying United.

City are trying to establish commercial partnerships to advertise the 'brand' in China/US/Mexico not set up some naff friendly terms with Belgium teams to get around the British working visa laws.

Just out of curiosity does anyone know what could stop wealthy benefactors setting up another European style club tournament similar to the CL? Lets say for example the UAE decided to put up more cash for the winners/participants of their competition and invite clubs to play in this rather than the UEFA CL.

No, google "Kerry Packer cricket"

[Socrates]

Amazes me that when the owner has access to best legal advice on earth, and it is clear the conclusion is that they must meet FFP, that posters on here think they know better.

Is NOT a restraint on trade. Is established for decades that financial rules can be applied to competitions as long as done equally to all potential competitors. Is clear that growing the business is the only solution and that everything is being done to meet ffp including hiring experts and limiting spending, even selling players and not replacing midseason, to balance the books this year.

[Original Dub]

Amazes me that when the owner has access to best legal advice on earth, and it is clear the conclusion is that they must meet FFP, that posters on here think they know better.

Is NOT a restraint on trade. Is established for decades that financial rules can be applied to competitions as long as done equally to all potential competitors. Is clear that growing the business is the only solution and that everything is being done to meet ffp including hiring experts and limiting spending, even selling players and not replacing midseason, to balance the books this year.

You were right all along.

We're doomed

[Alex Sapphire]

Amazes me that when the owner has access to best legal advice on earth, and it is clear the conclusion is that they must meet FFP, that posters on here think they know better.

Is NOT a restraint on trade. Is established for decades that financial rules can be applied to competitions as long as done equally to all potential competitors. Is clear that growing the business is the only solution and that everything is being done to meet ffp including hiring experts and limiting spending, even selling players and not replacing midseason, to balance the books this year.

I don't think rules of a "competition" can ignore competition law, but I agree that it would be very hard to contest rules which are applied equally and which the clubs indirectly and directly have had a role in defining. This is not yet black and white and the EC has given it only a qualified nod: "The Commission welcomes the adoption of measures aimed at enhancing financial fair play in European football while recalling that such measures have to respect Internal Market and competition rules" in other words we support it but it needs to comply with laws. There are tomes of academic opinion on this and none are yet conclusive until it is put to the test. I think Al Fayed's line is not "my team/business is being prevented from competing" but rather "you cannot tell me how to invest my money", and he MAY have a case.
But I agree that our management is absolutely committed to compliance

As for us copying the scum; they invented international twinning did they? and don't get me started on attributing a strategy to an entity which does not have that strategy. A better headline might be "City to show scum how it's done"

edit: Ted can you please change the post title as its just plain wrong

[carl_feedthegoat]

Amazes me that when the owner has access to best legal advice on earth, and it is clear the conclusion is that they must meet FFP, that posters on here think they know better.

Is NOT a restraint on trade. Is established for decades that financial rules can be applied to competitions as long as done equally to all potential competitors. Is clear that growing the business is the only solution and that everything is being done to meet ffp including hiring experts and limiting spending, even selling players and not replacing midseason, to balance the books this year.

Amazes me that you think you fuckign know better than anyone else to think that its impossible for this to go to court....People like Al fayad should just ring you up so he can stop making contingency plans.

[Foreverinbluedreams]

It will be challenged in court at some stage by someone

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21599222

Mr Watkins, a member of the Premier League legal advisory group, said the challenge for Uefa would be when it was faced at some stage with potentially excluding a big club from one of its competitions.

"If someone is faced with exclusion, then I think we will see some potential arguments and challenges come into play [from clubs]." he said.

He said these could be on the basis of European Union regulations which prevent "anti-competitive collusion" and which prohibit "abuse of a dominant position".

[carl_feedthegoat]

It will be challenged in court at some stage by someone

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21599222

Mr Watkins, a member of the Premier League legal advisory group, said the challenge for Uefa would be when it was faced at some stage with potentially excluding a big club from one of its competitions.

"If someone is faced with exclusion, then I think we will see some potential arguments and challenges come into play [from clubs]." he said.

He said these could be on the basis of European Union regulations which prevent "anti-competitive collusion" and which prohibit "abuse of a dominant position".

You are wrong mate - THE BULBOUS HEADED CUNT above told us all so.

[Mikhail Chigorin]

Amazes me that when the owner has access to best legal advice on earth, and it is clear the conclusion is that they must meet FFP, that posters on here think they know better.

Is NOT a restraint on trade. Is established for decades that financial rules can be applied to competitions as long as done equally to all potential competitors. Is clear that growing the business is the only solution and that everything is being done to meet ffp including hiring experts and limiting spending, even selling players and not replacing midseason, to balance the books this year.

Amazes me that you think you fuckign know better than anyone else to think that its impossible for this to go to court....People like Al fayad should just ring you up so he can stop making contingency plans.

To be fair, Carl, I don't think Socs is trying to demonstrate that he knows better than anyone else; it's more a case of introducing a note of hard (if unpalatable) reality, based upon his knowledge of the topic.

The correct solution to FFP compliance is, as stated, to grow the business and our owners are doing this at an increasing pace. This, coupled with our recent relative inactivity in the transfer market and the potential off-loading of ("surplus" ??) players in the summer, shows that a strategy is being effected and it is this, rather than legal challenges, which will ultimately prevail.

On a different tack, I was reading about Arsenal the other day and their financial projections. They, currently, are showing a pre-tax profit of around £17million but their salaries outlay will, next financial year, increase from £142million to £155million. It was also reported that they have a cash balance of £123million set aside for transfer transactions, or whatever.

However, since then, it has been reported that the Arsenal wage structure is to be overhauled and the current restrictions removed, which could result in their projected figure of £155million being far too conservative a sum.

Against a background threat of non-qualification for the Champions League, it now seems they are also gearing up to sign several "star" players in the summer and to spend upwards of £70million to achieve this, which will make further inroads into their wages/salary outlay. However, given that £70million might buy perhaps two world class players, this figure might have to be doubled to give them a realistic chance of competing for the title, but which would also exhaust their carefully nurtured cash balance of £123million.

If all these alleged/reported intentions pan out, it's ironic that Arsenal, who are trumpeted as the (apparent) epitome of a "well run club", could be reduced to one which is making trading losses each year and which has no cash reserves in hand - all on the altar of chasing European and domestic success and competing with "the big boys" (reminds you of Leeds United in the past).

It's doubly ironic that they might even fall foul of the domestic FFP version they are trying to introduce and that season ticket prices might have to be raised even further, as a result.

[carl_feedthegoat]

Amazes me that when the owner has access to best legal advice on earth, and it is clear the conclusion is that they must meet FFP, that posters on here think they know better.

Is NOT a restraint on trade. Is established for decades that financial rules can be applied to competitions as long as done equally to all potential competitors. Is clear that growing the business is the only solution and that everything is being done to meet ffp including hiring experts and limiting spending, even selling players and not replacing midseason, to balance the books this year.

Amazes me that you think you fuckign know better than anyone else to think that its impossible for this to go to court....People like Al fayad should just ring you up so he can stop making contingency plans.

To be fair, Carl, I don't think Socs is trying to demonstrate that he knows better than anyone else; it's more a case of introducing a note of hard (if unpalatable) reality, based upon his knowledge of the topic.

The correct solution to FFP compliance is, as stated, to grow the business and our owners are doing this at an increasing pace. This, coupled with our recent relative inactivity in the transfer market and the potential off-loading of ("surplus" ??) players in the summer, shows that a strategy is being effected and it is this, rather than legal challenges, which will ultimately prevail.

On a different tack, I was reading about Arsenal the other day and their financial projections. They, currently, are showing a pre-tax profit of around £17million but their salaries outlay will, next financial year, increase from £142million to £155million. It was also reported that they have a cash balance of £123million set aside for transfer transactions, or whatever.

However, since then, it has been reported that the Arsenal wage structure is to be overhauled and the current restrictions removed, which could result in their projected figure of £155million being far too conservative a sum.

Against a background threat of non-qualification for the Champions League, it now seems they are also gearing up to sign several "star" players in the summer and to spend upwards of £70million to achieve this, which will make further inroads into their wages/salary outlay. However, given that £70million might buy perhaps two world class players, this figure might have to be doubled to give them a realistic chance of competing for the title, but which would also exhaust their carefully nurtured cash balance of £123million.

If all these alleged/reported intentions pan out, it's ironic that Arsenal, who are trumpeted as the (apparent) epitome of a "well run club", could be reduced to one which is making trading losses each year and which has no cash reserves in hand - all on the altar of chasing European and domestic success and competing with "the big boys" (reminds you of Leeds United in the past).

It's doubly ironic that they might even fall foul of the domestic FFP version they are trying to introduce and that season ticket prices might have to be raised even further, as a result.

NOONE is saying that the FFP can be beat , they are saying that it might get taken to court and then its anyones guess what the outcome would be.
To dismiss the idea that it could go to court and contest it is beyond arrogant.

[Socrates]

What I'm saying is that you are clutching at straws in thinking the European Court would have any interest in this whatsoever. Time to accept that we are now going for growth of income first and that the accelerated spending period is behind us. We won't be spending £50m on a player anytime soon and will have to settle for just being one of several clubs that win trophies, there will not be a period of domination like our neighbours had. Is time to make our expectations realistic instead of the hysteria we have seen when the owner hasn't opened his pockets sufficiently for some spoiled brats in some transfer windows. What we should be adjusting to is an expectation of finishing in the top 3 every year, Champions league every year, winning a trophy more seasons than not and growing the brand and developing the academy as we go. The academy project may give us a period of domination one day, in the meantime further success cannot be bought by an open cheque book alone. Time to move on from that.

May I add, that as during the period when it was clear they could no longer wait for Hughes to fail, my only aim is to justify the necessary actions of owners in the face of this despicable FPP regime.

[Foreverinbluedreams]

What I'm saying is that you are clutching at straws in thinking the European Court would have any interest in this whatsoever. Time to accept that we are now going for growth of income first and that the accelerated spending period is behind us. We won't be spending £50m on a player anytime soon and will have to settle for just being one of several clubs that win trophies, there will not be a period of domination like our neighbours had. Is time to make our expectations realistic instead of the hysteria we have seen when the owner hasn't opened his pockets sufficiently for some spoiled brats in some transfer windows. What we should be adjusting to is an expectation of finishing in the top 3 every year, Champions league every year, winning a trophy more seasons than not and growing the brand and developing the academy as we go. The academy project may give us a period of domination one day, in the meantime further success cannot be bought by an open cheque book alone. Time to move on from that.

May I add, that as during the period when it was clear they could no longer wait for Hughes to fail, my only aim is to justify the necessary actions of owners in the face of this despicable FPP regime.

I agree it's time to move on, it's obvious that the spending that we saw was because these rules were coming into force down the road and we had to get in there before the door slammed shut.

But I don't agree that this won't go to court, I'm convinced someone will challenge this, whether they win or not is anyone's guess.

[carl_feedthegoat]

What I'm saying is that you are clutching at straws in thinking the European Court would have any interest in this whatsoever. Time to accept that we are now going for growth of income first and that the accelerated spending period is behind us. We won't be spending £50m on a player anytime soon and will have to settle for just being one of several clubs that win trophies, there will not be a period of domination like our neighbours had. Is time to make our expectations realistic instead of the hysteria we have seen when the owner hasn't opened his pockets sufficiently for some spoiled brats in some transfer windows. What we should be adjusting to is an expectation of finishing in the top 3 every year, Champions league every year, winning a trophy more seasons than not and growing the brand and developing the academy as we go. The academy project may give us a period of domination one day, in the meantime further success cannot be bought by an open cheque book alone. Time to move on from that.

May I add, that as during the period when it was clear they could no longer wait for Hughes to fail, my only aim is to justify the necessary actions of owners in the face of this despicable FPP regime.

I agree it's time to move on, it's obvious that the spending that we saw was because these rules were coming into force down the road and we had to get in there before the door slammed shut.

But I don't agree that this won't go to court, I'm convinced someone will challenge this, whether they win or not is anyone's guess.

Which was my whole fuckign point...how anyone can argue the fact is beyond me.