FFP - time to challenge it's legality

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

Five clubs chasing four CL spots has certainly upped the ante in England. So we are to blame for that. Whoever thought we would see the filth/Scouse miss out on Europe in favour of us?

[MilnersJaw]

FFP already been defeated

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33240826

uefa have appealed but looks like common sense is prevailing.

[Im_Spartacus]

FFP already been defeated

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33240826

uefa have appealed but looks like common sense is prevailing.

No it hasn't

[Ted Hughes]

FFP already been defeated

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33240826

uefa have appealed but looks like common sense is prevailing.

No it hasn't

The fact that they've appealed it suggests they are really anxious to screw some poor bastards over this season, irrespective of the 'relaxation' of owner investment. Must be some poor cunts threatening to outperform AC Milan or something.

[Im_Spartacus]

FFP already been defeated

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33240826

uefa have appealed but looks like common sense is prevailing.

No it hasn't

The fact that they've appealed it suggests they are really anxious to screw some poor bastards over this season, irrespective of the 'relaxation' of owner investment. Must be some poor cunts threatening to outperform AC Milan or something.

One may say 'why appeal if they are changing the rules anyway', but if they do amend the rules on July 1st, what this court case then becomes is an issue of the legality of the fines and restrictions imposed historically on us, PSG and Inter, hence UEFA have a very big problem - 50 million problems, already distributed to other clubs, which UEFA will need to refund to City/PSG, which is why they will now fight this and delay things all the way to the bitter end.

[Wonderwall]

FFP already been defeated

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33240826

uefa have appealed but looks like common sense is prevailing.

No it hasn't

The fact that they've appealed it suggests they are really anxious to screw some poor bastards over this season, irrespective of the 'relaxation' of owner investment. Must be some poor cunts threatening to outperform AC Milan or something.

One may say 'why appeal if they are changing the rules anyway', but if they do amend the rules on July 1st, what this court case then becomes is an issue of the legality of the fines and restrictions imposed historically on us, PSG and Inter, hence UEFA have a very big problem - 50 million problems, already distributed to other clubs, which UEFA will need to refund to City/PSG, which is why they will now fight this and delay things all the way to the bitter end.

which is when UEFA say, "we can't pay you back as we have already spent the money" and we then have them where we want them, they become our bitch. Shows how twisted this world can be :-)

[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.

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

At times Sparty you seem to aspire to be tendentiously pedantic.....and this comment comes from an expert in being tendentiously pedantic.

It's akin to Saddam Hussein claiming there was no reason to try him for war crimes etc etc because he never recognised the Geneva Convention.

[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

At times Sparty you seem to aspire to be tendentiously pedantic.....and this comment comes from an expert in being tendentiously pedantic.

It's akin to Saddam Hussein claiming there was no reason to try him for war crimes etc etc because he never recognised the Geneva Convention.

It's because the paragraph you highlighted was complete bollocks, sorry.

Whilst we might not like them, they have equal rights under the law, and if the judgement of the court is flawed, which in this case, it would appear to be, then they have every right to follow the appropriate process.

Like I've said somewhere above, I believe they are doing it as part of an end game to avoid paying city and PSG back, but the process is there to be used by them, just as much as by this agent who brought the case

[iwasthere2012]

Lifted shamelessly from BM. This is a response from Jean-Louis Dupont to the decision of UEFA not to go with the ruling of the Belgian Court.
Some not so veiled threats in there, I would say. Taking this course of action opens UEFA up to the issue of compensation according to Dupont.
UEFA are on dangerous ground and he suggests they are operating more in the manner of 'FIFA' than with any sort of 'Fair Play' in mind.(surprise,surprise)

He is hoping they will make the right decisions on July 1st. Interesting tmes. Let's see if Platini has the balls or is just plain stupid.


As announced, UEFA appealed against the judgment of the Brussels Court of First Instance and, based on the suspensive effect of the appeal, stated that it will not enforce the Court's judgment (the prohibition from proceeding to phase 2 of FPF until the ECJ has rendered its preliminary ruling on the UE legality of the UEFA Regulation).


On behalf of our clients, we would like to share the following statements:


- We find it unfortunate that the UEFA has chosen not to voluntarily enforce the judge's decision (such spontaneous enforcement being quite usual). At this stage, what the judge decided, after having read through thousands of pages of findings and documents and after two days of hearings, is "the Law". The refusal of legality is all the more unfortunate given that it falls against the current backdrop of the international federations' identity crises. By acting in this manner, UEFA has missed an opportunity to set itself apart from the "FIFA style". One could have hoped for a little more fair play.


- Therefore, the supporters' associations and agents we represent are forced to ask the Brussels Court of Appeal to decide, as a matter of priority (as allowed by the Belgian Judicial Code), to confer the status of "immediate enforcement" to the Court of First Instance's judgment.


- In addition, it must be noted that UEFA's refusal to voluntarily enforce the judge's decision is a risky choice: if and when our clients win on the merits, the refusal will open up the right to claim damages for our clients but also for all supporters, all clubs and all agents who feel they have been wronged. The UEFA's choice therefore exposes it to considerable financial risk.


- Consequently, if UEFA shows a little humility and good legal sense, its Executive Committee (meeting on 1 July) will make not only the planned changes to FFP but also endorse the decision rendered by the judge in Brussels (maintaining phase 1 of FFP, instead of moving to phase 2). This would help reconcile UEFA with the law.


- In its latest statement, the UEFA declared that it "remained confident that FFP is fully in line with EU law and that the ECJ will simply confirm this". If this is the case, why did UEFA appeal the Court of First Instance's decision for a ruling by the ECJ? Why did it not simply accept to play this "European match" where it is obviously meant to be played, i.e. before the ECJ? And why does it not do it as soon as possible instead of doing everything in its power to postpone this necessary and unavoidable discussion (other legal proceedings are underway, including before the Paris courts, the European Commission and the Swiss Competition Commission). The UEFA's procrastination is a source of legal uncertainty. Once again, the UEFA's approach, namely "refusing the game and playing the clock", is anything but fair play.


- We are therefore looking forward to seeing the amendments to the FPF regulations that the UEFA's Executive Committee will adopt, in the hope that it will be taking a step in the right direction and that they will enable our clients to redimension their legal actions accordingly.



Jean-Louis DUPONT Martin HISSEL

[Dameerto]

Reading between the lines he seems to be threatening a 'class action' (as it would be in the US) if we have such a thing in Europe.

[phips]

Among other FFP changes:

- Spending on both youth and women's football by clubs will not count toward losses

- Sponsors or anyone else who contributes more than 30 percent off a club's revenue will be investigated to see if they are linked to the ownership.

[Im_Spartacus]

Among other FFP changes:

- Spending on both youth and women's football by clubs will not count toward losses

- Sponsors or anyone else who contributes more than 30 percent off a club's revenue will be investigated to see if they are linked to the ownership.

I think we're ok on that front aren't we? It sounds like this would be a single sponsor no?

I've always agreed with the points on related party transactions, if it's clear they are being used abusively, as would appear to be the case with PSG. In city's case, all the shouting about the Etihad deal, and today it now looks well undervalued given the size of 'genuine' deals which have superseded it in the market.

If Etihad announced a new deal for £100m a year, it still wouldn't equate to a third of our revenue, so it doesn't look like this is targeted at us, but it IS targeted to prevent another club doing what we did, which of course was the whole point of FFP in the first place.

This would suggest that they know we've made it past the drawbridge, but they are definitely making sure it stays shut this time

[Ted Hughes]

Among other FFP changes:

- Spending on both youth and women's football by clubs will not count toward losses

- Sponsors or anyone else who contributes more than 30 percent off a club's revenue will be investigated to see if they are linked to the ownership.

I think we're ok on that front aren't we? It sounds like this would be a single sponsor no?

I've always agreed with the points on related party transactions, if it's clear they are being used abusively, as would appear to be the case with PSG. In city's case, all the shouting about the Etihad deal, and today it now looks well undervalued given the size of 'genuine' deals which have superseded it in the market.

If Etihad announced a new deal for £100m a year, it still wouldn't equate to a third of our revenue, so it doesn't look like this is targeted at us, but it IS targeted to prevent another club doing what we did, which of course was the whole point of FFP in the first place.

This would suggest that they know we've made it past the drawbridge, but they are definitely making sure it stays shut this time

Etihad is not a related party deal. If it was they would have tried to stop it already. They can't.

But think about it.

That rule as stated in this simplistic way, specifies that any sponsorship deal which provides 'more' than 30% will be investigated, so therefore, one that provides 29% won't be.

29% of £400 mil, per season ? A new 'related party' sponsorship like that would more or less cover us signing Pogba & Sterling, every year. Without spending one penny of the present income. It would pretty much allow the Sheikh to put in as much money as he would ever plan on doing.

The small print might be that the 30% 'sponsor' could be the owner, thus doing away with the need for the court case. It would mean we have won, if the rule is as stated.

[Slim]

4 companies owned by the sheikh contribute £1b each to the club. Eat that percentage based cunts.

[Ted Hughes]

The thing is, that now City are in profit & have a huge turnover, these 3 deals we are trying to seal, spread over five years, probably don't even require any 'non ffp' funding.

It's just something the Sheikh could do, if he felt like it.

[Im_Spartacus]

Among other FFP changes:

- Spending on both youth and women's football by clubs will not count toward losses

- Sponsors or anyone else who contributes more than 30 percent off a club's revenue will be investigated to see if they are linked to the ownership.

I think we're ok on that front aren't we? It sounds like this would be a single sponsor no?

I've always agreed with the points on related party transactions, if it's clear they are being used abusively, as would appear to be the case with PSG. In city's case, all the shouting about the Etihad deal, and today it now looks well undervalued given the size of 'genuine' deals which have superseded it in the market.

If Etihad announced a new deal for £100m a year, it still wouldn't equate to a third of our revenue, so it doesn't look like this is targeted at us, but it IS targeted to prevent another club doing what we did, which of course was the whole point of FFP in the first place.

This would suggest that they know we've made it past the drawbridge, but they are definitely making sure it stays shut this time

Etihad is not a related party deal. If it was they would have tried to stop it already. They can't.

But think about it.

That rule as stated in this simplistic way, specifies that any sponsorship deal which provides 'more' than 30% will be investigated, so therefore, one that provides 29% won't be.

29% of £400 mil, per season ? A new 'related party' sponsorship like that would more or less cover us signing Pogba & Sterling, every year. Without spending one penny of the present income. It would pretty much allow the Sheikh to put in as much money as he would ever plan on doing.

The small print might be that the 30% 'sponsor' could be the owner, thus doing away with the need for the court case. It would mean we have won, if the rule is as stated.

I think this new rule simply means clubs with an already decent sized (eg, established Champs league) income, can receive investment from related parties (either the owner or linked to the owner), allowing the likes of Milan, Liverpool, etc - all those already in the club, to be taken over and invested in by rich owners exactly as is the current issue with both Inter and AC Milan. It would also be a boost to premier league teams given the size of the latest TV deal and giving them a significant advantage over other clubs.

Yes we would have won, but it still fucks over all those currently outside the castle. I don't think we as City fans, given our background, should ever support something that prevents other teams from being as fortunate as we are.

[Ted Hughes]

Among other FFP changes:

- Spending on both youth and women's football by clubs will not count toward losses

- Sponsors or anyone else who contributes more than 30 percent off a club's revenue will be investigated to see if they are linked to the ownership.

I think we're ok on that front aren't we? It sounds like this would be a single sponsor no?

I've always agreed with the points on related party transactions, if it's clear they are being used abusively, as would appear to be the case with PSG. In city's case, all the shouting about the Etihad deal, and today it now looks well undervalued given the size of 'genuine' deals which have superseded it in the market.

If Etihad announced a new deal for £100m a year, it still wouldn't equate to a third of our revenue, so it doesn't look like this is targeted at us, but it IS targeted to prevent another club doing what we did, which of course was the whole point of FFP in the first place.

This would suggest that they know we've made it past the drawbridge, but they are definitely making sure it stays shut this time

Etihad is not a related party deal. If it was they would have tried to stop it already. They can't.

But think about it.

That rule as stated in this simplistic way, specifies that any sponsorship deal which provides 'more' than 30% will be investigated, so therefore, one that provides 29% won't be.

29% of £400 mil, per season ? A new 'related party' sponsorship like that would more or less cover us signing Pogba & Sterling, every year. Without spending one penny of the present income. It would pretty much allow the Sheikh to put in as much money as he would ever plan on doing.

The small print might be that the 30% 'sponsor' could be the owner, thus doing away with the need for the court case. It would mean we have won, if the rule is as stated.

I think this new rule simply means clubs with an already decent sized (eg, established Champs league) income, can receive investment from related parties (either the owner or linked to the owner), allowing the likes of Milan, Liverpool, etc - all those already in the club, to be taken over and invested in by rich owners exactly as is the current issue with both Inter and AC Milan. It would also be a boost to premier league teams given the size of the latest TV deal and giving them a significant advantage over other clubs.

Yes we would have won, but it still fucks over all those currently outside the castle. I don't think we as City fans, given our background, should ever support something that prevents other teams from being as fortunate as we are.

From the small bits I've read, It appears there will be an allowance for a new owner to take over a club & basically do what Sheikh Mansour has done, & will be allowed to 'fail' ffp provided he can show a business plan which will level it out & sustain it in the future. So we would have passed with flying coulours. That's how I understand it from the first bits I've seen, anyhow.

But apparently we will not be allowed to apply to make ffp losses in the same way as anybody else, as we are being punished for doing exactly that!

I'm assuming they have agreed with us about that one, by inserting this other clause in the rule, otherwise they would get the biggest fucking over in court..

[Wonderwall]

Legal response just posted onto Bluemoon as follows by gh_mcfc

http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/threa ... st-8659469

The Response from our legal team just sent to me .

Reaction to UEFA’s changes to Financial Fair Play


Our clients (Mr. Daniel Striani, Manchester Football Club Supporters Club and supporters of Paris St Germain) have been informed of the amendments to the Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations adopted yesterday by UEFA.


First, they find the crucial measure taken, namely to allow a degree of over-spending (as long as this over-spending is guaranteed by shareholders of the club), to be precisely one of the measures they had requested before the courts. Before the judges, UEFA nevertheless argued during 2 years that such an alternative was totally incompatible with the objectives of FFP. Good to know that UEFA has finally updated its software…


UEFA says that with these amendments, FFP is evolving from a "period of austerity to a sustainable growth period." In more direct terms, UEFA is simply moving from an entirely illegal rule to a rule that becomes a little bit less illegal.


Indeed, in competition law, any excessive restriction of the freedom of enterprise is by definition illegal. With these amendments yesterday, UEFA is therefore fully confessing that the previous version of the rule was excessive and therefore illegal under competition law.


The questions referred by the Court of First Instance in Brussels to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have now been registered with the European Supreme Court under the case number C-299/15.


UEFA has appealed to the Brussels Court of Appeal of the decision of the trial judge, while stating publicly that it is fully convinced that the ECJ will confirm the legality of the regulation. If this is the case, one wonders why the UEFA makes every effort to try to delay this necessary "European game"? Why is it "playing the clock"? And why is it so desperate to avoid playing that game on its natural pitch, i.e. before the ECJ? To ask the question is, in effect, to answer it.


The questions currently before the ECJ are clearly more relevant than ever since, on the one hand, the ECJ will judge the legality of the rules that UEFA has applied to all European clubs for several years (until today) and, on the other hand, it will - by contrast - assess the legality of the new version of the regulation.


Finally, we are particularly puzzled about the fact that, according to UEFA. some clubs (those already sanctioned or under agreement procedure) will not immediately benefit from the adopted amendments. At first sight, this is absolutely discriminatory. Our clients reserve the right to inject this issue into the proceedings.


Jean-Louis DUPONT Martin HISSEL

[iwasthere2012]

Too right, Jean-Louis.
They are basically saying it is now ok for The Milans or Liverpools of this world to adopt the business model which we used and had stated would be proven correct. But we were vilified and punished for using this model.
So the punishments were unjustified but they are also saying, because we are under punishment, we can't avail of the relaxing of the rules, but have to operate under the old ones which have been proven wrong.
Please please somebody tell me I'm reading this wrong. They're just making a mockery of the game now.

[Original Dub]

I truly hope this FFP horse shite makes UEFA look every bit as corrupt as they are.

It's certainly looking that way. Blatant discrimination from start to finish. It is actually becoming a major embarrassment for them at this stage, I'd imagine.