MilnersJaw wrote: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 wrote:MilnersJaw wrote: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 wrote:Im_Spartacus wrote:MilnersJaw wrote: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 wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:Im_Spartacus wrote:MilnersJaw wrote: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.
Im_Spartacus wrote:Mikhail Chigorin wrote:JamieMCFC wrote: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
Mikhail Chigorin wrote:Im_Spartacus wrote:Mikhail Chigorin wrote:JamieMCFC wrote: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.
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.
phips wrote: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 wrote:phips wrote: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 wrote:Im_Spartacus wrote:phips wrote: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.
Im_Spartacus wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:Im_Spartacus wrote:phips wrote: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.
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
Return to The Maine Football forum
Users browsing this forum: ayrshireblue, BlueinBosnia, Dubciteh, gilford and 209 guests