Platini: No Ban For Failing FFP This Time Around

[Nigels Tackle]

PSG are well and truly rimming platini as they get away with all the bullshit and then just now on SSN BREAKING NEWS they are buying DAVID LUIZ from Chelsea for £50m....wtf ????

i am sure no money has been paid in fines by City yet and expect the club will delay any payments to watch what is happening.

maybe psg are funding the move with their share of our fine that platini has promised them???

[Ted Hughes]

They are allowed to spend 49 mil on transfers this season. More if they sell players too.

At least wait until they do actually break the rule before complaining about it.

[Saul Goodman]

They PSG chairman did say thst FFP doesn't bother him and he'll get whoever he wants. If Chelsea get 50m for Luiz then good for them--that's robbery

[avoidconfusion]

Am I the only one who thinks that this Luiz deal smacks of some kind of underhand deal between Abramovich and PSG to help PSG get around FFP while lining Chelsea's pockets with £50m for a player who simply isn't worth anywhere near that much? Wouldn't surprise me if PSG announce a deal with Gazprom next.

[john@staustell]

Am I the only one who thinks that this Luiz deal smacks of some kind of underhand deal between Abramovich and PSG to help PSG get around FFP while lining Chelsea's pockets with £50m for a player who simply isn't worth anywhere near that much? Wouldn't surprise me if PSG announce a deal with Gazprom next.

No you aren't. just posted the very same in the other thread without reading this. Wouldn't be too suprised if Twatini was involved too, with his son and all.

[Wooders]

How does spending 50 million on one player "get them out of ffp"? Or are you talking about Chelsea?

[patrickblue]

It looks as if City feel they have won a bit of a victory.

http://www.cheshire-today.co.uk/26948/

[center]Man City claim victory in FFP fight[/center]

It was presented by Uefa as proof that its controversial Financial Fair Play regulations (FFP), designed to force clubs playing in European competitions to live within their means, had teeth.

In reality, the “world record fine” imposed on the club represents a major victory for the Etihad and could still be challenged by other clubs such as Arsenal.

City had been determined to challenge Uefa’s initial punishment, not because of the size of the fine but because of the future restrictions it placed on them by discounting certain revenue streams.

It also objected to Uefa’s interpretation of its own rules, particularly over players bought before 2010.

The club’s lawyers made clear that they would take the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and, more seriously, threatened to mount a challenge in the European court, questioning the legality of FFP under European law. There are already two legal challenges to FFP from unrelated parties.

Uefa, faced with its own legal advice, blinked first and although a 60 million euro fine appears swingeing, it is surrounded by caveats – with almost 80 per cent of the fine suspended.

Importantly, Uefa has agreed that City can count key revenue streams such as stadium sponsorship – even if they are from connected parties- and offset losses made by associated sports franchises.

Under these new mechanisms, City are confident that for FFP purposes they will break even in each of the next two years – so the suspended fine is essentially meaningless.

The agreement with European football’s Club Financial Control Body also included a cut in the club’s Champions League squad from 25 to 21 players and a ban on increasing the wages bill for at least a year.

This club agreed to avoid a challenge to the overall financial settlement by “affected parties” Arsenal had already made clear they would seek to challenge any ruling that put them at a disadvantage.

The wage issue was seen as a minor consideration by the club, not least because at least three of the top earners, Joleon Lescott, Micah Richards and Gareth Barry will not be at the club next year – and others such as Javia Garcia and Alexander Kolorov are also likely to be gone.

It means that City could still bring in four or five top class players without breaching the wage ceiling.

Although, City’s lawyers fought against the reduction in the Champions’ League squad, it was seen as a minor point to concede. As a club spokesman pointed out, in the previous European campaign the team had fielded a similar-sized squad.

City’s £400m Etihad sponsorship deal was passed by Uefa but the club have agreed not to increase the value of two “second-tier commercial partnerships” with other parties related to their Abu Dhabi-based owners.
A club spokesman insisted that the transfer and wage cap “will have no material impact on the club’s planned transfer activity”.

[Ted Hughes]

Once it's in Cheshire Today, it's written in stone.

Joking aside, they have a strange way of finding or copying from, or coming up with, just a little bit more new info than the obvious. You then often see a similar piece in Arabian Business etc.

But when you consider that most of the top geezers at the club & almost all the players live in Cheshire, it's not so hard to figure.

It fits in with Platini's comments about how City & PSG will proceed. As if he was saying we're basically away.

[Beefymcfc]

Cheshire Today. The Bollox, fact.

[john@staustell]

Have we posted this yet?:

21 May 2014
PRESS RELEASE
Re. :Complaint of Mr. Daniel STRIANI against the « FFP » UEFA regulation
Following reports from an unidentified source that the European Commission has decided to reject the complaint filed by Mr. Daniel STRIAN I against the UEFA rule imposing "the requirement of financial stability" (known as Financial Fair Play), Mr. STRIANI can confirm he has received a letter from the Commission's DG Competition in which it reports that it envisages rejecting the complaint.
In essence, the response contains two reasons supporting this potential rejection.
First, the Commission has expressed doubts as to the legitimate interest of Mr. STRIANI since the impact to him is indirect (the UEFA rule is aimed primarily at clubs, and penalizes agents indirectly).
Mr. STRIANI strongly disagrees with this analysis from the European Commission and shall have until June 16 to make submissions in this regard, which will provide a detailed response.
Second, the European Commission intends to support its decision by means of another reason which has not been fully explained nor released to the press by the unidentified source.
For the purpose of completeness, the letter Mr. STRIANI has received from the European Commission states the second reason as follows:
« As you will appreciate, the Commission is unfortunately unable to pursue every alleged infringement of EU competition law that is brought to its attention. The Commission has limited resources and must therefore set priorities, in accordance with the principles set out at points 41 to 45 of the Notice on the handling of complaints.
When deciding which cases to pursue, the Commission takes various factors into account and there is no fixed set of criteria.
For example, the Commission may take into account whether national courts are well-placed to examine the allegations made in a complaint. The Commission is entitled to decide not to pursue certain cases where national courts can protect the rights of a complainant in a satisfactory manner" (...).
"The Brussels Court appears to be well-placed to handle the matters raised in your complaint:
On 20 June 2013 you lodged an application (citation) before the Brussels Court requesting it to establish that UEFA has infringed the same Treaty provisions as those set out in your complaint, and to award you damages for these infringements. In your application, you develop arguments virtually identical to those set out in the complaint. The Brussels Court requested, and on 12 February 2014 received, UEFA's observations on your application (citation). You provided your observations (conclusions) on UEFA's observations on 18 April 2014. An oral hearing is scheduled for 26 and 27 February 2015.
For the reasons set out below, the Brussels Court appears to be well-placed to handle the matters raised in your complaint as your rights will be protected by that court in a satisfactory manner.
First, as shown by its request to UEFA to submit observations on your application, and UEFA's response to that request of 12 February 2014, the Brussels Court is in a position to gather the factual information necessary to determine whether the FFP, and in particular the break-even requirement, constitutes an infringement of Article 101 and 102 TFEU.
Second, the Brussels Court is able to examine whether the FFP, and in particular the break-even requirement: (i) restricts competition within the meaning of Article 101 (1) TFEU; (ii) benefits from an exemption under Article 101 (3) TFEU; and (iii) infringes Article 102 TFEU. The Brussels court can a/so apply the nullity sanction provided for in Article 101(2) TFEU and award damages for breach of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.
Third, the Brussels Court can make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union pursuant to Article 267 TFEU concerning the compatibility of the FFP, and in particular the break-even requirement, with Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. You already made a request to this effect in your application of 20 June 2013, a request which you repeated in your observations of 18 April 2014.
Fourth, the Brussels Court can take effective action because of the sui generis system established by UEFA for the purpose of participation in pan-European club competitions. The FFP uniformly applies across the EU to all clubs that participate, or want to participate, in UEFA club competitions. If the Brussels Court were to consider the break-even requirement to be contrary to Articles 101 and/or 102
TFEU, such a ruling - even if limited to the facts of the case before the Brussels Court - is likely to have an impact on the operation of that requirement across the EU.
Fifth, if the Brussels Court were to consider the break-even requirement to be contrary to Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU, you would not need to bring further actions before national courts in other Member States. This is because if the Brussels Court applied the nullity sanction provided for in Article 101(2) TFEU, the break-even requirement would also cease to produce effects in other Member States".
Mr. STRIANI therefore notes that, according to the European Commission, the Court of Brussels is well placed to decide the question of the EU legality of the UEFA rule, in particular since - according to the Commission - the national court may itself address the preliminary questions raised by Mr. STRIANI at the European Union Court of Justice and also because the Brussels Tribunal may nullify the UEFA rule, which would lead to is ceasing to exist all across the European Union. The Brussels Court is expected to rule in spring 2015.
Finally, for further background reading of the incompatibility of the UEFA rule with European competition law, please look at the recent article by Professor Nicolas Petit, entitled 'Financial Fair Play' or Rent-Seeking 'Oligopoleague'?: A Preliminary Analysis of the UEFA's Break Even Requirement Under the EU Competition Rules'. This item is available at the following
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2438399

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

That article/'ruling' basically says that FFP should be taken to court, which it should.

[john@staustell]

That article/'ruling' basically says that FFP should be taken to court, which it should.

Looks like it's scheduled for Brussels.

[Ted Hughes]

The commission is stating that one of the reasons it's not bothering with Dupont's case, is that it can only hear so many cases, & feels that the impending court case will be able to decide the outcome & is the best place to do it.

So if he wins there, the commission has already said it's happy to go along with the verdict.

Battle lines are drawn.

Read some Arsenal fans going on about this yesterday. They actually believed that was it; the case is over. They really are the stupidest of cunts. Why the fuck they go to the trouble off having detailed blogs on stuff without even researching it, God knows.

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

The commission is stating that one of the reasons it's not bothering with Dupont's case, is that it can only hear so many cases, & feels that the impending court case will be able to decide the outcome & is the best place to do it.

So if he wins there, the commission has already said it's happy to go along with the verdict.

Battle lines are drawn.

Read some Arsenal fans going on about this yesterday. They actually believed that was it; the case is over. They really are the stupidest of cunts. Why the fuck they go to the trouble off having detailed blogs on stuff without even researching it, God knows.

They are the consistently most odious group of fans. Ask them as to how it is a club that hasn't won the league in 10 years and repeatedly comes 4th is always in Pot 1 for the Champions League you'll get all sorts of answers except the correct one - it's bent in their favour. It also explains the 'miracle' of Whinger's ability to repeatedly get them into the Champions League every year. They're a bunch of hypocritical wankers.

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

The following was translated and posted on Bluemoon by BlueSinceHydeRoad (my thanks to him). It gives a very good analysis of FFP in relation to European competition law. It is a long read, but well worth the effort:

The link to the paper by Nicolas Petit of the University of Liege was posted yesterday. The google translation was very googlish. I worked in France for several years and my French is pretty good so I have done my own translation, which I post here for those who are interested:

“Financial Fair Play” or “An Oligopoly” of rich clubs?
An analysis of FFPR and European competition law

What would happen if small political parties were not allowed to spend as much as the large parties on their election campaigns?

This is the question, apparently far removed from competition law, which UEFA's new regulations, supposed to introduce “Financial Fair Play” (henceforth referred to as FFPR) between the football clubs (referred to henceforth as “the clubs”) taking part in its prestigious competitions, make us think about. FFP regulations rest on one simple rule' the “break even requirement. In very simple terms, clubs are not allowed to spend more than they have earned in previous seasons. So, if the annual revenue of Real Madrid (from ticket sales, sponsorship, TV rights, merchandising etc) is estimated to have been €500 million, it may not spend more than this figure. Similarly for Standard Liege whose income of about €25 million will set the ceiling on how much it can spend in future years. Violation of the obligation to break even will expose guilty clubs to sanctions: fines, a ban on bringing in new players, exclusion from the Champions League and Europa League etc. Only last week UEFA imposed on PSG and 8 other clubs fines rising to €60 million for infringements of FFPR.

The FFPR and the press releases of UEFA executives throw light on the aims of the break even requirement. On the one hand, it is to guarantee the long term financial stability of the clubs by compelling them to “bring their wages bill under control” by “reducing wage levels and/or limiting the number of players under contract”. In other words, the aim is to reduce “player costs” (transfer fees, wages, agents' fees etc) which have known real growth over recent years. On the other hand, the aim is to maintain the sporting integrity of UEFA's club tournaments, by making the clubs compete for the trophies “on an equal footing”, through financial self sufficiency. Put another way, the break even requirement aims at preventing sporting competition giving way to financial competition.

In the main, the popular and more specialised press has welcomed FFPR which, it believes, blows the final whistle on “football as business” and marks a return to the true values of the game. What is more, as in other sectors of the economy (investment banking, public finance etc) exhortations not to live beyond one's means are very much in accord with the spirit of the times (even if one would struggle to put the risks run by football clubs on the one hand on the same level as those run by banks and states on the other).

But one example does not set a precedent and laws on competition could well thwart UEFA's plans. Firstly, several economic studies demonstrate that any requirement to break even can result in “ossification” of competitive structures: the “big” clubs – those which at present clear the highest annual incomes – see their position reinforced, set in concrete, protected by the effects of the requirement, since the “small” clubs – those which generate the smallest annual incomes – will not be in a position to use comparable external resources to become realistic challengers. In our example, Real Madrid wpould be allowed to buy several Cristiano Ronaldos at €96 million each, while the regulations would not allow Standard Liege to pay even a third of his transfer fee. This shows how FFP may well foster the emergeance of an oligopoly of clubs kept profitable because of their past incomes (clubs rentiers de recettes historiques) – an oligopoleague – dominating UEFA competitions by virtue of their financial power.

More fundamentally, the requirement to break even challenges the way the EU should function as laid down in Article 101 of the European Treaty. From the very start, in the eyes of the law, there is no real question that UEFA is an association of “associations (national associations) of companies (the clubs)” and that, if need be, its regulations are “decisions” must be in accordance with what is laid down in Article 101 (1) of the Treaty.

Moreover, it is just as clear that FFPR, despite its sympathetic and positive name, is nothing more than a “limitation of investment” according to the definition given in paragraph 101 (1) of the treaty, which would restrict the freedom of clubs to purchase “raw materials” - players – on the market. It's true that all investment is not forbidden by FFP. The break even requirement only limits investment which leads to debt (spending is greater than income). Nevertheless the treaty forbids all attempts to limit investment without distinction between kinds of investment, and the history of the markets demonstrates that debt (sometimes referred to as “risk capital”) is one of the ways by which productive investment is financed.

By a process of trickle down, limitations on investment can produce “secondary results”, through interdependence, on other markets (tickets, merchandise, sponsorship, TV income, internet etc.

Finally, the case law on which the EC and the courts base their judgements assumes that any limitation on investment has as its very “aim” to restrict competition (so much so that it is superfluous to discuss possible consequences). In the case of the “French brewers' armistice” the Commission punished the two brewing companies which agreed among themselves to limit investment for acting as a “cartel”. The two parties were trying to bring to an end a ruinous war to acquire other brewing companies. The two groups had disguised their aims by speaking of an “armistice” and by claiming to pursue entirely laudable objectives: to ensure their integrated distribution chains broke even (?) and to rein in rising prices. More generally the precedent set in the ECJ's handling of the Irish beef case, restrictions as ambivalent as these agreements to deal with “crises” - aimed mainly at reducing over-investment – must be treated as deliberate restrictions on competition, which are contrary to article 101 (1).

It has to be acknowledged that the salvation of the requirement (to break even) may lie in the application of the precedents set in the Wouters and Meca-Medina cases – not from article 101 (3) of the treaty, which does not apply to horizontal agreements – which does accept the application of a “common sense rule” in some circumstances. To benefit from this rule it has to be shown that such a requirement is not only “inherent” in the pursuit of aims which are worthy of the protection of the law, but that it is also “proportional”.

Now, it has to be acknowledged that FFP can ensure financial stability within a club (ie income and expenditure) but at the same time it brings a state of financial disequilibrium between clubs. FFPR will reserve the right of large scale investment to a fairly small number of rich clubs – an “oligopoleague” - from which the others will be excluded. Quite obviously FFPR does not put clubs “on an equal footing”, as is claimed in its aims. Quite the contrary, they seem to hide another violation of article 101 (1), this time in sub-section (d), since it puts small clubs “at a competitive disadvantage”.It seems, in the end, incapable of re-focussing competition onto the football field (and not in the accountant's office).

The obligation to break even seems, in addition, clearly disproportional in the view of economists recent work. They have suggested less restrictive alternatives: acceptance of exceeding income if financial guarantees are given in advance (so as to eliminate the risk of a spendthrift club going bankrupt), a “luxury tax” on overspending (eg 10% on the overspend) which is to be redistributed in such a way as to promotesporting equilibrium. The disproportion is even more flagrant if to the ban on excess spending is added UEFA's plans for a ban on “third parties”. A third party might be a bank, a credit company or even a benefactor who joins with the club to finance the acquisition of a player. According to UEFA this must be forbidden or the requirement to break even as established under FFPR will be compromised.

For the present, a players' agent is pursuing a case in one of the French speaking courts in Brussels. He has asked the court to to request the ECJ to pronounce on whether the FFPR are compatible with European competition law. It is to be hoped that the court in Brussels deals with this request with due haste because in view of what is at stake, of the complexity of the case and its importance for the whole of Europe, it is in the interests of all those concerned with football to be clear once and for all if the obligation to break even is valid in law and the only institution which can decide on how the European Treaty must be interpreted is the ECJ.

[Dameerto]

Interesting read - basically agreeing with the thought that it's ultimately anti competitive and designed to protect the financial interests of the European elite clubs against the nouveau riche. Interesting that it suggests a possible angle for legal challenge too.

[Beefymcfc]

Platini has never disguised the fact of why these rules were implemented, he's said so on many occassions. The strange thing is that those who report on such things now see it as some sort of fair-minded way of relieving the burden placed on clubs with regard to debt.

Maybe it's what the G14/Sky 4 loving media wanted, to keep their own clubs at the top on allowing them further Rag loving commentary for their beloved fans.

[walshawblue]

A very good article and a must read for ant football fan


WARNING LONG ARTICLE
http://www.thedaisycutter.co.uk/2014/05 ... rong-plan/

[john@staustell]

Excellent article. Should be sent to every fan in the Europe!

[paulyboi]

Although I was massively envious of the two clubs playing in UEFA's showcase match the other night, and despite my dream of watching City run out in front of the world, I'm starting to think the club should have just told UEFA to go fuck themselves and see you in court. This is clearly a carve up masquerading as a benefit. If our owners simply spent what they felt necessary , won the league and then sat out the Champions League, it'd eventually come round that everyone realised they were watching the equivalent of the Moscow or LA Olympics where every winner needs an asterisk by their name to denote the missing challengers. How long would the international telly audiences tolerate that?
I could cope without seeing my team lift the Champions League trophy in front of that bunch of smiling mafiosi representing United, Arsenal etc. and all their arrogant self-entitlement.
Fuck 'em, I say. I'm sure it crossed ADUG's minds.