|
Post by timewaster on Feb 26, 2015 14:38:02 GMT
www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/financial-fair-play-under-threat-brussels-court-case-could-potentially-lead-to-rules-being-scrapped-10070581.htmlFinancial Fair Play under threat: Brussels court case could potentially lead to rules being scrapped Manchester City’s hopes that Financial Fair Play (FFP) might be ruled illegal rest on a potentially hugely significant court case which opens in Brussels on Thursday. The challenge to Uefa’s regime – which City fell foul of last year – has been brought by football agent Daniel Striani, and supporters of both City and Paris Saint-Germain, and will be heard over the next two days at the Court of First Instance in the Belgian capital. Striani and the fans are being represented by Jean-Louis Dupont, one of the lawyers who secured the landmark Bosman ruling 20 years ago, with Dupont preparing to argue that FFP infringes competition law and should therefore be declared illegal. European football’s governing body, Uefa – which will have its own legal representation in court – insists it has support for FFP from the European Commission, which in October decided not to investigate Striani’s case further. Legal opinion suggests that it may be more than a year before the case is resolved.The case of Karen Murphy, the Portsmouth landlady who took on the Premier League, underlines how drawn out decisions can be. Ms Murphy went to court to fight for her right to use satellite decoders to show live football intended for transmission abroad. The legal argument in the Striani case is that the break-even requirement of FFP is in breach of article 101.2 of the EU Treaty. This article prohibits cartels and other agreements that could disrupt free competition and, therefore, have an impact on consumer protection.
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Feb 26, 2015 14:42:54 GMT
I wonder if TF has contributed to funding this case?!
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Feb 26, 2015 16:14:37 GMT
As I've said all along, FFP is a load of rubbish.
This court case will make the Football League even less likely to attempt to 'punish' us, they know we can take it to court and drag it out until this case is ruled in favour of making FFP illegal which I'm fairly certain they will.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Feb 26, 2015 17:31:50 GMT
It's shame the whole thing has become such a massive mess. I wouldn't trust/expect UEFA to implement something like FFP properly anyway, especially not without loopholes and get out clauses for the top European sides, but felt it was at least good to see the unsustainable economics of football being put under the spotlight and changes being proposed to change things. In it's current form FFP was likely to be messy and held up in never-ending legal battles, but I at least liked the 'spirit' of it i.e. the principle that football clubs should operate within their means.
|
|
|
Post by timewaster on Feb 26, 2015 17:52:18 GMT
As I've said all along, FFP is a load of rubbish. This court case will make the Football League even less likely to attempt to 'punish' us, they know we can take it to court and drag it out until this case is ruled in favour of making FFP illegal which I'm fairly certain they will. Lets hope so
|
|
|
Post by blatantfowl on Feb 26, 2015 21:05:37 GMT
FFP is the right principle but whether it is correctly executed will be proved in court.
Clubs have knowingly broken the rules with the full intention of using lawyers to get away with it. It's another reminder of how far away modern football is from any notion of sporting ideals or integrity.
I hope QPR show some class when it is their turn.
|
|
|
Post by canadaranger on Feb 27, 2015 1:58:51 GMT
An alternative to FPP is a Salary Cap, same for each club, as per the NHL. But the big teams would never go for that, as it would reduce their dominance. A compromise measure would be a fixed standard salary cap, augmented by a percentage of club revenues from merchandise and ticket sales.
|
|
|
Post by nomar on Feb 27, 2015 7:44:23 GMT
FFP is designed to keep big clubs big and small clubs in their place.
If you won the Euro Lottery tomorrow and suddenly became a multi millionaire and decided to buy some league two club and spend all your money on it then why shouldn't you be able to do so?
A salary cap would end up being linked to revenue which would still favour the big clubs.
FFP means Jack Walker would never have won the Premier League with Blackburn.
Its got nothing to do with trying to get clubs to operate within their limits as it is trying to keep teams like Man Utd, Real Madrid, Barcelona on top of the football world.
It needs to go. Not just because I'm a QPR fan but because it's wrong on so many levels.
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Feb 27, 2015 8:29:47 GMT
An alternative to FPP is a Salary Cap, same for each club, as per the NHL. But the big teams would never go for that, as it would reduce their dominance. A compromise measure would be a fixed standard salary cap, augmented by a percentage of club revenues from merchandise and ticket sales. I have long been in favour of this since wages started getting stupid. The old cliche getting cranked out is a footballers life is a short one. Well there is coaching/management, TV punditary, TV commentary and various other opportunities in life after football. And the players will also have personal sponsorship deals with advertisers etc, Nike, Puma etc. I would like to see the maximum wage for any player to be restricted to 80k per week from their club. Other endorsements will easily raise their personal income upwards. If the F***er cant save any money from that, they dont deserve it.
|
|
|
Post by nomar on Feb 27, 2015 10:39:49 GMT
An alternative to FPP is a Salary Cap, same for each club, as per the NHL. But the big teams would never go for that, as it would reduce their dominance. A compromise measure would be a fixed standard salary cap, augmented by a percentage of club revenues from merchandise and ticket sales. I have long been in favour of this since wages started getting stupid. The old cliche getting cranked out is a footballers life is a short one. Well there is coaching/management, TV punditary, TV commentary and various other opportunities in life after football. And the players will also have personal sponsorship deals with advertisers etc, Nike, Puma etc. I would like to see the maximum wage for any player to be restricted to 80k per week from their club. Other endorsements will easily raise their personal income upwards. If the F***er cant save any money from that, they dont deserve it. A cap would likely still be linked to revenue though. A club like Burnley wouldn't be allowed to spend the same as Man Utd or Chelsea and neither should they. I'd also argue that a cap would restrict trade. It works in the NFL, the only sport I'm aware of where a cap exists, because its prohibitive to only 32 teams all in the same country and because they have collective bargaining. The cap would have to apply globally otherwise teams here would be hamstrung in who they could sign whilst, say, a team in Brazil could feasibly afford to sign players on wages far in excess of what the UK cap could allow. Teams should be accountable for their spending and no one wants another Leeds or Portsmouth scenario. But if a multi millionaire wants to pump his wealth into a small club with a small fan base and low gate returns in the hope of winning something like a cup or a title and is prepared to pay off any debts without going into administration I really don't see what business it is of the Football League to interfere. Teams like Man Utd don't ever want any small clubs to have a cat in hells chance of ever challenging their vicelike grip on the top of the football pyramid again like the late great Jack Walker did and that's what is behind this nonsense. I think its morally wrong.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Feb 27, 2015 10:41:58 GMT
FFP is designed to keep big clubs big and small clubs in their place. If you won the Euro Lottery tomorrow and suddenly became a multi millionaire and decided to buy some league two club and spend all your money on it then why shouldn't you be able to do so? A salary cap would end up being linked to revenue which would still favour the big clubs. FFP means Jack Walker would never have won the Premier League with Blackburn. Its got nothing to do with trying to get clubs to operate within their limits as it is trying to keep teams like Man Utd, Real Madrid, Barcelona on top of the football world. It needs to go. Not just because I'm a QPR fan but because it's wrong on so many levels. See I agree in a short term sense, but I don't think it deals with the wider longer term problems. There are massive clubs who through financial clout dominate everything - they can afford the best facilities, buy all the best players etc and stomach short/medium term debt as their owners' pockets are so deep. So I can appreciate why, like with your example, if you're a team who gets bought out by a millionaire you are more likely to relish the opportunity to compete (or in real terms, be a club capable of slotting into the large grey area between 6th and 17th in the Premier League, say) and why not? That's what the big clubs did, so why can't club X,Y,Z? The problem with that for me, in terms of football more broadly, is that it has massive repercussions throughout the game. The 'values' at the higher ends of the football transfer market are absolutely absurd - getting a millionaire owner means you can then begin to compete within that sphere. But it does not change the fact that you can only really do so by being heavily financially doped - with capital often being put in place by owners who may or may not wish to stick about for the long term. Meanwhile, other clubs are forced to essentially stagnate - you get some clubs like Swansea who buck the trend to some extent, but it reinforces the principle that the key way to compete is not a fundamental focus on youth development, smart transfer policy, sustainable growth but to luck out and become a multi-millionaire's pet project. Or in other terms, for every club like QPR who gets bought up and has money thrown at them, there are then a lot of other clubs who are now further away from being competitive through no fault other than the fact that they havn't been picked up by a millionaire. I don't think that's a systemic element of football that's a long term positive and it certainly doesn't encourage clubs to live within their means. More rich owners means more spending which means poorer clubs have to spend proportionally more to stay anywhere close to competitive which in turn encourages bigger financial risk taking and short-termism. This is not me defending FFP as it stands, I'm talking about the 'spirit' that was communicated about it by Platini and co, whether they actually meant it or not. It may well be exactly as you describe it, I don't know enough about it, but it was sold under the ideal of clubs operating on a sustainable basis, which I don't think is a bad principle to strive for. The main problem for me with how FFP works is sorta in agreement with yours really - it won't work broadly for 'football' because it will essentially stop-time and keep the top teams in place - it ends up pulling the ladder away for other clubs whilst leaving the top teams on top of the pile regardless. So I totally see where you're coming from in terms of it being unfair because it stops other clubs doing exactly what big clubs have done for years. But I still think that if we're basically fighting for the principle that being competitive = multi-millionaire owners, then I think we should be looking for something far better and sustainable than that. Not to mention the entire other issue that for a lot of people "success" as a football club doesn't only mean being owned by a millionaire and being competitive on the pitch because of your inflated transfer budget.
|
|