yep, for some reason City get away with it more than PSG who seem to bear the brunt of any sort of sanction big or small. Wonder why that is...
Oil Money in Football | New City expose
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) look forward to a new life under Ruben Amorim. What system will we be playing? What players will impress? and how will it all go? We also say goodbye to Ruud Van Nistelrooy and review United's 3-0 win at home against Leicester City.
yep, for some reason City get away with it more than PSG who seem to bear the brunt of any sort of sanction big or small. Wonder why that is...
nah they can "Do what they want". With the systematic and structural corruption in all the football governing bodies, there will be nothing but a slap on the wrist at best.
Football is boring now but it would be pretty interesting to see what would happen if everyone refused to play City.
I don't see how City or PSG could take Uefa to court over FFP. Its Uefas rules that every club has to comply with to be invited to play in european competition. It's not that different than being required to win a league/cup or a high league finish to qualify for the Champions/Europa League.
City and PSG aren't being forced to comply with FFP then can ignore it if they want but then they won't get to play in europe.
Having said that obviously it seems like Uefa have been letting PSG and City especially circumvent the rules. Doubt it's down to fear though, unless fear is delivered in large brown envelopes.
Leagues and federations cannot simply do what they want, they have to comply with local law. That's the main point of the Bosman ruling.
There can be exceptions for sport but it's case by case and can be challenged before the appropriate court.
Yes they can - it’s their league/tournament, they make the rules. Next you’ll be saying City and PSG can demand 4 points instead of 3 for a win.
The best solution is for UEFA and the Premier League to clearly define and enforce their rules, and if any club isn’t happy with them, to make alternate arrangements elsewhere and leave the majority to enjoy the sport again.
The lengths most City and PSG fans will go to vindicate their clubs’ anti-sport immorality is hilarious.
So, if they said teams entering the CL had to be all white and that they were replacing the yellow card with one leg being amputated and a second yellow sees the other leb being removed, that would be ok because 'they make the rules'?
Of course they can, FFP is simply part of the criteria for being invited to sporting competitions along with league/cup placings, unless they are discriminating on the grounds of race/religion etc. then local laws don't come into it. They can invite or not invite any team they wish based on the criteria they have in place. You have to comply with FFP to be eligible to be invited, other leagues have similar rules. If Uefa suddenly decided to change it so only the two top sides qualified from all the major leagues for the CL then the teams that place 3rd and 4th couldn't threaten to sue them.
The Bosman ruling was about the freedom of movement of players, clubs were retaining players registrations and demanding transfer fees for them even after their contracts had ended and they were no longer employing them.
The first part of that would be discrimination which is illegal, FFP isn't discrimination based on race or religion. The second part about amputations is just ridiculous but no doubt also illegal.
I'm no European lawyer but we've now agreed that Uefa does have to work within a legal framework and AP88 was wholly incorrect to say they make the rules and anything goes. As challenging FFP in the 'courts' has often been mooted which law do you think would be challenged? Would preventing an owner investing in their own company breach European Competition Law for example?
UEFA can't make rules to exclude teams based on discrimination etc, but they can definitely set financial limits as they did with FFP.
Nope Uefa haven't tried to stop anyone from investing in their clubs, owners can invest as much as they like into the stadium/training ground/Academy/infrastructure of their club. And it doesn't affect them with regards to FFP.
The goal of FFP was to keep clubs sustainable by not allowing owners to pump outside money into players fees/wages beyond what a club can sustain through their own income. The owners of a club could of course choose to ignore this if they wish but then they wouldn't be invited to european competition. Uefa are not stopping investment, so there is no case to be made.
This international sports lawyer thinks its less clear-cut:
'FFP has been described ‘legally fragile’, which is an apt description. This is because the rules cannot be said to be unquestionably permissible under European Union (EU) law; nor can they be said to be categorically in breach of EU law. The rules exist in a regulatory ‘grey’ area – FFP, in its particularly in its original, more restrictive, guise, may or may not have been illegal. This is a question for a competent (judicial) authority to decide'
http://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/...background-and-eu-law-by-christopher-flanagan
So in other words he doesn't have a clue but he would have loved City or PSG to pay him lots of money to take it to court.
If City and/or PSG could have simply hired a few lawyers and taken it to court to get FFP removed they would have. That would have been way easier and less expensive than hiring an army of lawyers and accountants to cook their books, set-up multiple fake sponsorships, and moving money around dozens of 3rd party companies to funnel back into their clubs.
Don't you think either club would have just went down the easier route?
I wonder what the City fans think about ground regulations set in each tier that often prevent sides from being promoted to a higher division. These are conditions of entry, just as FFP is.
Of course, as is the case with FFP, clubs who are not up to standard, are afforded the opportunity to comply with the regulations.
The rules are almost universally accepted. However they are far from universally implemented. Certain clubs and organisations are a disgrace to the sport.
Of course, as is the case with FFP, clubs who are not up to standard, are afforded the opportunity to comply with the regulations.
The rules are almost universally accepted. However they are far from universally implemented. Certain clubs and organisations are a disgrace to the sport.
That would have lasted god knows how long, and would've put them in public open conflict with UEFA (Bosman's case dragged on for 5-6 years if i recall correctly). Maybe they wanted to avoid that as long as they were left alone, considering that money is no issue for them?
Indeed, in which case they could have did what they are currently doing to compete in Europe and comply with FFP. Whilst also taking them to court at any point in the last decade to get FFP removed for future convenience. But they didn't most likely because they know there is no real case to make on it.
But had they complied in the first place, they would have had to spend less which would obviously impact the results to an extent. They might have gambled on UEFA being reluctant to fully prosecute FFP breaches if it's true that it's a legal gray area. I don't think anyone, even with a legal background, can be 100% certain what would the possible outcome be if it really ended up in court at some point.
https://boltfromtheblue.live/2018/11/18/how-uefa-shifted-the-goalposts-to-shaft-man-city/
just so we can see the view from the other side
just so we can see the view from the other side
No, I think City (can't speak for PSG) would have preferred to have a positive relationship with Uefa rather than aggressively challenge them in court. I'm also not convinced that it would have been 'way easier' to take the course of action you suggest. In fact, leaks not withstanding, the way its played out would suggest that course of action was largely correct.
As I said initially I have no legal background so cannot speak with any degree of certainty. You appear very sure of the legal framework around FFP so I'm going to bow out.
And your thoughts on the Premier League regulations vis a vis away fans being pitchside?
I'm no expert either mate, as you point out even sports lawyers aren't sure so it's not a sure thing either way. I just feel that if they could have went to court to smash FFP they would have instead of all the nonsense they have been doing. I also doubt they would have cared about taking Uefa on, especially if they were confident of winning.
Tell me more about how simply stating that UEFA still has to comply with EU law is "hilariously going to great lengths to vindicate one clubs’ anti-sport immorality. Looking forward to reading your intellectually breathtaking thoughts developed in depth on the subject, could be a real eye opener.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion. Now if some posters feel entitled to throwing shade at entire oppo fanbases who, unlike them, back up their points with solid arguments, then I may ask them to back it up more seriously or call them out for it.
This is a MUFC board I get it, but if you want to turn it into a place where all opinions that don't align with MUFC's interests get ridiculed in an obnoxious way we may have a disagreement about what the Football Forum is for.
PSG’s and City’s owners ARE a disgrace to football though. Everyone knows it.
Thank you for your contribution.
People saying UEFA is entitled to do whatever it wants are incorrect, there are numerous regulations which must be followed, whether FFP is in breach of them is another thing.
As for those saying why City haven't challenged them, there was a challenge taken in 2015 that was dismissed but it wasn't actually about the legality of FFP itself but about the punishment Galatasaray faced. For those interested this is the ruling:
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/CASdecisions/02/42/66/95/2426695_DOWNLOAD.pdf
For those without the time or inclination to read it, basically Galatasaray lost but Uefa didn't get a "this is totally fine". If more evidence presents itself that the regulations have stymied competition uefa will struggle, as will an indication that the regulations were put in place to support big clubs. Galatasaray were also hurt by the fact they didn't claim until after they faced restrictions. It's an interesting read for people with legal experience but it pretty clearly indicates why neither side is keen to take the other to court.
As for those saying why City haven't challenged them, there was a challenge taken in 2015 that was dismissed but it wasn't actually about the legality of FFP itself but about the punishment Galatasaray faced. For those interested this is the ruling:
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/CASdecisions/02/42/66/95/2426695_DOWNLOAD.pdf
For those without the time or inclination to read it, basically Galatasaray lost but Uefa didn't get a "this is totally fine". If more evidence presents itself that the regulations have stymied competition uefa will struggle, as will an indication that the regulations were put in place to support big clubs. Galatasaray were also hurt by the fact they didn't claim until after they faced restrictions. It's an interesting read for people with legal experience but it pretty clearly indicates why neither side is keen to take the other to court.
So that's the plan that Mourinho had last week ;-)
Hahaha
Nothing in EU law prohibits an organisation from stipulating the criteria of participation in its competition, outside of basic Human Rights violation; in your warped little reality, what stops Cardiff City from demanding access to the Champions League? Does ‘EU Law’ prevent UEFA from allocating just 4 places to the English FA?
There is nothing more cringeworthy than City and PSG fans’ sycophantic defence their savage Sharia sugar daddies - your clubs have bent over and been lubed up with oil, willingly becoming the sheep’s clothing in which the tyrannical wolves have infiltrated football with.
Interesting that a supporter of a club owned by a backwards Islamist State - where workers are treated inhumanly and are dropping like flies to facilitate the most impractical, corrupt World Cup to date - would seek support from EU Trade Ethics to facilitate it’s dubious conquest. If the despotic shithole was situated on the West, NATO would have wiped it off the map a long time ago.
New Jersey residents are as central to New York City as Stockport residents are to Manchester City.
Nobody takes going to court lightly. Apart from the time, hassle, costs & uncertainty (no legal case is watertight), it's also extremely damaging to future relationships.
I had an instance with my job just this week where my firm were acting on behalf of one client in an advisory position (we are not lawyers) and another firm claimed breach of trademark by our client. Both sides felt they had a strong position. A simple financial settlement was agreed upon to avoid court, whereby our client paid the other side a relatively small sum to avoid fighting an injunction and the other side settled for a fraction of their original claim. It's a perfectly normal commercial practice and that really is all that happened between UEFA and City/PSG. The facts, or who knew which facts when, such as the latest revelations, really don't change any of that. Both sides have to guess what the other side know and how strong a case they internally feel they have compared to their public face, when making a decision to settle
If one reads the actual quotes in der spiegel (assuming they are true and of course understanding they may be out of context, just like the editing of a TV show), what city are alleged to have said is that above a certain point, they would prefer to engage an army of lawyers to fight FFP rather than pay the fine. Looked at in the context of the above, again it's just standard practice
The comments that borderline rejoice in someone's death are an entirely different matter and whether intended for internal use only or not, should rightly be condemned but that's because of basic decency and professionalism
This might interest our resident legal experts:
Uefa president Aleksander Ceferin: "We know that we have to modernise. We know we have to check the rules and regulations all the time. We know that the situation in the football market is changing all the time. So that's also part of our thinking for the future - do we have to do something about the regulations to be more robust? Yes."
"It's the start of the debate. It's a bit premature to speak about it but we acknowledge the rules might be weak in certain points. Also laws in certain countries are changing all the time [and] adopting to modern times."
More nice stuff from UAE. I wonder if the City owners will step in.
The reality is that if you have a team of competent lawyers on retainer, you can make legal proceedings go on forever (especially in this case where the actual basis of the rules is unstable). The sad truth is that you don't always win a case because you're legally right, it's sometimes (often?) down to resources.
As someone who travels quite a bit, this kind of shit is never not terrifying. It makes you feel like you're only one wrong stopover on an Emirates or Ethihad flight from being wrongfully detained in a Middle Eastern prison.
Jesus fecking Christ, does there really need to be ''evidence'' of City's MASSIVELY overvalued sponsorshops when they are blatant as day?.
They earn double what both Liverpool & Arsenal even though they're not even a 10% the size of those clubs.
Yep. My thoughts exactly.
Spying's dangerous.
I don't know - would you accept prosecution for an offence if there was no evidence or if the evidence was gained in a manner that the UK didn't accept was admissable ? What about if you had signed a binding settlement ?