Manchester City facing Financial Fair Play sanctions

united_99 said:
And, accoring to other reports he somehow now is on 240 k plus some kind of innovative marketing deals
from which both Rooney and the club will profit and stuff like that.
Click to expand...

I was going by BBC who are probably most reliable.
 
RedRover said:
Think about how much revenue a European "super league" could generate. Seeing Europe's best up against each other every week? Its a global game now and the top clubs no longer have to rely on people living a stones throw from the ground for their income. The sums raised on a match day pale into insignificance to the huge commercial sponsership deals, never mind how much a club could make televising all of its matches with no need to act under the PL rules.

Its been mooted before and I personally think, long term this is the way football will go. Not sure if its positive or negative mind you.
Click to expand...
We've been talking about a European Superleague since the mid-80s. It isn't going to happen any time soon, unless some-serving cnut like Scudamore gets in. Around the turn of the century we tried bloating up the Champions League with a second group stage, but it was too many games (17 to win the competition!), players were shagged (see the fatigue of the top teams at the 2002 World Cup), and the whole thing fell on its arse. What we have now is a happy medium for the big boys - they get a balance between the bread-and-butter of domestic football that fans love, the big Champions League games at the business end of the season, and domestic cups where they can run out their bloated, talent-hogging squads.
 
BobbyManc said:
Rooney take a pay-cut for a new contract? Haha, pull the other one. That is genuine delusion if you believe he took a pay-cut. For once, the papers are in unison with their claims he is on 300k a week. The BBC, Guardian and Telegraph are the three most usually relibale papers and they all say 300k a week.

It is also no secret Mancini was pissed off with the board because he wanted Van Persie and De Rossi and got Rodwell and Garcia. Clearly, the board were not willing to spend silly money, suggesting it is unlikely we offered to make RVP our highest paid player.
Click to expand...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...rt-agreement-with-Wayne-Rooneys-new-deal.html

Of course in the end you will believe 300 k related articles on Rooney without quotes, but not 300 k articles on City offering RvP without quotes.
 
United got van Persie because that's where he wanted to go. United were made aware of his willingness to move six months prior to the transfer but knew Juventus and City were also keen. (Ferguson alluded to this in his book.)

Of course van Persie was lucratively compensated but it's well established he was offered more at City. The player himself suggested this many times (without naming City but we all know that's who he meant).

It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest City are a more attractive proposition for footballers than United.

Hell, Clichy even gave an interview circa. 2009 lambasting the notion that players go there (City) for footballing reasons, and there he was himself a season or two later.

City: the gift that keeps on giving.
 
united_99 said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...rt-agreement-with-Wayne-Rooneys-new-deal.html

Of course in the end you will believe 300 k related articles on Rooney without quotes, but not 300 k articles on City offering RvP without quotes.
Click to expand...

My point is some papers claimed we offered RVP 300k a week, others disagreed. However, Rooney's wages being 300k a week is in every single paper. The very notion he would take a pay-cut genuinely made me laugh.

It is pointless disputing this anway, we are just going back and forth.
 
Well, it's also in papers that he is NOT on 300 k, I provided you with the Telegraph link, so no point on insisting on 300k if the same paper has now only recently claimed something else.
 
nahealai said:
United got van Persie because that's where he wanted to go. United were made aware of his willingness to move six months prior to the transfer but knew Juventus and City were also keen. (Ferguson alluded to this in his book.)

Of course van Persie was lucratively compensated but it's well established he was offered more at City. The player himself suggested this many times (without naming City but we all know that's who he meant).

It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest City are a more attractive proposition for footballers than United.

Hell, Clichy even gave an interview circa. 2009 lambasting the notion that players go there (City) for footballing reasons, and there he was himself a season or two later.

City: the gift that keeps on giving.
Click to expand...

A team managed by David Moyes currently sitting 7th in the league. A team managed by Manuel Pellegrini currently sitting 3rd (2nd if games in hand are won).

Two most important things in a players decision, provided he doesn't support the club: Money and chance of winning trophies. If the money is equal, trophies is then the most important thing. City, as things stand, have a better chance of winning trophies. In 2009 the situation was different, hence Clichy's quote.

I think you'll struggle to find many non-United fans who agree that United are a more attractive proposition than City. That's because you take into account the club's history and global reputation which to a player is pretty immaterial. He just wants money and trophies.
 
BobbyManc said:
My point is some papers claimed we offered RVP 300k a week, others disagreed. However, Rooney's wages being 300k a week is in every single paper. The very notion he would take a pay-cut genuinely made me laugh.

It is pointless disputing this anway, we are just going back and forth.
Click to expand...

And even if Rooney is now on 300 k (for which there is no evidence and absolutely no quotes whatsoever), then still no paper reported that he was on that when RvP joined us (as Rooney was on his old contract then). So according to the press Rooney was then earning between 180 and 250 k. So even then RvP would be earning the same at best as no paper reported he was on more than Rooney. Whereas some reported that City were offering RvP 300 k. In the end who cares, the amount between what City and United must have offered RvP at that time can't be that different anyway.
 
Also, regarding Van Persie saying City offered him more money. Nasri has said in an interview United offered him equal wages. Even I know he is bullshitting. Point is, players lie to endear themselves to the fans. Take what they say with a pinch of salt.
 
BobbyManc said:
Also, regarding Van Persie saying City offered him more money. Nasri has said in an interview United offered him equal wages. Even I know he is bullshitting. Point is, players lie to endear themselves to the fans. Take what they say with a pinch of salt.
Click to expand...

Regarding Nasri there were rumours that United refused to pay him his signing on fee in advance - we didn't refuse to pay it over the length of the contract, just not in advance before he even had kicked a ball for us - so Nasri declined. Don't know if true or not as I didn't want him to join us anyway so didn't follow that saga too closely.
 
BobbyManc said:
A team managed by David Moyes currently sitting 7th in the league. A team managed by Manuel Pellegrini currently sitting 3rd (2nd if games in hand are won).

Two most important things in a players decision, provided he doesn't support the club: Money and chance of winning trophies. If the money is equal, trophies is then the most important thing. City, as things stand, have a better chance of winning trophies. In 2009 the situation was different, hence Clichy's quote.

I think you'll struggle to find many non-United fans who agree that United are a more attractive proposition than City. That's because you take into account the club's history and global reputation which to a player is pretty immaterial. He just wants money and trophies.
Click to expand...

The initial players went there, without a doubt, for the money. There is no way that they can say they were buying into a project when no one knew how it would turn out. Footballers do not have a very long time to be at the top of their career, so would always go for the tried and tested/safe option than go and risk their reputation. The only case where this does not apply is when there is bucket-loads of cash on offer and where they can maximise their earnings - see Falcao, Ibra, Lucas, Nasri, Yaya Toure, Thiago Silva, etc.

Now, however, players will see the City 'project' as a bit of a success, considering you have won the league, amongst other trophies. So you will be able to get players for cheaper wages than when the Sheikhs first came in. That doesn't, however, relieve you of the over-inflated wages of the players already at the club, which is partly why you are having these problems.

You are right - players want to earn as much as well as win as much as possible. That's why no top player will go to Milan now, regardless of their history.
 
bishblaize said:
You're forgetting there's a finite number of TV/media companies with a finite amount of money. Its a zero sum game. The more competitions you create, the more you split the pie. Don't forget La Liga, Premier league, Serie A etc would still exist, and still have TV deals, albeit they may shrink.

This super-league may get a big piece of the pie, but it gets further split since all the clubs in there are famous. There's no reason to assume United would get vastly more income than Real, Barca, Juve, Bayern and co.

And since you're only getting one slice of one pie, rather than one slice of several pies, there's no reason to assume it would result in more money.

Anyway this is getting away from the original point. Which was that a breakaway super league might happen for clubs like City to get away from FFP. In which case it doesn't matter how much TV money United get, City and PSG and co would always have access to 10 times as much, with no restrictions on spending.
Click to expand...

The point I was making is that United could televise the games themselves on their own channel direct to market, all around the world. That could, in theory be very lucrative, especially abroad, to United fans. You cut out the TV companies and go direct to market worldwide.

With the national leagues shot. Of their best clubs, you'd probably see the leagues popularity drop.

As regards your final point - I disagree. I take your point that's breakaway may not be more lucrative. My suggestion is that if it was mooted, and likely to benefit the clubs involved financially I think a fair few clubs would be interested.

All speculation I suppose.
 
NoArroJusBeta said:
People watch to the CL for clubs foremost not for individual players. It is not because a club has big player names, alot of people will watch them, hardly anybody watches Monaco yet they have Falcao etc as players. The attrativness of clubs is based on the numbers of supporters they have and City and PSG don't have enough supporters to be regarded as significant contributors.

A CL without those clubs would still attract alot of viewers and the revenue lose would be insignificant.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

I know lots of fans of clubs who will never play in the CL and they therefore have no loyalty.

They watch it because its the best sides and the best players. Last week my colleague and I were talking about Real Madrid game. He's a west ham fan so doesn't support either side involved. He also loves Ivrahimovic as a player so has watched PSG a few times and loves to have a craic on about it at work.

I tune in to watch CL games United aren't playing in, just like I'll be watching Real Madrid and Barca tonight.

Bottom line is if they chuck any club out it sets a precedent - which may effect other more glamorous sides in the future.
 
Gio said:
We've been talking about a European Superleague since the mid-80s. It isn't going to happen any time soon, unless some-serving cnut like Scudamore gets in. Around the turn of the century we tried bloating up the Champions League with a second group stage, but it was too many games (17 to win the competition!), players were shagged (see the fatigue of the top teams at the 2002 World Cup), and the whole thing fell on its arse. What we have now is a happy medium for the big boys - they get a balance between the bread-and-butter of domestic football that fans love, the big Champions League games at the business end of the season, and domestic cups where they can run out their bloated, talent-hogging squads.
Click to expand...

I agree to be fair, but it is a delicate balance.

The clubs hold the power inu opinion and are well aware of it. The CL as it is is suitable and the clubs will try to comply to keep it all sweet.

But, if UEFA take a hard line, and the clubs don't like it, who knows where it might lead.

UEFA need the clubs more than the clubs need UEFA. That's why I don't personally think they chuck anyone out.
 
BobbyManc said:
I don't know the exact laws and terminology for it but FFP could be challenged in court because European law does not restrict the amount of money an owner can put into a business. If PSG or City are given a punishment such as Champions League expulsion I would expect it to be challenged in court.
Click to expand...

Couldn't be challenged under those terms, because UEFA aren't banning teams from breaking FFP regulations. It's just that if they break them they can be forced to either pay a fine or won't be allowed to enter UEFA's competitions. UEFA's competitions are their property, and it's entirely at their discretion whether they let teams enter or not. This isn't the same as employing youngsters from other countries, where EU employment and free movement laws do come into play. It's just a case of 'fine, spend what you like, but you no longer fit the clearly established criteria for entry into our competition.'
 
HabeasC said:
The initial players went there, without a doubt, for the money. There is no way that they can say they were buying into a project when no one knew how it would turn out. Footballers do not have a very long time to be at the top of their career, so would always go for the tried and tested/safe option than go and risk their reputation. The only case where this does not apply is when there is bucket-loads of cash on offer and where they can maximise their earnings - see Falcao, Ibra, Lucas, Nasri, Yaya Toure, Thiago Silva, etc.

Now, however, players will see the City 'project' as a bit of a success, considering you have won the league, amongst other trophies. So you will be able to get players for cheaper wages than when the Sheikhs first came in. That doesn't, however, relieve you of the over-inflated wages of the players already at the club, which is partly why you are having these problems.

You are right - players want to earn as much as well as win as much as possible. That's why no top player will go to Milan now, regardless of their history.
Click to expand...

I disagree the initial players went there for money. It was the most important factor, but the fact they have won medals with us shows that their belief we could win things has been vindicated.

I'd say players who joined primarily for money were Adebayor, Kolo Toure and Tevez. Other than that, most of the players were making a step-up from their previous club or weren't getting game time and I believe joined us with a genuine belief they would win trophies.
 
Brightonian said:
Couldn't be challenged under those terms, because UEFA aren't banning teams from breaking FFP regulations. It's just that if they break them they can be forced to either pay a fine or won't be allowed to enter UEFA's competitions. UEFA's competitions are their property, and it's entirely at their discretion whether they let teams enter or not. This isn't the same as employing youngsters from other countries, where EU employment and free movement laws do come into play. It's just a case of 'fine, spend what you like, but you no longer fit the clearly established criteria for entry into our competition.'
Click to expand...

"Striani's challenge is expected to be based on the break-even rule restricting outside investment in clubs, dampening the transfer market and player salaries, and effectively ossifying the current hierarchy of clubs by preventing clubs operating at a loss from breaking into the top tier.

Key questions for the EU courts in considering the case include whether the system set up by UEFA is compatible with EU competition law and the Internal Market provisions, whether the objectives pursues are legitimate and, regarding restrictions on competition, whether the rules are proportionate to the objective.

In considering these matters, and the question of proportionality, other possible systems of regulation which may be less anti-competitive, may be considered, and it seems likely UEFA will have a lengthy legal battle on their hands to defend FFP, just as its effects are playing out."

http://www.insideworldfootball.com/...-today-to-start-financial-fair-play-challenge

FFP is already being challenged in court.
 
BobbyManc said:
"Striani's challenge is expected to be based on the break-even rule restricting outside investment in clubs, dampening the transfer market and player salaries, and effectively ossifying the current hierarchy of clubs by preventing clubs operating at a loss from breaking into the top tier.

Key questions for the EU courts in considering the case include whether the system set up by UEFA is compatible with EU competition law and the Internal Market provisions, whether the objectives pursues are legitimate and, regarding restrictions on competition, whether the rules are proportionate to the objective.

In considering these matters, and the question of proportionality, other possible systems of regulation which may be less anti-competitive, may be considered, and it seems likely UEFA will have a lengthy legal battle on their hands to defend FFP, just as its effects are playing out."

http://www.insideworldfootball.com/...-today-to-start-financial-fair-play-challenge

FFP is already being challenged in court.
Click to expand...

That load of bollocks is doomed to failure.
It isn't a wage cap. If a club wished to pay a player more, they need to earn more, or pay someone else less.
Just like it isn't fair that I don't get paid the same as my CEO.

Tough titties!
 
verminater said:
That load of bollocks is doomed to failure.
It isn't a wage cap. If a club wished to pay a player more, they need to earn more, or pay someone else less.
Just like it isn't fair that I don't get paid the same as my CEO.

Tough titties!
Click to expand...

People said the Bosman case was doomed to failure.
 
The thing about both City and PSG is that the vast majority of their sponsor income comes from 'companies' that are intimately related to their owners. I believe on paper both clubs will meet FFP regulations, because they know what they need and can get it from 'friends and family' quite easily.

Surely even the most blinkered City fan can't believe that non-Emerati sponsors would pay the same for a deal with City as they would for Liverpool, United or Barcelona? Buying advertising is just about buying the right 'eyeballs' - and the three mentioned clubs will deliver far more impressions by virtue of being better followed.

Listen, if some bored royals with more money than God want to splurge it on football it's going to be hard to stop them. They can afford better accountants and lawyers, hell they could probably buy the entire legal team of UEFA if they felt like it. But be honest with yourselves - City are not profitable. They will never have a positive ROI based on what the Sheikh and family have spent. Never ever going to happen, would take 25 years of great profits to pay that pack.

It's a vanity project, and it's depressing to think what those billions could have done for the desperate poor of that country.
 
BobbyManc said:
I disagree the initial players went there for money. It was the most important factor, but the fact they have won medals with us shows that their belief we could win things has been vindicated.

I'd say players who joined primarily for money were Adebayor, Kolo Toure and Tevez. Other than that, most of the players were making a step-up from their previous club or weren't getting game time and I believe joined us with a genuine belief they would win trophies.
Click to expand...

Clearly in hindsight it was a good decision for them to go but I can't imagine that they would have thought that, in the short term at least, you would be as successful as you have been.
 
BobbyManc said:
"Striani's challenge is expected to be based on the break-even rule restricting outside investment in clubs, dampening the transfer market and player salaries, and effectively ossifying the current hierarchy of clubs by preventing clubs operating at a loss from breaking into the top tier.

Key questions for the EU courts in considering the case include whether the system set up by UEFA is compatible with EU competition law and the Internal Market provisions, whether the objectives pursues are legitimate and, regarding restrictions on competition, whether the rules are proportionate to the objective.

In considering these matters, and the question of proportionality, other possible systems of regulation which may be less anti-competitive, may be considered, and it seems likely UEFA will have a lengthy legal battle on their hands to defend FFP, just as its effects are playing out."

http://www.insideworldfootball.com/...-today-to-start-financial-fair-play-challenge

FFP is already being challenged in court.
Click to expand...

Of course it's being challenged, but as I said, the grounds for that challenge won't be found valid.

FFP is not a wage cap or an expenditure cap. Clubs can spend and lose as much as they like. It's just that they have to avoid doing so if they want to qualify for entry into UEFA competitions. EU competition laws protect the marketplace, and in this instance the marketplace is football, not UEFA competitions. Legally, UEFA are free to impose whatever restrictions they want on entrants into their competitions, provided those restrictions are applied consistently and fairly.
 
BobbyManc said:
People said the Bosman case was doomed to failure.
Click to expand...

The two issues are mostly different. What happened to players pre-Bosman was widely known to be in breach of the treaty of rome. It continued on the untested notion that 'sporting activities' were outside of the treaty - which in hindsight was preposterous and had been partially changed as far back as the 60s in the UK and, so I understand, was not used in Spain and France. It was however big news and had all sorts of weird side effects - such as ending the quota on English players in the champions league. But what made it big news was simply that it was the end of an era for football - in legal terms it was fairly predictable. After all, why should a football player have less legal rights than a doctor or a plumber?

In this case I haven't been able to read the initial submission, obviously, but as far as I can tell the claim is that FFP will basically depress the market and as such some individuals, in this case football agents (those poor souls), will be worse off as a result. This time it has a bunch of fairly obvious hurdles compared to the Bosman case.

For one, the adverse impact is hard to prove. There's no evidence that FFP will reduce the amount of money available for agents. With the Bosman ruling there was decades between the treaty of rome and the case in 1990, with (i assume) dozens if not hundreds of similar examples. It would need an very strong case by dupont since it would be wholly hypothetical.

The other is that the individuals are not directly affected. They are indirectly affected, which can be a crucial distinction. That changes the weight of the argument. Because you have two parts to the chain to prove - a) that it will depress the market and b) that a depressed market will affect the football agents.

Another issue that occurs is that there are actually numerous existing examples of the EU suppressing markets that do have an indirect adverse impact on people, but are not in breach of anti-competition law. The one that jumps out is the restriction on fishing. The EU has restrictions on who can fish where and how much they can catch. The restriction is on the industry rather than the individual, and while fisherman may argue that they are affected, the rule is legal. Of course in that case there is another aspect of the market to worry about - making sure it doesn't dissapear - but the same may be argued by UEFA.

The final issue of course is whether UEFA competitions are broad enough to be considered as 'the market' itself. Remember that you get more money from being in the premier league than being in the CL, and there are far more teams not in the CL than in it. The bosman ruling affected all players regardless of level. This affects only a small minority of teams, even though they're clearly the most rich ones.

Anyway, while its a fascinating thing to watch, my gut feeling is that its an uphill struggle. Remember FFP is not just a UEFA thing. The Premier League, La Liga, The Championship and The Football League amongst others have their own FFP rules. While I certainly don't believe in the infallibility of lawyers, something tells me that if EU law were even unclear on the legality of introducing FFP, as it was in the Bosman case, none of those people would have introduced it - the entire industry has been burned by the Bosman ruling. They would have waited for UEFA, who were always going to be the one challenged.

Frankly, I think FIFPro's challenge of the transfer system (which would see all transfer fees abolished and players able to leave their contracts at any time) has more merit. At least that would be in line with the rights of other workers. (sorry for the fiendishly long post, hard to be short on such a matter)
 
None of the big English sides would be interested in a European super league. With the new TV revenue the premiership probably generates more money than Spain/Germany/Italy combined and the fans simply wouldn't stand for it.

I don't see how City can be even close to operating at breakeven unless they expect their story of how the owners company has paid 300m or whatever nonsense sum it was to buy the stadium rights. It's false capital injection and Uefa won't be fooled by such an obvious scheme.

As for bans I mentioned it earlier but people have continued to post about the lack of power Uefa have so I'll say again. The Champions league/Europa league are invite only competitions so if City/PSG whoever break the rules they simply don't get invited into it and can cry all they want to sport of arbitration they won't get anywhere.
 
goin4glory said:
None of the big English sides would be interested in a European super league. With the new TV revenue the premiership probably generates more money than Spain/Germany/Italy combined and the fans simply wouldn't stand for it.

I don't see how City can be even close to operating at breakeven unless they expect their story of how the owners company has paid 300m or whatever nonsense sum it was to buy the stadium rights. It's false capital injection and Uefa won't be fooled by such an obvious scheme.

As for bans I mentioned it earlier but people have continued to post about the lack of power Uefa have so I'll say again. The Champions league/Europa league are invite only competitions so if City/PSG whoever break the rules they simply don't get invited into it and can cry all they want to sport of arbitration they won't get anywhere.
Click to expand...
I said the same myself.
The fact that Malaga, Besiktas, Fenerbahce have been banned and Steaua have a suspended ban, seems to have completely by-passed some.
 
BobbyManc said:
People said the Bosman case was doomed to failure.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Whether the actual argument is "doomed to fail" (clearly the comment above is from someone who thinks they know their stuff from a legal point of view) is only part of it.

The major issues is what happens if this rumbles on and gets messy. Its possible for litigation to drag on through a myriad of appeals and cross appeals, and even for parties to go running to Courts all over the place and asking for injunctions and the like.

Hopefully UEFA stand their ground - but they'll need to be prepared for a potentially messy and expensive fight if they do take a hard line on this. Perhaps they are, and fair play to them if so. I personally doubt they'll want to take the big clubs on to that degree. The CL as it is works well for everyone so why would they want to risk that?

My opinion - teams will be punished, but not kicked out of the CL.
 
verminater said:
I said the same myself.
The fact that Malaga, Besiktas, Fenerbahce have been banned and Steaua have a suspended ban, seems to have completely by-passed some.
Click to expand...

There's a difference in banning clubs who have been for involement in morally "iffy" behavior which tarnishes the game, or being totally financially unfit and unable to pay money they owe to other clubs.

These clubs are simply spending their own money. I dont see that its the same.
 
RedRover said:
There's a difference in banning clubs who have been for involement in morally "iffy" behavior which tarnishes the game, or being totally financially unfit and unable to pay money they owe to other clubs.

These clubs are simply spending their own money. I dont see that its the same.
Click to expand...
The question is, "Can UEFA legally ban teams from their competitions?"
What is the answer?
 
Malaga were banned for non-payment of wages and taxes. I don't see that happening at City any time soon, especially with these ever-so-generous Emirati giving them £200 million to be their official 'shirt colour pigmentation' partners.
 
verminater said:
The question is, "Can UEFA legally ban teams from their competitions?"
What is the answer?
Click to expand...

I don't know. UEFA have to exist inside the current legal framework like any other organisation. They can make whatever rules they like, but they will always be open to challenge. The problem is that even if any challenge fails, it takes an age to crank through the process and who knows what might have happened by then. Even more so in cross border disputes if Court proceedings were started in the UK or in France by the clubs involved.

Rangers are a good example. Sued by the tax man because of alleged "illegal" tax scheme. Eventually (as I understand it) a couple of years later when it reached Court they were vindicated, effectively winning the case. They were bankrupt by then.

At work I've been involved in instructing a top QC in relation to a far reaching interpretation of some consumer credit law, which effected a large number of our clients hugely - potentially fatally for some. The fact is, you can always find a very savvy and intelligent lawyer who will try try and pick apart regulations and find possible loopholes. What they can do, and the lengths that they'll go to to find a cogent argument is unbelievable at times.

In this instance if UEFA stop clubs competing in the CL that is a massive blow for the clubs concerned - both financially and in terms of reputation. The people involved at the top level are usually very successful businessmen, used to getting what they want. They will not like being told what they can and cant do with their own money, will undoubtedly have been involved in court cases before (probably frequently, for much bigger stakes) and wont be scared to do so again. They have very deep pockets and access to the best lawyers money can buy.

Some of these people think nothing of buying a club and spending £1 billion. I suspect they wouldn't be scared of a dust up with Platini and UEFA. All that shapes up to a potentially long and very messy argument.

It might sound ridiculous, but I suspect that if a club was banned from competing they might even consider (or at the very least threaten) to try and get an injunction to prevent the competition starting, whilst whatever legal argument they had was run. That might not succeed and it might go ahead anyway, but if they subsequently won their case they'd be after huge damages from UEFA for not letting them play.

Often the threat of action is enough is enough in big legal disputes because of the potential consequences of losing. Often the side with the deepest pockets has an advantage for obvious reasons i.e. they can afford to lose whilst the other cant.

It is of course all speculation. The clubs might take it on the chin and just sit quiet - who knows. The point is though is that they have the money to make big ructions, if that's what they want to do.
 
Last edited:
verminater said:
Yeah, I know. I said the same earlier.
All of this, "Our lawyers will......" bullshit is either posturing or ignorance.
Click to expand...

Alasdair Bell, Uefa's legal affairs director, said he expects legal challenges to be made by clubs on whom sanctions are imposed and maintained that Uefa will fight them. "We are not afraid of [Uefa decisions] being contested," Bell said. "We fully anticipate there will be challenges – it would be strange if there weren't. July and August could be a busy time."

If FFP can't be challenged why are they preparing for it?
 
@RedRover
I don't purport to be an expert, but I do know that UEFA comps are by invitation.
The clubs agree to abide by their rules.
Also, there was plenty of notice given, and discussion to clarify to clubs, the requirements for complying.
If clubs choose to ignore this, it is they who have failed.
 
BobbyManc said:
Alasdair Bell, Uefa's legal affairs director, said he expects legal challenges to be made by clubs on whom sanctions are imposed and maintained that Uefa will fight them. "We are not afraid of [Uefa decisions] being contested," Bell said. "We fully anticipate there will be challenges – it would be strange if there weren't. July and August could be a busy time."

If FFP can't be challenged why are they preparing for it?
Click to expand...
Because there is a lot at stake, and if they are already penalised, they will try what they can.
Why do guilty people plead innocence?
 
verminater said:
I said the same myself.
The fact that Malaga, Besiktas, Fenerbahce have been banned and Steaua have a suspended ban, seems to have completely by-passed some.
Click to expand...

Besiktas and Fenerbache were banned for match-fixing though, that's completely different. Steaua were banned as "club officials had paid teams playing Steaua’s title rivals to offer an additional performance incentive".
 
Reading an article on BBC about city. They sold scouting details to their other teams for £24 million or something. That can't be allowed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.