Financial Fair Play

[milo]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

You've lost me there, fella. Was that just a general observation about the WSJ or was it also intended to be pertinent to the author's views about FFP?

I'm not best placed to comment on the author because I had never heard of him until you posted this article and I only have a passing knowledge of European competition law.

My point was that the WSJ is owned by News International which is the major shareholder in Sky and owns several UK newspapers, all of which have done very well out of football since the inception of the Premier League and the Champions League.

 

[metalgear]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

FFP shouldn't just focus on the profitability of clubs. Its just too easy to create sham deals to make the club profitable.
The emphasis should be more about FAIR play rather than FINANCIAL fair play - but that just goes to show how narrow the mandate of FIFA (and the EPL) has become.

 

[Superhudd]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

You're approaching this issue from an emotional standpoint.

And, while that's understandable, emotion won't play a part in any decision to be made in the event that FFP is challenged. Any decision will be made on the basis cold, hard points of European competition law.

I am amazed that so many people fail to see that FFP could very well make matters worse for football generally and clubs like ours in particular. I suspect that they simply haven't yet examined and thought through the full implications.

Nevertheless, contrary to your claim, I'm not acting as an advocate for any side of the argument. I'm simply explaining (as does the original article) why, I believe, FFP will prove to be unenforceable if challenged at the European Court of Justice.

On a Tottenham standing probably its emotive.

But as you keep saying FFP restricts Billionsaire play things. And yet I have not seen you answer the fact that Billionaire play things restrict 95% of the rest of the football league.

 

[jimmyb]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

On a Tottenham standing probably its emotive.

But as you keep saying FFP restricts Billionsaire play things. And yet I have not seen you answer the fact that Billionaire play things restrict 95% of the rest of the football league.

Once again, that's an emotional reaction to the issue. It has no basis in law. Business owners are allowed to invest in their businesses. They are not preventing anyone else from investing in their businesses.

It may seem unfair that one club can afford to spend much more than another. But it isn't institutionally so.

FFP would make it institutionally so. And that is why FFP will very likely fall foul of European competition law.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

Once again, that's an emotional reaction to the issue. It has no basis in law. Business owners are allowed to invest in their businesses. They are not preventing anyone else from investing in their businesses.

It may seem unfair that one club can afford to spend much more than another. But it isn't institutionally so.

FFP would make it institutionally so. And that is why FFP will very likely fall foul of European competition law.

Can't the Premier League make up certain laws as a condition of entry into the competition? do not see how that can be against the law, it is their own competition and surely they can do as they please.

 

[jimmyb]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

Can't the Premier League make up certain laws as a condition of entry into the competition? do not see how that can be against the law, it is their own competition and surely they can do as they please.

They can make any rules they like which relate to football specifically or sport generally.

But the instant that they start making rules governing and restricting the running and financing of businesses, it inevitably falls under the jurisdiction of the EU.

 

[Spursalot]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

They can make any rules they like which relate to football specifically or sport generally.

But the instant that they start making rules governing and restricting the running and financing of businesses, it inevitably falls under the jurisdiction of the EU.

Except when they do have rules that relate to the financing of the business.


Like points deductions if you go into administration. That has nothing to do with the sport or football.

In fact it's penalising the football for a failure in finances. Pretty much what FFP will be doing.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

Competition law is there to stop monolopys or oligopolys. Uefa and FIfa by that logic have a monopolised market but their run by their members for the benefit of the members which is a if icy any number of clubs and countries which puts r monopoly situation out if the equation

The guy who wrote the article may b an expert on EU competition Law but I bet he had never put together any OJEU tenders high are all part of EU competition law.

The reality is its a private competition (nothing to with business) and with that in mind competition law doesn't come into it. If it was the premier league establishing some rules which restricted trade I could see it happening as that's the place of work for the clubs, however ago an there is no case law that could be referred too a far as in aware.

I'm not and expert on this but I used to spend a £1M a day across the world in a senior position for a very large retail business and I was trained up on competition law by UK government who I was also audited by. I jut can't work out how any of the laws in place can relate to a competition with entry criteria.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

Beside that, all entrants would need to be from the EU. There are countries that age teams in Europe that aren't in the EU, Turkey for example so the "laws" are not applicable to them

 

[milo]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

FFP shouldn't just focus on the profitability of clubs. Its just too easy to create sham deals to make the club profitable.
The emphasis should be more about FAIR play rather than FINANCIAL fair play - but that just goes to show how narrow the mandate of FIFA (and the EPL) has become.

FFP includes rules on sponsorship having to be at market rates

 

[Superhudd]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

Once again, that's an emotional reaction to the issue. It has no basis in law. Business owners are allowed to invest in their businesses. They are not preventing anyone else from investing in their businesses.

It may seem unfair that one club can afford to spend much more than another. But it isn't institutionally so.

FFP would make it institutionally so. And that is why FFP will very likely fall foul of European competition law.

As others have said.. in order to participate in the EPL they need to go along with FFP... challenging it will see them very lonely very quickly. They need the other clubs more than the other clubs need a fancy dan billionaire owner. The recent agreement at the recent Chairmans meeting should have told you that running off to the EU whinning like a little bitch won't help at all. Someone can challenge all they want they just will not be part of the family.
It seems the common sense approach of natural progression through infrastructure growth is the preferred method.. just as Utd and Arsenal and very soon Tottenham would have proved.

Maybe had they not come in and tore apart a decent model where wages were affordable or transfer fees were not ridiculous then maybe... ooopps no thats emotive!

BTW you know anyone that will send an email off to the EU yet regarding Hammers Govenment subsidy puckmeup. GHod I hope someone does.

 

[jts1882]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

I'm not best placed to comment on the author because I had never heard of him until you posted this article and I only have a passing knowledge of European competition law.

My point was that the WSJ is owned by News International which is the major shareholder in Sky and owns several UK newspapers, all of which have done very well out of football since the inception of the Premier League and the Champions League.

And the WSJ is known for using its pages to promote Uncle Rupert's positions. What other reason is there that the WSJ is the journal of choice for anti-global warming advocates?

 

[milo]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

And the WSJ is known for using its pages to promote Uncle Rupert's positions. What other reason is there that the WSJ is the journal of choice for anti-global warming advocates?

Exactly, News International frequently uses its media outlets to promote its other business interests

 

[jts1882]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

They have a pet emeritus professor who writes the anti-global warming stuff, which is different from what he publishes in the scientific journals. If they can pay a distinguished scientist to promote a position, a lawyer is even easier. It's part of their job to argue positions that they may not totally believe in.

 

[mudshark]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

It does appear to me that, inasmuch as the FFP rules relate to entry criteria for UEFA's own cup competitions, which clubs take part in by invitation, they ought to be able to sidestep antitrust/competition rules. After all, UEFA aren't trying to arrogate to themselves a right to dictate what clubs can and can't spend in any absolute sense; they are just saying that if they don't meet the FFP standard, they won't be invited to take part in the CL or Europa League competitions. I think it might be difficult for clubs to argue their entitlement to be included. If I have understood Bedfordspurs correctly, that would seem to be his argument, and I think it may bear some weight.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

It does appear to me that, inasmuch as the FFP rules relate to entry criteria for UEFA's own cup competitions, which clubs take part in by invitation, they ought to be able to sidestep antitrust/competition rules. After all, UEFA aren't trying to arrogate to themselves a right to dictate what clubs can and can't spend in any absolute sense; they are just saying that if they don't meet the FFP standard, they won't be invited to take part in the CL or Europa League competitions. I think it might be difficult for clubs to argue their entitlement to be included. If I have understood Bedfordspurs correctly, that would seem to be his argument, and I think it may bear some weight.

That's the logic I've applied. You can't argue restriction of trade when you don't have the right to trade in that situation or the market so to speak

In effect " I'm having a party and your not invited".... There is no one to complain to other than me or the missus ) and were currently stick at Kuala Lumpur airport so there!! But that's the gist if it from my knowledge if it all

Another way to look at it is the lotterys that are run in some countries where you can't take the money out by law or in some cases can't win if your kit from there.

 

[jts1882]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

I don't think it is so simple. There are several potential problems with the private competition argument.

One, the premier league are bring in similar regulations. The league pyramid is very much the bread and butter of the clubs, so it would be hard to argue that the PL is a private competition the clubs don't need to join.

Two, the CL has become a substantial part of the big club business models. So as with the domestic leagues, I don't think the private competition argument totally bypasses the anti-competitive argument

Three, football clubs are not just clubs. In most cases they are private or public companies and they are competing not only in a sporting competition, but also in business.

Four, in some cases the owners bought the clubs knowing they were competing in a competition. UEFA has changed the rules and that harms their business interests.

Against that, the Football League has some financial regulations and there is a wage cap in the rugby's PL.

I think both the private competition and anti-competitive business arguments have some merit. I suspect UEFA have lawyers backing their system, just like the lawyer writing in the WSJ takes the opposite view. This can only be settled in court or by negotiation.

 

[mudshark]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

Well, I think whatever the Premier League (which really means the 20 clubs) decide to do, if anything, will be a matter for them. I agree that they would probably be on less sure ground in that respect in terms of restraint of trade, but I don't really think it has much bearing on UEFA's position, so that sounds a bit of a red herring to me. Once again, I think it might be difficult for clubs to argue they are entitled to an invitation to take part in European competition, however they might have understood the position to be in the past.

 

[Rorschach]

Re: Very interesting article on Financial Fair Play

You'd have to assume that UEFA consulted a few lawyers before rolling this out so they must be relatively certain that the whole thing won't come crumbling down at the first challenge.

 

[Jordinho]

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Manchester United have sold the naming rights to their training ground as part of a sponsorship deal with the insurance firm Aon, the club's current shirt sponsors, estimated to be worth $230m (£150m).

The eight-year agreement with Aon starts in July – from when Carrington will be known as the "Aon Training Complex" – and is a further sign of the club's off-field money-making abilities.

However, United have said that they will never sell the naming rights to Old Trafford. "Old Trafford will not be sold," United's executive vice-chairman, Ed Woodward, said on Sunday.

Aon's name currently appears on United's main match kit in a $130m, four-year deal but General Motors' Chevrolet division takes over that sponsorship in a $559m, seven-year deal from the 2014-15 season.

Financial details of the new Aon deal were not publicly disclosed but it is estimated to be worth $230m over eight years and will also see the company provide United with business expertise.

United bought out their previous training kit sponsorship deal with the express delivery and freight firm DHL early in a bid to secure more cash, with that agreement having been worth around $65m over four years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/apr/08/manchester-united-sell-naming-rights