Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, Keegans Export said:

If the verdict had been fully in favour of Man City, they'd have to tell the other clubs. You can't have only one being privy to a change in the sponsorship rules and not the other 19.

Yep, and that would increase the chances of a leak

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

6 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

There's lots and lots of commentary re commercial law etc, but football generally doesn't stack up vs commercial or employment law.  Where else can you be held to a multiple year contract with a buyout beyond the means of any individual employed?  Football's player registration system isn't in line with general employment law.  But it still exists (and has been pushed back in the past, via the Eastham and Bosman cases).  

A lot of high tech/High skill industries have similar circumstances. Oil and gas and Aviation regularly had really punitive bond schemes if the companies paid for training etc. it’s not as uncommon as you might think, not to the extent of footballers transfer fees no, but beyond the means of the worker involved

[r0cafella]

2 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Yes, although it could be the case that the ruling required limited amendment to the rules, which would not be a 'win' for either side.

 

Ultimately, the clubs are members of the PL and sign up voluntarily - the don't have to play in it.  I'd still be mildly surprised if the adjudicators simply told the PL to tear up the rules that the vast majority of their members willingly voted through.  It is an incorporated association.

Obviously not a legal eagle or anything of that nature but I guess it depends on what they are judging. 
 

What I mean by that is, if it’s a very narrow focus of is this rule legal everything else will be irrelevant to that. Sort of like what we should see in a few hours regarding the Diarra FIFA case which is due to be judged by the eu courts. 

[TheBrownBottle]

6 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

A lot of high tech/High skill industries have similar circumstances. Oil and gas and Aviation regularly had really punitive bond schemes if the companies paid for training etc. it’s not as uncommon as you might think, not to the extent of footballers transfer fees no, but beyond the means of the worker involved

There's release clauses in my industry - I have had similar clauses in most of my contracts re leaving etc.  Edit: also for training paid for by the employer, etc.  But these are reasonable costs incurred and not out of sight for a well-paid professional.

 

The issue is not whether or not the such clauses exist elsewhere, but whether or not they would stack up as fair and reasonable in an employment court - and I doubt that a person locked into an eight year contract which would take a nine-figure sum to buy out would be held to it by law.  It is a basic principle of English law that punitive clauses in contracts are unenforcable.

 

 

Edited 21 hours ago by TheBrownBottle

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

Obviously not a legal eagle or anything of that nature but I guess it depends on what they are judging. 
 

What I mean by that is, if it’s a very narrow focus of is this rule legal everything else will be irrelevant to that. Sort of like what we should see in a few hours regarding the Diarra FIFA case which is due to be judged by the eu courts. 

My understanding was that Man City were going after the changes made to the rules back at the start of the year, which changed where the burden of proof lay re FMV of sponsorships.  It wasn't to throw out FMV generally.

[Keegans Export]

21 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Yep, and that would increase the chances of a leak

I'd say it essentially guarantees it. There's no way all 20 clubs keep quiet.

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

19 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

There's release clauses in my industry - I have had similar clauses in most of my contracts re leaving etc.  Edit: also for training paid for by the employer, etc.  But these are reasonable costs incurred and not out of sight for a well-paid professional.

 

The issue is not whether or not the such clauses exist elsewhere, but whether or not they would stack up as fair and reasonable in an employment court - and I doubt that a person locked into an eight year contract which would take a nine-figure sum to buy out would be held to it by law.  It is a basic principle of English law that punitive clauses in contracts are unenforcable.

 

 

 

Erm if it were so unenforceable why have they not been legally challenged Ala Bosman then? There have been multiple high profile cases of players being refused high profile transfers etc, if it were so obviously deemed unenforceable by law then I'm pretty sure it would have already been proven so before now.

[et tu brute]

It is doesn't constitute what is within British Law, then it certainly is enforceable (got fuck all to do with it being a football matter). Ziegler (Premier League mouthpiece) indicated that the verdict was quite substantial in favour of Man City). It's not a case of there would be leaks if Man City had won, as there are no leaks either that the Premier League had won. There is no news because the item covering this was pulled at the last meeting. IMO the item would not have been pulled if there was only a minor change or nothing changing. Time will tell though

[Jackie Broon]

2 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Yep, and that would increase the chances of a leak

 

Not necessarily, it could potentially be in Man City's interest to keep it confidential in terms of using it as leverage.

 

 

Edited 18 hours ago by Jackie Broon

[Scoot]

If City have had success, even if its just to the new rules fetched in after our takeover in 2021, it can only be good for us. Those rules in 2021 were brought in specifically to hinder us, so any changes to those rules is a positive.

[TheBrownBottle]

29 minutes ago, Scoot said:

If City have had success, even if its just to the new rules fetched in after our takeover in 2021, it can only be good for us. Those rules in 2021 were brought in specifically to hinder us, so any changes to those rules is a positive.

It wasn’t the rules from 2021, it was the rules from Feb 2024 that they took issue with

[TheBrownBottle]

46 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

It is doesn't constitute what is within British Law, then it certainly is enforceable (got fuck all to do with it being a football matter).

That’s not the case though - there are exemptions under English law for specific areas including sport

[FloydianMag]

Just now, TheBrownBottle said:

That’s not the case though - there are exemptions under English law for specific areas including sport

Care to cite them?

[TheBrownBottle]

2 hours ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

Erm if it were so unenforceable why have they not been legally challenged Ala Bosman then? There have been multiple high profile cases of players being refused high profile transfers etc, if it were so obviously deemed unenforceable by law then I'm pretty sure it would have already been proven so before now.

Punitive clauses are not enforceable - this is a standard of English law.  Whether or not the contract terms are deemed punitive - that’s never been challenged.  

[et tu brute]

4 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Punitive clauses are not enforceable - this is a standard of English law.  Whether or not the contract terms are deemed punitive - that’s never been challenged.  

Your last four words are essential. There has to be a challenge first and there has been, so it has to apply to the legalities within British Law

 

 

Edited 18 hours ago by et tu brute

[et tu brute]

4 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

That’s not the case though - there are exemptions under English law for specific areas including sport

Not when it's business related there are not

[TheBrownBottle]

4 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Care to cite them?

There are exemption orders re football.  Feel free to google. 

[TheBrownBottle]

3 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Your last four words are essential. There has to be a challenge first and there has been, so it has to apply to the legalities within British Law

 

 

 

The Webster Ruling already challenged it.  Webster won. 

[TheBrownBottle]

3 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Not when it's business related there are not

Then Man City won, which is why we now have Aramco sponsoring us for £100m a season.  Makes sense. 

[FloydianMag]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

There are exemption orders re football.  Feel free to google. 

Then support your argument with some evidence🤷🏼‍♂️

[1964]

Can you two stop having intellectual discourse. Rumour,counter-rumour and baseless conspiracies are what keeps this board real........

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, FloydianMag said:

Then support your argument with some evidence🤷🏼‍♂️

I’ve read plenty on here claiming that the PL would get obliterated under commercial law without any substantiation, but I’ve got to cite case law and clauses?

 

I respect that you know your stuff FM, but I’m suggesting that the hanging the PL on commercial law isn’t the shoo-in that many are anticipating. 

[et tu brute]

5 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

The Webster Ruling already challenged it.  Webster won. 

And? One ruling doesn't constitute anything and that's why Man City have challenged the current rules.

[et tu brute]

11 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Then Man City won, which is why we now have Aramco sponsoring us for £100m a season.  Makes sense. 

You're just being stupid (which I know you're not) or huffy now as the changes have not been put in place (if any are). You're making assumptions because nothing has been announced. It won't be as the agenda item to discuss this was taken off the table. We will know soon enough one way or another 

 

 

Edited 17 hours ago by et tu brute

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, et tu brute said:

You're just being stupid (which I know you're not) or huffy now as the changes have not been put in place (if any are). You're making assumptions because nothing has been announced. It won't be as the agenda it m to discuss this was taken off the table. We will know soon enough one way or another 

Sorry mate, was being sarcastic - apologies  

 

The general point stands - this is not an open goal for Man City (and us by proxy).  Folks are waiting for a magic bullet.  I don’t think this is it.