WilliamPS Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 People chuck around terms like legal or illegal - there are no laws being broken here? Or am I wrong? I don’t see how it’s against any trading standards. Clubs can sign sponsorship deals about FMV, but the amounts above don’t count in the FFP calculations The PL is a club that sets its own rules. If you a club wants to do something against FFP it can, it just can’t stay as a PL club member. The various clubs challenges are all whether the PL is applying the rules of the PL all agreed fairly. But that’s of no interest to competition regulators or any other parties. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 5 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: The govt announced an independent regulator in the last King’s speech, so the intention is to legislate. It is worth bearing in mind that the govt can allow exemptions to the Competition Act (and has before for football). An independent regulator would likely have govt leverage to ensure that the regs are also lawful. Even if the government did that such a move would also be open to a legal challenge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 1 minute ago, WilliamPS said: People chuck around terms like legal or illegal - there are no laws being broken here? Or am I wrong? I don’t see how it’s against any trading standards. Clubs can sign sponsorship deals about FMV, but the amounts above don’t count in the FFP calculations The PL is a club that sets its own rules. If you a club wants to do something against FFP it can, it just can’t stay as a PL club member. The various clubs challenges are all whether the PL is applying the rules of the PL all agreed fairly. But that’s of no interest to competition regulators or any other parties. the PL are not exempt from UK Competition Law as their attempt to cap football agents fees has already shown, the PL lost the case by the way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 (edited) 2 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: the PL are not exempt from UK Competition Law as their attempt to cap football agents fees has already shown, the PL lost the case by the way. I didn’t say they exempt generally - they received an exclusion order under the act for broadcasting. An independent regulator would need powers to be of any use. edit: sorry FM replied to the wrong post! Edited January 15 by TheBrownBottle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 I think the arguement would be that the government have recently threatened to disbar clubs from competitions if they decide to breakaway, effectively meaning you have to be within the Football League and Premier League if you wish to be a professional football club in the U.K. So therefor there would be grounds that enforcing clubs to follow FFP is unfair and against the free market, as the club would effectively be non-existant without our established leagues allowing them entry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 6 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: Even if the government did that such a move would also be open to a legal challenge. It would be tricky to challenge a legal exclusion order from the act tbf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Jinx Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 1 hour ago, Scoot said: Surely only a matter of time before FFP is challenged? No need to challenge it. Just wait it out as it’s being scrapped in its current form from this summer. They haven’t announced what will replace it yet but it’s likely to fall more in line with UEFA’s model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Just now, Stifler said: I think the arguement would be that the government have recently threatened to disbar clubs from competitions if they decide to breakaway, effectively meaning you have to be within the Football League and Premier League if you wish to be a professional football club in the U.K. So therefor there would be grounds that enforcing clubs to follow FFP is unfair and against the free market, as the club would effectively be non-existant without our established leagues allowing them entry. They’ve broke away before - that’s why there is a premier league. It wouldn’t be the strongest argument. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said: No need to challenge it. Just wait it out as it’s being scrapped in its current form from this summer. They haven’t announced what will replace it yet but it’s likely to fall more in line with UEFA’s model. UEFA’s FFP is even more stringent from what I understand……how will that benefit us? I’d also add that any new changes to FFP rules in the PL would need to be voted on by the clubs and in the current climate would they get changes through? Edited January 15 by FloydianMag Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 7 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: UEFA’s FFP is even more stringent from what I understand……how will that benefit us? I’d also add that any new changes to FFP rules in the PL would need to be voted on by the clubs and in the current climate would they get changes through? Yes, of course they would. The owners can be split into 3 broad categories. Sky 6. FFP protects them. Ambitious owners, ourselves, Villa and forest. We hate FFP. Happy to be on the gravy train. They also like FFP as it limits the amount they have to Invest. Lets not kid ourselves, these clubs all happily passed these rules as it limits the exposure they all have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Just now, r0cafella said: Yes, of course they would. The owners can be split into 3 broad categories. Sky 6. FFP protects them. Ambitious owners, ourselves, Villa and forest. We hate FFP. Happy to be on the gravy train. They also like FFP as it limits the amount they have to Invest. Lets not kid ourselves, these clubs all happily passed these rules as it limits the exposure they all have. Yep. Only need a two-thirds majority. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Jinx Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 8 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: UEFA’s FFP is even more stringent from what I understand……how will that benefit us? I’d also add that any new changes to FFP rules in the PL would need to be voted on by the clubs and in the current climate would they get changes through? From UEFA’s site. 3) Are clubs no longer allowed to have losses? To be exact, clubs can spend up to €5million more than they earn per assessment period (three years). However it can exceed this level to a certain limit, if it is entirely covered by a direct contribution/payment from the club owner(s) or a related party. This prevents the build-up of unsustainable debt. The limits are: • €45m for assessment periods 2013/14 and 2014/15 • €30m for assessment periods 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 In order to promote investment in stadiums, training facilities, youth development and women’s football (from 2015), all such costs are excluded from the break-even calculation. 4) Are clubs automatically excluded if they are not in line with FFP? If a club is not in line with the regulations, it will be UEFA's Club Financial Control Body that decides on measures and sanctions. Non-compliance with the regulations does not mean that a club will be excluded automatically, but there will be no exceptions. Depending on various factors (e.g. the trend of the break-even result) different disciplinary measures may be imposed against a club. There is a catalogue of measures: a) warning b) reprimand c) fine d) deduction of points e) withholding of revenues from a UEFA competition f) prohibition on registering new players in UEFA competitions g) restriction on the number of players that a club may register for participation in UEFA competitions, including a financial limit on the overall aggregate cost of the employee benefits expenses of players registered on the A-list for the purposes of UEFA club competitions h) disqualification from competitions in progress and/or exclusion from future competitions i) withdrawal of a title or award In addition the CFCB have decided in numerous cases that the objectives of FFP can be best achieved by taking a rehabilitative approach rather than a punitive approach. This has led to the conclusion of settlement agreements between a club and the CFCB, combining certain financial contributions with numerous restrictive conditions, which provide a roadmap for clubs to reach break-even in the foreseeable future (see further detail in points 11–16). 5) Are owners allowed to inject money into their club as they like or through sponsorship? If a club's owner injects money into the club through a sponsorship deal with a company to which he is related, then UEFA's competent bodies will investigate and, if necessary, adapt the calculations of the break-even result for the sponsorship revenues to the level which is appropriate ('fair value') according to market prices. Under the updated regulations, any entity that, alone or in aggregate together with other entities which are linked to the same owner or government, represent more than 30% of the club's total revenues is automatically considered a related party. There’s a certain amount there left to interpretation. Especially related sponsorship. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamPS Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 49 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: the PL are not exempt from UK Competition Law as their attempt to cap football agents fees has already shown, the PL lost the case by the way. But that was an attempt to enforce rules on people (agents) outside of their members club. FFP isn’t. likewise they can’t prevent Newcastle getting a £100m shirt sponsorship from Saudi aramco, but they can say it only counts as £20m for FFP Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRC Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBG Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 (edited) So technically they couldn't afford Wood? Ummm, match voided anyone? Edited January 15 by TBG Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 I understand the reasons why but it really wouldn't be a great look if you have multiple clubs all being charged and disciplined for FFP breaches while the Man City case continues to rumble along in the background. Assuming their case starts as planned towards the end of this year, it isn't going to be resolved until the end of the 24/25 season and that's without the inevitable appeal from whoever loses. We could have half a dozen clubs or more charged and punished for indiscretions by then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Chelsea must be in line for a charge Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 6 minutes ago, Keegans Export said: I understand the reasons why but it really wouldn't be a great look if you have multiple clubs all being charged and disciplined for FFP breaches while the Man City case continues to rumble along in the background. Assuming their case starts as planned towards the end of this year, it isn't going to be resolved until the end of the 24/25 season and that's without the inevitable appeal from whoever loses. We could have half a dozen clubs or more charged and punished for indiscretions by then. Principle I agree with, however isn't City's case a tad more complicated in that its not whether they breached profit/loss type rules but more whether the income is 'real' and that they have included everything in the clubs books? They have had long enough to at least get a hearing date sorted on it mind Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 11 minutes ago, Keegans Export said: I understand the reasons why but it really wouldn't be a great look if you have multiple clubs all being charged and disciplined for FFP breaches while the Man City case continues to rumble along in the background. Assuming their case starts as planned towards the end of this year, it isn't going to be resolved until the end of the 24/25 season and that's without the inevitable appeal from whoever loses. We could have half a dozen clubs or more charged and punished for indiscretions by then. 49 weeks since City were charged Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mouldy_uk Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 I’m happy for Forest to pay the penalty of erasing that Wood hat trick from everyone’s mind Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mouldy_uk Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 4 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said: Principle I agree with, however isn't City's case a tad more complicated in that its not whether they breached profit/loss type rules but more whether the income is 'real' and that they have included everything in the clubs books? They have had long enough to at least get a hearing date sorted on it mind So basically if you are going to cheat then go big and complex then your lawyers can play defence for years whilst you win everything Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 The more teams that breach FFP the better. We need an old-money club to fall foul of it though. Everton Forest Chelsea Man U Once Chelsea (and especially) Man U fall foul of it - the allowed losses will be increased by tens of millions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe1984 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 (edited) 15 minutes ago, mouldy_uk said: I’m happy for Forest to pay the penalty of erasing that Wood hat trick from everyone’s mind Wait who is Chris Wood? Edited January 15 by Joe1984 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now