http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/uefas-financial-fair-play-rules-face-test-from-the-bosman-lawyer-8605315.html This could be really interesting. The same lawyer who took on the transfer/contract issue for Bosman is at it again. I wonder how many top chairman have funded this challenge? Apolgies if posted elsewhere.
Yeah, I don't know what to think about FFP, from a moral or practical point of view. They say it preserves the existing dominance of the biggest teams, but I'm not sure if that'll be the case. Also they're saying it's wrong to prevent teams from running up losses, and I see their point, but I think there's a lot of sense in that restriction. Is it anti-competitive to require businesses to only spend money that they actually have? Also I'm really struggling to give a **** if agents are taking financial hits from these new rules.
I feel this as well. The best I can say is I can understand both sides of the argument. Do the football authorities have the responsibility to ensure that clubs are well run, and how? Sitting on the fence is underrated btw.
Can only be that it disadvantages him in some way. Perhaps he wants us to run up lots of debt in order to have a crack at success? Although he hasn't shown any signs of financial imprudence yet, it may be a good thing that there's something stopping us from going the way of Leeds for example. It's undeniably true that it protects those with the most money already (from challengers who have less), but it's probably also undeniably true that it protects those with the least as well (from their own owners). On balance whether you favour it or not depends which camp you sit in I suppose.
Very much doubt he'll be successful in getting it overturned given non-footballing bodies public support of the idea. To those wondering why we (among quite a few others) opposed it, essential reasons are losing freedom in running a club how you see fit and the system makes it significantly harder for "smaller" clubs to invest a lot of money and thus join the elite i.e. the current "big clubs" have their status preserved as no one else can do a Chelsea / Man City and join them. So if for example Cortese and the Leibherr family plan a sustained period of investment over the next five years with the acceptance of losses every year, in the hope that the increasing market value of the club at a future sale date offsets these losses and they still make a tidy profit, this will not be possible / harder to do with FFP.
Very much doubt he'll be successful in getting it overturned given non-footballing bodies public support of the idea. To those wondering why we (among quite a few others) opposed it, essential reasons are losing freedom in running a club how you see fit and the system makes it significantly harder for "smaller" clubs to invest a lot of money and thus join the elite i.e. the current "big clubs" have their status preserved as no one else can do a Chelsea / Man City and join them. So if for example Cortese and the Leibherr family plan a sustained period of investment over the next five years with the acceptance of losses every year, in the hope that the increasing market value of the club at a future sale date offsets these losses and they still make a tidy profit, this will not be possible / harder to do with FFP.
The 'freedom to run a club how you like' reason that has been quoted seems to me quite clearly to be rubbish. Cortese isn't voting against as some sort of principled stand, it's because it is an obstacle to something he wants to do. If it favoured him, he would vote for it, principles be damned. The scenario you outline whereby they accept some losses on the proviso that it will make a greater profit later more likely seems probable. The thing is were that 'gamble' not to be successful, the owners can simply walk away leaving the club with the debt. That's the problem this is trying to solve. Would that happen to us? Who knows.
It doesn't matter who supports it, it's either lawful or it's not. Forget that we are dealing with football clubs here, essentially a non-government organisation has said they are going to punish companies that are running in a lawful fashion according to the highest level of legislation available. I'd be surprised if something about UEFA's rules didn't cross the line.
All good points. Although I like the idea of football clubs only spending within their means, I see little reason that they should be required to by law. The only reason I can think of is that, when it all goes tits up, employees end up being laid off and creditors lose out (though in the case of creditors they're aware of the risk they're taking).
I agree with the principles behind the changes and understand that the rules seem to be being implemented with the best of intentions, I'm just a little concerned that it's a knee jerk reaction.
Surely it doesn't really matter whether it's lawful or not, these are the rules of a game we're talking about. They can't stop any club from spending what it wants, but they can say "if you do X you will not be allowed to enter competition Y". Similarly there's nothing illegal about handling a football but they are able to punish people for doing it.
You may well be right, it will be interesting to see. But as we have often seen in the past with football, due to the big money involved, the line between it being a game and those of business are very blurry and it wouldn't be the first time legal challenges have taken precedence over what governing bodies have decided.
Ah so you do know what it's about. I thought your post said you had no idea, as in what was happening. Obviously you do.
I agree with PTF on this. Forgetting about the wider legal aspects, couldn't they just make it a requirement to play in the Premier League? All competitions have rules, what is the difference? The German FA seems able to get it sorted out and they ultimately come under the same laws we do (both UEFA and EC).
