bizzaro
LOVE GOT JUST THE WAY IT IS #ALWNV
These clowns do not understand European Law. They think they they can argue this down due to their owners deep pockets. But they won't.
Dupont may have got away with Bosman ruling as this relates to employment law and free movement not in itself just competition law. However, the aims of FFP are not towards employees or football agents. They are on regulating football clubs.
Competition law has provisions that member-states may override if there is a sociological justification and society benefit that outweighs the reduction in competition. Its in the lisbon treaty.
e.g. that football clubs should be regulated and controlled to prevent member-states and their tax payers from having to bail out clubs that go bankrupt due to funding suddenly being withdrawn; or large debts being owed.
These provisions are well known. They are applied in other branches of law. The European Courts can't just ignore the EC Treaty or the provisions above.
The "legal challenge" by Dupont and the Manchester City FC and MCFC supporters club is laughable and is going to fail. They can challenge the EC all they want but the justifications for FFP far outweigh any competition concerns. So it'll be laughable when it is thrown out.
It makes a good headline but has no actual legal substance.
The law operates by the principle of proportionality. When football clubs owe billions of pounds to non-European lenders the courts know that the risk of collapse and the sociological-damage this will cause far outweigh the benefits of an unrestricted and unregulated market.
Its clearly written in The Treaty of Lisbon and furthermore there are existing court cases in the courts that support the principle that:
See this legal review that is pretty good:
http://www.soccernomics-agency.com/?p=469
"what was at stake was a restriction of competition but not one incompatible with EU law, because justified by a legitimate objective, inherent in the organisation and proper conduct of competitive sport. This would not apply only if (as was not shown) the rules went beyond what is necessary to ensure the proper conduct of competitive sport (e.g. by imposing excessively severe penalties)."
Dupont's laughable claims that the penalties are too harsh too (given they were warned) will also fall on deaf ears in the courts since Manchester City establish third party sponsorships with its owners in an attempt to get around FFP to the tune of the same levels as the fine levied £49 million and so called "image rights" agreements with related sports teams like its womens team!
i.e. the fines have to be harsh to deter rich owners like Man City's from attempting to get around them due to their wealth!
"FFP is not a rule that is necessary for the conduct of sporting activity or of itself an inherent ingredient of sport. That would be to go too far. However, Wouters and Meca-Medina teach us that the argument that UEFA should advance is that FFP’s effects are restrictive of competition (as they surely are), but that these are inherent in the pursuit of legitimate objectives – not just to decrease pressure on salaries and transfer fees and limit inflationary effect (as UEFA’s website rather artlessly confesses) but also (as Article 2(2) FFP claims) to improve the economic and financial capability of the clubs, to introduce more discipline and rationality in club football finances, to encourage clubs to operate on the basis of their own revenues, to encourage responsible spending for the long-term benefit of football, etc."
In a nutshell I shall be laughing hard when they get shown up in this media drivel. Their supporters club are being well and truly misinformed and led up the garden path by their directors and board.
Its utter nonsense from Dupont and them. They cheated the rules and now they are being made to pay. No matter how hard they complain this isn't going to change.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29349740
Dupont may have got away with Bosman ruling as this relates to employment law and free movement not in itself just competition law. However, the aims of FFP are not towards employees or football agents. They are on regulating football clubs.
Competition law has provisions that member-states may override if there is a sociological justification and society benefit that outweighs the reduction in competition. Its in the lisbon treaty.
e.g. that football clubs should be regulated and controlled to prevent member-states and their tax payers from having to bail out clubs that go bankrupt due to funding suddenly being withdrawn; or large debts being owed.
These provisions are well known. They are applied in other branches of law. The European Courts can't just ignore the EC Treaty or the provisions above.
The "legal challenge" by Dupont and the Manchester City FC and MCFC supporters club is laughable and is going to fail. They can challenge the EC all they want but the justifications for FFP far outweigh any competition concerns. So it'll be laughable when it is thrown out.
It makes a good headline but has no actual legal substance.
The law operates by the principle of proportionality. When football clubs owe billions of pounds to non-European lenders the courts know that the risk of collapse and the sociological-damage this will cause far outweigh the benefits of an unrestricted and unregulated market.
Its clearly written in The Treaty of Lisbon and furthermore there are existing court cases in the courts that support the principle that:
See this legal review that is pretty good:
http://www.soccernomics-agency.com/?p=469
"what was at stake was a restriction of competition but not one incompatible with EU law, because justified by a legitimate objective, inherent in the organisation and proper conduct of competitive sport. This would not apply only if (as was not shown) the rules went beyond what is necessary to ensure the proper conduct of competitive sport (e.g. by imposing excessively severe penalties)."
Dupont's laughable claims that the penalties are too harsh too (given they were warned) will also fall on deaf ears in the courts since Manchester City establish third party sponsorships with its owners in an attempt to get around FFP to the tune of the same levels as the fine levied £49 million and so called "image rights" agreements with related sports teams like its womens team!
i.e. the fines have to be harsh to deter rich owners like Man City's from attempting to get around them due to their wealth!
"FFP is not a rule that is necessary for the conduct of sporting activity or of itself an inherent ingredient of sport. That would be to go too far. However, Wouters and Meca-Medina teach us that the argument that UEFA should advance is that FFP’s effects are restrictive of competition (as they surely are), but that these are inherent in the pursuit of legitimate objectives – not just to decrease pressure on salaries and transfer fees and limit inflationary effect (as UEFA’s website rather artlessly confesses) but also (as Article 2(2) FFP claims) to improve the economic and financial capability of the clubs, to introduce more discipline and rationality in club football finances, to encourage clubs to operate on the basis of their own revenues, to encourage responsible spending for the long-term benefit of football, etc."
In a nutshell I shall be laughing hard when they get shown up in this media drivel. Their supporters club are being well and truly misinformed and led up the garden path by their directors and board.
Its utter nonsense from Dupont and them. They cheated the rules and now they are being made to pay. No matter how hard they complain this isn't going to change.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29349740
Man City: Supporters' club joins Financial Fair Play legal fight
An independent Manchester City fans' group has joined a legal action against Uefa's Financial Fair Play regulations.
MCFC Supporters' Club, which has 15,000 members, voted to back the move led by Jean-Louis Dupont, the lawyer who helped win the landmark Bosman Ruling.
Dupont claims Financial Fair Play (FFP) breaches European competition law.
City were fined £49m and given restrictions on spending and squad size for breaking FFP rules last season.
"Far from implementing a true financial fair play, this rule is in fact a prohibition to invest that prevents ambitious owners to develop their clubs," said MCFC Supporters' Club in a statement.
"The Uefa rule may be bad news for MCFC supporters, but it is even worse news for supporters of all clubs that do not today belong to the established European elite."
A complaint was lodged with the European Commission about FFP by Dupont in May 2013 on behalf of players' agent Daniel Striani.
Dupont says the FFP ruling will restrict the incomes of both players and agents, reduce transfer activity and ensure that Europe's larger clubs remain dominant.
The Belgian lawyer claims that even if the ban on overspending were ruled legal, he would have further grounds to appeal because Uefa, football's European governing body, could achieve its aims by a less restrictive measure.
As well as City, Paris St-Germain and seven other European clubs were hit with a range of fines and sanctions in May for breaching FFP rules.
Uefa introduced FFP because it fears many clubs are risking their futures by spending beyond their means, while president Michel Platini also believes the big spending of some clubs is ruining the game.
In December 1995, Belgian midfielder Jean-Marc Bosman, 31, successfully challenged football's transfer rules at the European Court, on the basis of restraint of trade.
The Bosman ruling allowed players over 24 to move clubs without a transfer fee at the end of their contracts, and also ended national league limits on foreign players from other European Union countries.
