We All Knew It Was Coming - The Legal Challenge To FFP!

[im]

...and here it is:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22426733

Man City, Chelsea, PSG etc will all be...well if not actively encouraging this challenge certainly "very interested parties" to it as will the ruling establishment clubs of Man Utd, Arsenal and Real Madrid.

This is going to be interesting - Is football outside of the normal rules of European business and competition law?

The trailblazer in the Bosman issue has taken up the case.

[bad company]

I can see where this challenge could work. Good luck to him.

[Cheib]

Not so sure. He talks about a club owner being prohibited from spending even if it's to grow the club.....clubs are allowed to spend as much as they want on stadiums, training facilities youth development etc. AS for restricting the income of players and agents...there are plenty of sports that have salary caps which have been enforced successfully (English Rugby Union being one). UEFA can also point out that is to ensure that clubs are run in a responsible way, there are plenty of instances where clubs have been run irresponsibly and ended up going bust....Portsmouth, Rangers et al.....in those cases we're talking about real people's lives....all the suppliers etc who have a lot more to worry about than a football agent.

[im]

I have some sympathy with his view though...FFP will indeed just entrench the positions of Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool (to name but 3) and no longer allow rogue, unfashionable clubs to shake things up and make life 'interesting' for the neutral.

[jcremonini]

im said:

I have some sympathy with his view though...FFP will indeed just entrench the positions of Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool (to name but 3) and no longer allow rogue, unfashionable clubs to shake things up and make life 'interesting' for the neutral.

Exactly - look at Chelsea. The ground only fits 42000 people and we have been looking to expand now for years. If we had a 60,000 stadium we would be able to stand on a much better footing, financially. Until that day comes (and if it ever comes with the restrictions in London) it's not really fair to force us to be uncompetitive.

The whole FFP stuff is such a nonsense.

[Cheib]

jcremonini said:

im said:

I have some sympathy with his view though...FFP will indeed just entrench the positions of Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool (to name but 3) and no longer allow rogue, unfashionable clubs to shake things up and make life 'interesting' for the neutral.

Exactly - look at Chelsea. The ground only fits 42000 people and we have been looking to expand now for years. If we had a 60,000 stadium we would be able to stand on a much better footing, financially. Until that day comes (and if it ever comes with the restrictions in London) it's not really fair to force us to be uncompetitive.

The whole FFP stuff is such a nonsense.

It's totally fair. Chelsea have missed their own targets which was to break even by 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/ch...

If they had done so it would not be an issue for them. But they haven't.

In the world before massive external investment in clubs it was actually much,much easier for unfashionable clubs to make life interesting. What price Everton winning the league, Villa and Forest to win the European Cup, Ipswich to win the UEFA Cup ? Never going to happen is it through managing a club properly. How do you think Everton fans feel with a very well run club and arguably one of the best managers in the PL ? Is it "fair" that Chelsea or Manchester City are much more competitive purely because they have huge financial backing and waste more money hiring and firing managers than most clubs have as a transfer budget?

You only need to look at Italy and Spain to realise that the current situation is extremely unhealthy and is not in the long term interests of anyone.

As a Chelsea fan you should want your club to be run properly so that it is not reliant on the largess of one individual, it's clearly not a healthy situation for a club that has existed for 100 years or more.

[IrateNinja]

jcremonini said:

Exactly - look at Chelsea. The ground only fits 42000 people and we have been looking to expand now for years. If we had a 60,000 stadium we would be able to stand on a much better footing, financially. Until that day comes (and if it ever comes with the restrictions in London) it's not really fair to force us to be uncompetitive.

The whole FFP stuff is such a nonsense.

What a load of st.

Take away Chelsea and Man City, Spurs and Everton would currently be right at the pointy end of the table and would be competing for players' signatures on the back of increased success (compared to now). Where as now they could end up in sixth despite successive seasons of improving(despite having a smaller stadium).

And to address your point about stadiums fully - look at the price Arsenal have paid in the last 10 years in order to get into a modern 60000 seater stadium. Why should Chelsea get some special treatment? And to say they're uncompetitive becuase they're in London is crap as well. Players prefer to live there than West Bromwich, and you can charge higher prices than Swansea.

You were uncompetitive because you were st.

[TheHeretic]

Well, my position is that if a rich billionaire wants to spunk his money, why shouldn't he be able to? Folks can go racing competitively, and it will cost them. Why can't a club owner?

[Cheib]

TheHeretic said:

Well, my position is that if a rich billionaire wants to spunk his money, why shouldn't he be able to? Folks can go racing competitively, and it will cost them. Why can't a club owner?

Because the rich billionaire typically makes that investment through some offshore vehicle that means when he gets bored he can disappear and the club is left to carry the can. Look at Portsmouth.

[im]

Cheib said:

TheHeretic said:

Well, my position is that if a rich billionaire wants to spunk his money, why shouldn't he be able to? Folks can go racing competitively, and it will cost them. Why can't a club owner?

Because the rich billionaire typically makes that investment through some offshore vehicle that means when he gets bored he can disappear and the club is left to carry the can. Look at Portsmouth.

Does 1 instance mean everyone is tarnished?

The Sheik and the Russian are still there...as are others.

[MrMagoo]

im said:

Does 1 instance mean everyone is tarnished?

The Sheik and the Russian are still there...as are others.

Not exactly sustainable though, if the Arab and Russian fk off then City and Chelsea would be up sts creek without a paddle. By all means invest in a club, but make sure it's not reliant on the owner.

[im]

MrMagoo said:

im said:

Does 1 instance mean everyone is tarnished?

The Sheik and the Russian are still there...as are others.

Not exactly sustainable though, if the Arab and Russian fk off then City and Chelsea would be up sts creek without a paddle. By all means invest in a club, but make sure it's not reliant on the owner.

Hornetrider has a saying about "if"

[Cheib]

im said:

Cheib said:

TheHeretic said:

Well, my position is that if a rich billionaire wants to spunk his money, why shouldn't he be able to? Folks can go racing competitively, and it will cost them. Why can't a club owner?

Because the rich billionaire typically makes that investment through some offshore vehicle that means when he gets bored he can disappear and the club is left to carry the can. Look at Portsmouth.

Does 1 instance mean everyone is tarnished?

The Sheik and the Russian are still there...as are others.

Nope....if they invest and build something sustainable it's fantastic. Trouble is how many have ?

Weirdly the one's that it could be argued have are The Glazers because they have transformed the commercial income.