COME ON YOU RAMS the Derby County fans forum

a friendly place to chat about Derby County, football and life


    Should I stay or should I go? (The FFP that is!)

    Share
    avatar
    SawleyRam

    Rams Fan Since Rams Fan Since : 1954
    First ever game : 1956
    Number of posts : 4359
    Registration date : 2011-01-11
    Points : 5825
    Age : 69
    Location : Username gives it away!

    Should I stay or should I go? (The FFP that is!)

    Post by SawleyRam on Tue 16 Jun 2015, 10:02 am

    As on a list posted by RRC there are a few quality players available on a free, signs are that the FFP has certainly bitten but with the cheats that are QPR will it stay?

    avatar
    MadAmster

    Rams Fan Since Rams Fan Since : 0
    Number of posts : 13549
    Registration date : 2009-02-20
    Points : 15133
    Age : 63
    Location : Where else but Amster Dam

    Re: Should I stay or should I go? (The FFP that is!)

    Post by MadAmster on Tue 16 Jun 2015, 10:33 am

    A lot will depend on whether their fine is reduced/dispensed with. If it isn't then expect a lengthy court case and appeals................

    IMO it should stay. More of the money going in to football should be used to improve grassroots football rather than lining players' and agents' pockets.



    Oh David Nugent, Oh David Nugent, we found him in Preston, we found him in Preston, we found him in Preston at the side of the road in a Volkswagen beetle............
    avatar
    rob

    Rams Fan Since Rams Fan Since : 1968
    First ever game : Early 1973/4 season cant remember who
    Number of posts : 2005
    Registration date : 2011-06-07
    Points : 2126
    Age : 48
    Location : Barleythorpe

    Re: Should I stay or should I go? (The FFP that is!)

    Post by rob on Tue 16 Jun 2015, 3:00 pm

    the fine should stay and be put in escrow (or however you spell it)
    then they can appeal

    if they don't pay they should not be allowed to play - thems the rules

    then they will win the appeal - get all the money back - and FFP will fall on its arse at the first big challenge - as it will at every level - restraint of trade
    avatar
    MadAmster

    Rams Fan Since Rams Fan Since : 0
    Number of posts : 13549
    Registration date : 2009-02-20
    Points : 15133
    Age : 63
    Location : Where else but Amster Dam

    Re: Should I stay or should I go? (The FFP that is!)

    Post by MadAmster on Tue 16 Jun 2015, 4:09 pm

    Escrow is correct rob Thumbs up



    Oh David Nugent, Oh David Nugent, we found him in Preston, we found him in Preston, we found him in Preston at the side of the road in a Volkswagen beetle............
    avatar
    thatguyfromderby

    Rams Fan Since Rams Fan Since : 1994
    Number of posts : 4300
    Registration date : 2009-02-25
    Points : 4596

    Re: Should I stay or should I go? (The FFP that is!)

    Post by thatguyfromderby on Tue 16 Jun 2015, 4:36 pm

    rob wrote:the fine should stay and be put in escrow (or however you spell it)
    then they can appeal

    if they don't pay they should not be allowed to play - thems the rules

    then they will win the appeal - get all the money back - and FFP will fall on its arse at the first big challenge - as it will at every level - restraint of trade

    It's not really restraint of trade. It's sanctions for failing to follow league rules. Very few businesses get to trade so drastically beyond their means, and they don't complain as they go bankrupt because of unfair trading practices.
    avatar
    CornwallRam

    Rams Fan Since Rams Fan Since : 1972
    Number of posts : 6224
    Registration date : 2009-02-20
    Points : 6748
    Age : 49
    Location : Derby

    Re: Should I stay or should I go? (The FFP that is!)

    Post by CornwallRam on Tue 16 Jun 2015, 5:43 pm

    thatguyfromderby wrote:
    rob wrote:the fine should stay and be put in escrow (or however you spell it)
    then they can appeal

    if they don't pay they should not be allowed to play - thems the rules

    then they will win the appeal - get all the money back - and FFP will fall on its arse at the first big challenge - as it will at every level - restraint of trade

    It's not really restraint of trade. It's sanctions for failing to follow league rules. Very few businesses get to trade so drastically beyond their means, and they don't complain as they go bankrupt because of unfair trading practices.

    Actually it is a restraint of trade and would certainly be illegal in most situations. Yet in law there is generally a 'for the public good' defence. The footballing authorities argue that FFP helps to ensure that clubs don't go into liquidation. A major club folding would upset their supporters, their creditors and a good proportion of wider fans who would feel that the game was detrimentally affected. Therefore, they argue, that the restraint of trade inherent in FFP is legal because it is in the public good.

    Personally. I don't feel that it will stand up in court. The FL have a huge problem now. If they don't pursue QPR, FFP is clearly dead in the water, but I'd expect Forest, Blackburn and Leeds to sue for loss of earnings caused by their transfer embargos - each could argue that the sanctions cost them promotion and are due £150m. If they do go after QPR it will take years (and £million) and they need to decide what to do in the meantime.

    I also hope FFP fails miserably. It is a huge threat to football. Limiting spending to income prevents owners from investing. Without such investment the current size of a club is set in stone. We face a future where we will know what the season end league table looks like before the first game kicks off. This is why the big clubs in Europe support it - they want it to be easy for them to remain in the elite. External investment has allowed Chelsea and Man City to join the elite, but such a feat would never again be possible. If fairness is the aim they should introduce actual spending caps that are the same for every club in the division - not rules that allow the biggest clubs to dwarf the spending allowed by their smaller rivals.
    avatar
    SawleyRam

    Rams Fan Since Rams Fan Since : 1954
    First ever game : 1956
    Number of posts : 4359
    Registration date : 2011-01-11
    Points : 5825
    Age : 69
    Location : Username gives it away!

    Re: Should I stay or should I go? (The FFP that is!)

    Post by SawleyRam on Tue 16 Jun 2015, 7:12 pm

    CornwallRam wrote:
    thatguyfromderby wrote:
    rob wrote:the fine should stay and be put in escrow (or however you spell it)
    then they can appeal

    if they don't pay they should not be allowed to play - thems the rules

    then they will win the appeal - get all the money back - and FFP will fall on its arse at the first big challenge - as it will at every level - restraint of trade

    It's not really restraint of trade. It's sanctions for failing to follow league rules. Very few businesses get to trade so drastically beyond their means, and they don't complain as they go bankrupt because of unfair trading practices.

    Actually it is a restraint of trade and would certainly be illegal in most situations. Yet in law there is generally a 'for the public good' defence. The footballing authorities argue that FFP helps to ensure that clubs don't go into liquidation. A major club folding would upset their supporters, their creditors and a good proportion of wider fans who would feel that the game was detrimentally affected. Therefore, they argue, that the restraint of trade inherent in FFP is legal because it is in the public good.

    Personally. I don't feel that it will stand up in court. The FL have a huge problem now. If they don't pursue QPR, FFP is clearly dead in the water, but I'd expect Forest, Blackburn and Leeds to sue for loss of earnings caused by their transfer embargos - each could argue that the sanctions cost them promotion and are due £150m. If they do go after QPR it will take years (and £million) and they need to decide what to do in the meantime.

    I also hope FFP fails miserably. It is a huge threat to football. Limiting spending to income prevents owners from investing. Without such investment the current size of a club is set in stone. We face a future where we will know what the season end league table looks like before the first game kicks off. This is why the big clubs in Europe support it - they want it to be easy for them to remain in the elite. External investment has allowed Chelsea and Man City to join the elite, but such a feat would never again be possible. If fairness is the aim they should introduce actual spending caps that are the same for every club in the division - not rules that allow the biggest clubs to dwarf the spending allowed by their smaller rivals.

    The FFP rules appear to be too complex for most of us mere mortals but the one thing that I thoroughly object to is that these rules were voted on by the at that time Championship clubs (QPR was one) and accepted.

    QPR then bypassed those rules and now complain because they have found themselves back where they started with their pockets lined through blatant cheating.

    They have been found out and wanting. Time for them to take their bitter pill and play to the same rules as the rest of us.


    Last edited by SawleyRam on Tue 16 Jun 2015, 7:15 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : I nearly put in writing what I really think of QPR.)
    avatar
    Angus

    Rams Fan Since Rams Fan Since : 0
    First ever game : First Game
    Number of posts : 2155
    Registration date : 2012-07-17
    Points : 2258

    Re: Should I stay or should I go? (The FFP that is!)

    Post by Angus on Tue 16 Jun 2015, 7:42 pm

    CornwallRam wrote:
    thatguyfromderby wrote:
    rob wrote:the fine should stay and be put in escrow (or however you spell it)
    then they can appeal

    if they don't pay they should not be allowed to play - thems the rules

    then they will win the appeal - get all the money back - and FFP will fall on its arse at the first big challenge - as it will at every level - restraint of trade

    It's not really restraint of trade. It's sanctions for failing to follow league rules. Very few businesses get to trade so drastically beyond their means, and they don't complain as they go bankrupt because of unfair trading practices.

    Actually it is a restraint of trade and would certainly be illegal in most situations. Yet in law there is generally a 'for the public good' defence. The footballing authorities argue that FFP helps to ensure that clubs don't go into liquidation. A major club folding would upset their supporters, their creditors and a good proportion of wider fans who would feel that the game was detrimentally affected. Therefore, they argue, that the restraint of trade inherent in FFP is legal because it is in the public good.

    Personally. I don't feel that it will stand up in court. The FL have a huge problem now. If they don't pursue QPR, FFP is clearly dead in the water, but I'd expect Forest, Blackburn and Leeds to sue for loss of earnings caused by their transfer embargos - each could argue that the sanctions cost them promotion and are due £150m. If they do go after QPR it will take years (and £million) and they need to decide what to do in the meantime.

    I also hope FFP fails miserably. It is a huge threat to football. Limiting spending to income prevents owners from investing. Without such investment the current size of a club is set in stone. We face a future where we will know what the season end league table looks like before the first game kicks off. This is why the big clubs in Europe support it - they want it to be easy for them to remain in the elite. External investment has allowed Chelsea and Man City to join the elite, but such a feat would never again be possible. If fairness is the aim they should introduce actual spending caps that are the same for every club in the division - not rules that allow the biggest clubs to dwarf the spending allowed by their smaller rivals.

    Can't really agree with that, any competition is entitled to set it's own rules and if any individual club can't accept those rules they can bail out. FFP has satisfied all the European legal tests there is no issue there.

    QPR will have to be dealt with, interesting how that is done. The facts are football clubs need protecting from themselves, so many have gone bust over the years some more than once, Derby County effectively among them. The days of football clubs owing a fortune, paying back a pittance and getting away with it are over.

    Investors if that's what you call it, I would more say setting fire to money have put money in then bailed out, or in Lionel's situation the money ran out but the bills remained, for supporters there has to be a safeguard.

    More clubs are properly run now in the PL, Man Utd, Arsenal, Tottenham, Newcastle, Swansea make money, even Chelsea now live within their means, that has to be the way forward. Man City just don't have the support, they will always be outnumbered in their own city if they are stopped in their tracks it has to be good for football. The competition is always there in England, nobody has ever won the league more than 3 times in a row, no big problem.
    avatar
    Stockport Ram

    Rams Fan Since Rams Fan Since : 1971
    First ever game : Newcastle (h) Easter 1983 I think
    Number of posts : 5207
    Registration date : 2010-03-22
    Points : 5755
    Age : 51
    Location : That's a toughie.......

    Re: Should I stay or should I go? (The FFP that is!)

    Post by Stockport Ram on Tue 16 Jun 2015, 7:45 pm

    Angus wrote:
    CornwallRam wrote:
    thatguyfromderby wrote:
    rob wrote:the fine should stay and be put in escrow (or however you spell it)
    then they can appeal

    if they don't pay they should not be allowed to play - thems the rules

    then they will win the appeal - get all the money back - and FFP will fall on its arse at the first big challenge - as it will at every level - restraint of trade

    It's not really restraint of trade. It's sanctions for failing to follow league rules. Very few businesses get to trade so drastically beyond their means, and they don't complain as they go bankrupt because of unfair trading practices.

    Actually it is a restraint of trade and would certainly be illegal in most situations. Yet in law there is generally a 'for the public good' defence. The footballing authorities argue that FFP helps to ensure that clubs don't go into liquidation. A major club folding would upset their supporters, their creditors and a good proportion of wider fans who would feel that the game was detrimentally affected. Therefore, they argue, that the restraint of trade inherent in FFP is legal because it is in the public good.

    Personally. I don't feel that it will stand up in court. The FL have a huge problem now. If they don't pursue QPR, FFP is clearly dead in the water, but I'd expect Forest, Blackburn and Leeds to sue for loss of earnings caused by their transfer embargos - each could argue that the sanctions cost them promotion and are due £150m. If they do go after QPR it will take years (and £million) and they need to decide what to do in the meantime.

    I also hope FFP fails miserably. It is a huge threat to football. Limiting spending to income prevents owners from investing. Without such investment the current size of a club is set in stone. We face a future where we will know what the season end league table looks like before the first game kicks off. This is why the big clubs in Europe support it - they want it to be easy for them to remain in the elite. External investment has allowed Chelsea and Man City to join the elite, but such a feat would never again be possible. If fairness is the aim they should introduce actual spending caps that are the same for every club in the division - not rules that allow the biggest clubs to dwarf the spending allowed by their smaller rivals.

    Can't really agree with that, any competition is entitled to set it's own rules and if any individual club can't accept those rules they can bail out. FFP has satisfied all the European legal tests there is no issue there.

    QPR will have to be dealt with, interesting how that is done. The facts are football clubs need protecting from themselves, so many have gone bust over the years some more than once, Derby County effectively among them. The days of football clubs owing a fortune, paying back a pittance and getting away with it are over.

    Investors if that's what you call it, I would more say setting fire to money have put money in then bailed out, or in Lionel's situation the money ran out but the bills remained, for supporters there has to be a safeguard.

    More clubs are properly run now in the PL, Man Utd, Arsenal, Tottenham, Newcastle, Swansea make money, even Chelsea now live within their means, that has to be the way forward. Man City just don't have the support, they will always be outnumbered in their own city if they are stopped in their tracks it has to be good for football. The competition is always there in England, nobody has ever won the league more than 3 times in a row, no big problem.


    But IMHO, only four teams have any chance of winning it in the foreseeable future - that's the problem.
    avatar
    chicken
    Admin

    Rams Fan Since Rams Fan Since : 0
    First ever game : 1983 sometime!
    Number of posts : 14507
    Registration date : 2009-02-11
    Points : 15930
    Age : 49
    Location : Belper

    Re: Should I stay or should I go? (The FFP that is!)

    Post by chicken on Tue 16 Jun 2015, 8:51 pm

    http://footballleagueworld.co.uk/qpr-banned-from-signing-non-eu-players/
    avatar
    CornwallRam

    Rams Fan Since Rams Fan Since : 1972
    Number of posts : 6224
    Registration date : 2009-02-20
    Points : 6748
    Age : 49
    Location : Derby

    Re: Should I stay or should I go? (The FFP that is!)

    Post by CornwallRam on Tue 16 Jun 2015, 10:06 pm

    Angus wrote:
    CornwallRam wrote:
    thatguyfromderby wrote:
    rob wrote:the fine should stay and be put in escrow (or however you spell it)
    then they can appeal

    if they don't pay they should not be allowed to play - thems the rules

    then they will win the appeal - get all the money back - and FFP will fall on its arse at the first big challenge - as it will at every level - restraint of trade

    It's not really restraint of trade. It's sanctions for failing to follow league rules. Very few businesses get to trade so drastically beyond their means, and they don't complain as they go bankrupt because of unfair trading practices.

    Actually it is a restraint of trade and would certainly be illegal in most situations. Yet in law there is generally a 'for the public good' defence. The footballing authorities argue that FFP helps to ensure that clubs don't go into liquidation. A major club folding would upset their supporters, their creditors and a good proportion of wider fans who would feel that the game was detrimentally affected. Therefore, they argue, that the restraint of trade inherent in FFP is legal because it is in the public good.

    Personally. I don't feel that it will stand up in court. The FL have a huge problem now. If they don't pursue QPR, FFP is clearly dead in the water, but I'd expect Forest, Blackburn and Leeds to sue for loss of earnings caused by their transfer embargos - each could argue that the sanctions cost them promotion and are due £150m. If they do go after QPR it will take years (and £million) and they need to decide what to do in the meantime.

    I also hope FFP fails miserably. It is a huge threat to football. Limiting spending to income prevents owners from investing. Without such investment the current size of a club is set in stone. We face a future where we will know what the season end league table looks like before the first game kicks off. This is why the big clubs in Europe support it - they want it to be easy for them to remain in the elite. External investment has allowed Chelsea and Man City to join the elite, but such a feat would never again be possible. If fairness is the aim they should introduce actual spending caps that are the same for every club in the division - not rules that allow the biggest clubs to dwarf the spending allowed by their smaller rivals.

    Can't really agree with that, any competition is entitled to set it's own rules and if any individual club can't accept those rules they can bail out. FFP has satisfied all the European legal tests there is no issue there.

    QPR will have to be dealt with, interesting how that is done. The facts are football clubs need protecting from themselves, so many have gone bust over the years some more than once, Derby County effectively among them. The days of football clubs owing a fortune, paying back a pittance and getting away with it are over.

    Investors if that's what you call it, I would more say setting fire to money have put money in then bailed out, or in Lionel's situation the money ran out but the bills remained, for supporters there has to be a safeguard.

    More clubs are properly run now in the PL, Man Utd, Arsenal, Tottenham, Newcastle, Swansea make money, even Chelsea now live within their means, that has to be the way forward. Man City just don't have the support, they will always be outnumbered in their own city if they are stopped in their tracks it has to be good for football. The competition is always there in England, nobody has ever won the league more than 3 times in a row, no big problem.

    Sorry Angus you are wrong there - competitions have to stay within the law. FFP rules haven't been legally OK'd because the only way for that to happen is a test case, which hasn't happened yet.

    Glad to hear that so many clubs are making money - funny that none of them have made any impression in Europe this season isn't it?
    avatar
    CornwallRam

    Rams Fan Since Rams Fan Since : 1972
    Number of posts : 6224
    Registration date : 2009-02-20
    Points : 6748
    Age : 49
    Location : Derby

    Re: Should I stay or should I go? (The FFP that is!)

    Post by CornwallRam on Tue 16 Jun 2015, 10:17 pm

    SawleyRam wrote:
    CornwallRam wrote:
    thatguyfromderby wrote:
    rob wrote:the fine should stay and be put in escrow (or however you spell it)
    then they can appeal

    if they don't pay they should not be allowed to play - thems the rules

    then they will win the appeal - get all the money back - and FFP will fall on its arse at the first big challenge - as it will at every level - restraint of trade

    It's not really restraint of trade. It's sanctions for failing to follow league rules. Very few businesses get to trade so drastically beyond their means, and they don't complain as they go bankrupt because of unfair trading practices.

    Actually it is a restraint of trade and would certainly be illegal in most situations. Yet in law there is generally a 'for the public good' defence. The footballing authorities argue that FFP helps to ensure that clubs don't go into liquidation. A major club folding would upset their supporters, their creditors and a good proportion of wider fans who would feel that the game was detrimentally affected. Therefore, they argue, that the restraint of trade inherent in FFP is legal because it is in the public good.

    Personally. I don't feel that it will stand up in court. The FL have a huge problem now. If they don't pursue QPR, FFP is clearly dead in the water, but I'd expect Forest, Blackburn and Leeds to sue for loss of earnings caused by their transfer embargos - each could argue that the sanctions cost them promotion and are due £150m. If they do go after QPR it will take years (and £million) and they need to decide what to do in the meantime.

    I also hope FFP fails miserably. It is a huge threat to football. Limiting spending to income prevents owners from investing. Without such investment the current size of a club is set in stone. We face a future where we will know what the season end league table looks like before the first game kicks off. This is why the big clubs in Europe support it - they want it to be easy for them to remain in the elite. External investment has allowed Chelsea and Man City to join the elite, but such a feat would never again be possible. If fairness is the aim they should introduce actual spending caps that are the same for every club in the division - not rules that allow the biggest clubs to dwarf the spending allowed by their smaller rivals.

    The FFP rules appear to be too complex for most of us mere mortals but the one thing that I thoroughly object to is that these rules were voted on by the at that time Championship clubs (QPR was one) and accepted.

    QPR then bypassed those rules and now complain because they have found themselves back where they started with their pockets lined through blatant cheating.

    They have been found out and wanting. Time for them to take their bitter pill and play to the same rules as the rest of us.

    QPR were in the PL when FFP was voted in. From memory I think only Reading, Leicester and Southampton voted against.

    Some interesting (if you're sad like me) bits here

    http://www.soccernomics-agency.com/?p=469

    http://www.beyondthepitch.net/articles/post/index.cfm/2011/07/14/uefa-financial-fair-play-are-the-rules-anti-competitive/

    http://www.lawinsport.com/articles/competition-law/item/fair-or-foul-competition-law-and-the-financial-regulation-of-football-part-2
    avatar
    SawleyRam

    Rams Fan Since Rams Fan Since : 1954
    First ever game : 1956
    Number of posts : 4359
    Registration date : 2011-01-11
    Points : 5825
    Age : 69
    Location : Username gives it away!

    Re: Should I stay or should I go? (The FFP that is!)

    Post by SawleyRam on Tue 16 Jun 2015, 11:03 pm

    CornwallRam wrote:
    SawleyRam wrote:
    CornwallRam wrote:
    thatguyfromderby wrote:
    rob wrote:the fine should stay and be put in escrow (or however you spell it)
    then they can appeal

    if they don't pay they should not be allowed to play - thems the rules

    then they will win the appeal - get all the money back - and FFP will fall on its arse at the first big challenge - as it will at every level - restraint of trade

    It's not really restraint of trade. It's sanctions for failing to follow league rules. Very few businesses get to trade so drastically beyond their means, and they don't complain as they go bankrupt because of unfair trading practices.

    Actually it is a restraint of trade and would certainly be illegal in most situations. Yet in law there is generally a 'for the public good' defence. The footballing authorities argue that FFP helps to ensure that clubs don't go into liquidation. A major club folding would upset their supporters, their creditors and a good proportion of wider fans who would feel that the game was detrimentally affected. Therefore, they argue, that the restraint of trade inherent in FFP is legal because it is in the public good.

    Personally. I don't feel that it will stand up in court. The FL have a huge problem now. If they don't pursue QPR, FFP is clearly dead in the water, but I'd expect Forest, Blackburn and Leeds to sue for loss of earnings caused by their transfer embargos - each could argue that the sanctions cost them promotion and are due £150m. If they do go after QPR it will take years (and £million) and they need to decide what to do in the meantime.

    I also hope FFP fails miserably. It is a huge threat to football. Limiting spending to income prevents owners from investing. Without such investment the current size of a club is set in stone. We face a future where we will know what the season end league table looks like before the first game kicks off. This is why the big clubs in Europe support it - they want it to be easy for them to remain in the elite. External investment has allowed Chelsea and Man City to join the elite, but such a feat would never again be possible. If fairness is the aim they should introduce actual spending caps that are the same for every club in the division - not rules that allow the biggest clubs to dwarf the spending allowed by their smaller rivals.

    The FFP rules appear to be too complex for most of us mere mortals but the one thing that I thoroughly object to is that these rules were voted on by the at that time Championship clubs (QPR was one) and accepted.

    QPR then bypassed those rules and now complain because they have found themselves back where they started with their pockets lined through blatant cheating.

    They have been found out and wanting. Time for them to take their bitter pill and play to the same rules as the rest of us.

    QPR were in the PL when FFP was voted in. From  memory I think only Reading, Leicester and Southampton voted against.

    Some interesting (if you're sad like me) bits here

    http://www.soccernomics-agency.com/?p=469

    http://www.beyondthepitch.net/articles/post/index.cfm/2011/07/14/uefa-financial-fair-play-are-the-rules-anti-competitive/

    http://www.lawinsport.com/articles/competition-law/item/fair-or-foul-competition-law-and-the-financial-regulation-of-football-part-2

    Controversy with QPR in the season of implementation that I seem to remember:

    On 30 April 2011, QPR secured promotion to the Premier League by winning the Championship with a 2–0 win over Watford. A subsequent FA investigation involving QPR's acquisition of Alejandro Faurlín threatened to deduct points from the side and put their promotion into jeopardy. The investigation concluded on 7 May 2011, with QPR found to be at fault in two of the seven charges, and received a £875,000 fine. However, there were no points deducted by the FA, and QPR's promotion to the Premier League was secured.

    They were relegated from the Premiership in the 2012-13 season and to play in the football league Championship they had to agree to adhere to their rules and regulations, of which they clearly did not.

    Tony Fernandez was at the helm during the time of the controversies. Clearly somebody who wants to play to his own rules the complains when he gets caught out.
    avatar
    Angus

    Rams Fan Since Rams Fan Since : 0
    First ever game : First Game
    Number of posts : 2155
    Registration date : 2012-07-17
    Points : 2258

    Re: Should I stay or should I go? (The FFP that is!)

    Post by Angus on Wed 17 Jun 2015, 8:52 am

    CornwallRam wrote:
    Angus wrote:
    CornwallRam wrote:
    thatguyfromderby wrote:
    rob wrote:the fine should stay and be put in escrow (or however you spell it)
    then they can appeal

    if they don't pay they should not be allowed to play - thems the rules

    then they will win the appeal - get all the money back - and FFP will fall on its arse at the first big challenge - as it will at every level - restraint of trade

    It's not really restraint of trade. It's sanctions for failing to follow league rules. Very few businesses get to trade so drastically beyond their means, and they don't complain as they go bankrupt because of unfair trading practices.

    Actually it is a restraint of trade and would certainly be illegal in most situations. Yet in law there is generally a 'for the public good' defence. The footballing authorities argue that FFP helps to ensure that clubs don't go into liquidation. A major club folding would upset their supporters, their creditors and a good proportion of wider fans who would feel that the game was detrimentally affected. Therefore, they argue, that the restraint of trade inherent in FFP is legal because it is in the public good.

    Personally. I don't feel that it will stand up in court. The FL have a huge problem now. If they don't pursue QPR, FFP is clearly dead in the water, but I'd expect Forest, Blackburn and Leeds to sue for loss of earnings caused by their transfer embargos - each could argue that the sanctions cost them promotion and are due £150m. If they do go after QPR it will take years (and £million) and they need to decide what to do in the meantime.

    I also hope FFP fails miserably. It is a huge threat to football. Limiting spending to income prevents owners from investing. Without such investment the current size of a club is set in stone. We face a future where we will know what the season end league table looks like before the first game kicks off. This is why the big clubs in Europe support it - they want it to be easy for them to remain in the elite. External investment has allowed Chelsea and Man City to join the elite, but such a feat would never again be possible. If fairness is the aim they should introduce actual spending caps that are the same for every club in the division - not rules that allow the biggest clubs to dwarf the spending allowed by their smaller rivals.

    Can't really agree with that, any competition is entitled to set it's own rules and if any individual club can't accept those rules they can bail out. FFP has satisfied all the European legal tests there is no issue there.

    QPR will have to be dealt with, interesting how that is done. The facts are football clubs need protecting from themselves, so many have gone bust over the years some more than once, Derby County effectively among them. The days of football clubs owing a fortune, paying back a pittance and getting away with it are over.

    Investors if that's what you call it, I would more say setting fire to money have put money in then bailed out, or in Lionel's situation the money ran out but the bills remained, for supporters there has to be a safeguard.

    More clubs are properly run now in the PL, Man Utd, Arsenal, Tottenham, Newcastle, Swansea make money, even Chelsea now live within their means, that has to be the way forward. Man City just don't have the support, they will always be outnumbered in their own city if they are stopped in their tracks it has to be good for football. The competition is always there in England, nobody has ever won the league more than 3 times in a row, no big problem.

    Sorry Angus you are wrong there - competitions have to stay within the law. FFP rules haven't been legally OK'd because the only way for that to happen is a test case, which hasn't happened yet.

    Glad to hear that so many clubs are making money - funny that none of them have made any impression in Europe this season isn't it?

    UEFA went through the legal channels to make their rules watertight, no challenges so far and unlikely that will happen, these football league rules fall well within those parameters.

    Personally I think the lower league rules maximum 55% salary to turnover ratio are far more effective, or a salary cap as in Rugby League or Cricket would protect the clubs much better.

    Do I think these rules protect DCFC no because if the Americans or Mr Morris stopped the funding the club wouldn't be able to pay the bills, all clubs should be self sustaining as they have to be in some European countries.

    There is a growing problem of English clubs whether they are profitably run like a Man Utd or Newcastle, or the ones that spend more than they earn because they all waste huge amounts on players and neglect their youth systems, even huge clubs like Bayern and Barcelona give youth a chance, a club like Lyon virtually fielded a team of their own promoted youth players last season. Unthinkable in England the scouting, selection and coaching is second or third rate at best, including DCFC.
    avatar
    rob

    Rams Fan Since Rams Fan Since : 1968
    First ever game : Early 1973/4 season cant remember who
    Number of posts : 2005
    Registration date : 2011-06-07
    Points : 2126
    Age : 48
    Location : Barleythorpe

    Re: Should I stay or should I go? (The FFP that is!)

    Post by rob on Wed 17 Jun 2015, 12:42 pm

    if the uefa rules are so watertight why are they already loosening them - legal sabre rattling from man city and PSG methinks
    avatar
    Angus

    Rams Fan Since Rams Fan Since : 0
    First ever game : First Game
    Number of posts : 2155
    Registration date : 2012-07-17
    Points : 2258

    Re: Should I stay or should I go? (The FFP that is!)

    Post by Angus on Wed 17 Jun 2015, 12:47 pm

    rob wrote:if the uefa rules are so watertight why are they already loosening them - legal sabre rattling from man city and PSG methinks

    No it was the big Italian clubs who forced the issue, man city are not a big club they carry no clout at all, they wouldn't be missed long term but Milan and Inter would be.
    avatar
    rob

    Rams Fan Since Rams Fan Since : 1968
    First ever game : Early 1973/4 season cant remember who
    Number of posts : 2005
    Registration date : 2011-06-07
    Points : 2126
    Age : 48
    Location : Barleythorpe

    Re: Should I stay or should I go? (The FFP that is!)

    Post by rob on Thu 18 Jun 2015, 10:14 am

    but they have a lot of money to spend on lawyers - Italian football hasn't in the corporate world money talks not history or reputation ask Liverpool fans :-)

    Sponsored content

    Re: Should I stay or should I go? (The FFP that is!)

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon 21 Aug 2017, 12:10 am