Are the FFP restraints about to come off???

[ToodlesMcToot]

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/man-citys-victory-against-ffp-9527978

Would the Football League's rules fall next? Would it all come too late to see a real risky spending spree by clubs to ensure that they achieve promotion this season (for the TV money that is coming)???

[MJG]

People must realise the difference between UEFA, PL and FL rules. These are all seperate and mostly with different aims. If you are going to be in Europe you take notice of UEFA, otherwise its nothing really to do with us.

[ToodlesMcToot]

My thought was that if a European precedent was set, then that would carry weight toward reversing those same kinds of restrictions in the PL and FL.

Of course, the truly big clubs won't be fighting those so soon b/c they are propped up by them and their stranglehold on the top of the PL table is more certain. However, a smaller club with the will to do so might attack the FFP in the Leagues in the same manner.

I definitely have little understanding of how the two sets of rules differ or how attacking FFP rules under EU law might differ from attacking FFP under British law. Just thought the possibilities were interesting enough to consider and talk about.

[MJG]

Thats fair, but the fL rules are really there to stop clubs getting into trouble, and I dont think a club has gone into admin for two seasons, so something is working.
The rules will change and more money will be able to put into a club by owners, but its working out how that stops a club getting into massive debt which is the issue.

[ToodlesMcToot]

So, what was the intent with the UEFA rules? Was it something less altruistic than financial protection for the clubs?

I definitely believe that FFP in Britain are serving at least the best intentions but, they are also ensuring that there is less competition at the top of the PL.

[BestOfBrede]

Can someone explain this FFP malarkey, please?
I don't understand for example, why Blackburn have this embargo for flouting these rules and yet the ha ha's are able to buy players even though they were threatened that if they got relegated they would be hung, drawn and quartered!?

[Thamesbank]

People must realise the difference between UEFA, PL and FL rules. These are all seperate and mostly with different aims. If you are going to be in Europe you take notice of UEFA, otherwise its nothing really to do with us.

I was told more than two years ago that FFP was illegal in the EU, I believe that has now proven to be the case with Platini backing away from his restrictions and more than one ongoing court case testing the FFP environment. The football league cannot ignore eu law whatever they want to achieve.

[MJG]

It's separate rules and UEFA is an association.
The FL is basically a membership organisation with its own competition rules which members agree to. It's completely different.

[Oakeshott]

"The FL is basically a membership organisation with its own competition rules which members agree to. It's completely different."

Not if it is challenged by a member of the FL and comes to court. In general it is not open to membership organisations to enforce rules that conflict with EU or UK law, though of course they may do provided no member objects and brings it to a court.

The exclusion of women from some golf clubs is an interesting example. I think it was the last Labour government who signalled the intent to make such discrimination illegal and various clubs changed their policies because of the stated intent. Similarly the last government intimated that if the General Synod rejected having women as bishops the law might be changed to make such discrimination unlawful.

These days it is more or less just religious organisations and trade unions that can do things that would otherwise conflict with the ordinary law, because on some matters (eg the slaughter of animals) Parliament has enacted legislative exceptions. Otherwise every Jewish and Halal slaughter house/butcher would be guilty of serious offences relating to animal cruelty, and trade unions could be sued for the damage that their members cause through strikes. 

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

"The FL is basically a membership organisation with its own competition rules which members agree to. It's completely different."

Not if it is challenged by a member of the FL and comes to court. In general it is not open to membership organisations to enforce rules that conflict with EU or UK law, though of course they may do provided no member objects and brings it to a court.

The exclusion of women from some golf clubs is an interesting example. I think it was the last Labour government who signalled the intent to make such discrimination illegal and various clubs changed their policies because of the stated intent. Similarly the last government intimated that if the General Synod rejected having women as bishops the law might be changed to make such discrimination unlawful.

These days it is more or less just religious organisations and trade unions that can do things that would otherwise conflict with the ordinary law, because on some matters (eg the slaughter of animals) Parliament has enacted legislative exceptions. Otherwise every Jewish and Halal slaughter house/butcher would be guilty of serious offences relating to animal cruelty, and trade unions could be sued for the damage that their members cause through strikes. 

So with what law does FFP conflict?

[Oakeshott]

ATTM

We won't know for sure unless/until it is tested before the courts (a far from uncommon situation as however clear a law seems to be, until it has been interpreted by the courts in concrete situations its scope can be uncertain). But essentially there is quite a lot of, especially EU, law which prohibits conduct seen as reducing competition. As FFP clearly means that some football clubs are constrained from investing money that they might otherwise do, for them it is a constraint on their ability to compete.

The counter argument, of course, is that FFP enhances competition because it creates a "level playing field", much as in horse racing theoretically in handicap races differential weights mean runners' chances are equalised. But the key word there is "handicap", ie horse A, known on all previous form to have the easy beating of horse B at level weights, might carry say 2 stone more than B in a handicap race, giving B a theoretically equal chance of winning.

Insofar as there is a tendency in EU law and its interpretation by the courts it is probably fair to say that it is to eliminate "handicaps" to competition.

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

QPR and Fulham probably have the richest owners outside the PL. I don't seen any interest from Khan to challenge the FFP rules and even QPR seem to be changing their strategy.

The rules are already more flexible than most opponents seem to think.

I don't think it would be the regular topic on here if rather than being owned by a billionaire our owner ran the local chip shop.

I'm much more interested in putting together a team of honest players with talent who can I improve our situation over the medium to long term rather than what inevitably happens with money sloshing about when the focus becomes short term with expensive players often past the peak of their careers going through the motions while picking up large wage packets.