Football club finances / FFP

[moomba]

Well if they breach UK law then they need to change them. These rules are put in place with legal advice to ensure they don't breach any UK laws.

Tell me this - is it the same for a wealth rich nation to challenge whether a football rule is compliant with the laws of another nation that it has political ties with than it is for a local or overseas corporation? In regards to influence and political waves it may cause? I think you'd be naive to think so.

We will now start to see why other sports will never allow sovereign nations to have majority ownership.

The football club is challenging the rule change. Over 100 years old. UK registered company subject to UK laws.

I doubt it will create any political waves, just a few dramas in football circles until we move on to next week's dramas.

Now, if you agree that if the rules are illegal they should be changed, how else do you see that happening if not for a club (any club) taking this sort of action?

 

[moomba]

There are plenty of 'rules' or laws in sporting codes that wouldn't hold up in a court of law but are allowed because everyone who plays the sport sign up to abide by them. You can punch someone on a football field and get a red card and 3 game suspension but not face an assault charge for instance (other than in extremes).

There isn't a rule that says that a player is exempt from criminal action if they punch someone.

The decision to charge or not charge is up to the police, not football.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Now, if you agree that if the rules are illegal they should be changed, how else do you see that happening if not for a club (any club) taking this sort of action?

It’s a sports rule..it’s bs they believe it’s illegal. But guess what? It’s doesn’t matter because they have endless money and the FA don’t. And it’s a tactic to distract and stretch FA legal people away from the big 115 elephants in the room ..and importantly send waves politically.

I suppose FA made the bed ..they can now lie in it.

 

[chef]

There isn't a rule that says that a player is exempt from criminal action if they punch someone.

The decision to charge or not charge is up to the police, not football.

Is it up to the person to want to press charges?

 

[moomba]

It’s a sports rule..it’s bs they believe it’s illegal. But guess what? It’s doesn’t matter because they have endless money and the FA don’t. And it’s a tactic to distract and stretch FA legal people away from the big 115 elephants in the room ..and importantly send waves politically.

I suppose FA made the bed ..they can now lie in it.

Why is it BS? Can sports rules not be illegal?

The FA have plenty of money BTW. They're not using legal aid here.

 

[moomba]

Is it up to the person to want to press charges?

Sometimes, but not always.

 

[SM]

There isn't a rule that says that a player is exempt from criminal action if they punch someone.

The decision to charge or not charge is up to the police, not football.

Where did I say there was? I said actions within sports are largely governed by sports because players sign up to abide by those rules.

 

[moomba]

Where did I say there was? I said actions within sports are largely governed by sports because players sign up to abide by those rules.

Might just be me getting confused, but I'm not sure I get the point you're trying to make.

 

[SM]

Might just be me getting confused, but I'm not sure I get the point you're trying to make.

Restraint of trade, injuries on a football field, etc. are generally given a 'blind eye' when it comes to the legality because all competitors know that if the bubble was burst it'd be to the detriment of the sport for the sake of a couple of individual cases, which is why you never see these things held to the expectations required under law.

 

[moomba]

Restraint of trade, injuries on a football field, etc. are generally given a 'blind eye' when it comes to the legality because all competitors know that if the bubble was burst it'd be to the detriment of the sport for the sake of a couple of individual cases, which is why you never see these things held to the expectations required under law.

Restraint of trade maybe, but things like Bosman show that can be challenged.

I reckon the 2021 APT rules may be an example of that, where the rules were technically illegal but not to the extent that anyone thought it worth challenging.

 

[SM]

Restraint of trade maybe, but things like Bosman show that can be challenged.

I reckon the 2021 APT rules may be an example of that, where the rules were technically illegal but not to the extent that anyone thought it worth challenging.

Bosman is when a player is out of contract so I've never really understood why that was as groundbreaking as it is.

 

[moomba]

Bosman is when a player is out of contract so I've never really understood why that was as groundbreaking as it is.

It used to be that a club still held onto the playing rights of a player out of contract.

 

[moomba]

Another good example also might be American sports, where you can be traded to another team and unless your contract specifies it, you're expected to pack your bags and go.

I can't imagine that would be legal under US law. But I'm not aware of anyone ever challenging it.

I would imagine if they did though, there would be a bit of collusion to make sure he didn't pick up a contract elsewhere.

 

[Bostonian]

Another good example also might be American sports, where you can be traded to another team and unless your contract specifies it, you're expected to pack your bags and go.

I can't imagine that would be legal under US law. But I'm not aware of anyone ever challenging it.

I would imagine if they did though, there would be a bit of collusion to make sure he didn't pick up a contract elsewhere.

American sports have salary caps to try and level the playing field a bit.

None of those teams are running off to the courts to challenge that even though some teams can spend 50x what other teams can spend.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Another good example also might be American sports, where you can be traded to another team and unless your contract specifies it, you're expected to pack your bags and go.

I can't imagine that would be legal under US law. But I'm not aware of anyone ever challenging it.

I would imagine if they did though, there would be a bit of collusion to make sure he didn't pick up a contract elsewhere.

That's agreement between NFL and players association. Contracts are also not fully guaranteed as well unlike MLB for example. Again agreement between players and the league.

 

[moomba]

American sports have salary caps to try and level the playing field a bit.

None of those teams are running off to the courts to challenge that even though some teams can spend 50x what other teams can spend.

Do salary caps contravene US laws?

I'd doubt it.

Not much point challenging the rules if that was the case.

We clearly think the APT rule changes contravene UK law. If we didn't, and it was just a rule we didn't there wouldn't be a case.

 

[moomba]

That's agreement between NFL and players association. Contracts are also not fully guaranteed as well unlike MLB for example. Again agreement between players and the league.

Don't know too much about NFL, but if someone refused a trade and they werent entitled to do so under the terms of their contract what would happen?

Suspended? Suspect they'd never get another contract in the league.

Would be an interesting restraint of trade case.

 

[Zidane98]

American sports have salary caps to try and level the playing field a bit.

None of those teams are running off to the courts to challenge that even though some teams can spend 50x what other teams can spend.

Oh but discrimination etc etc. it's all unfair.

 

[Bostonian]

Do salary caps contravene US laws?

I'd doubt it.

Not much point challenging the rules if that was the case.

We clearly think the APT rule changes contravene UK law. If we didn't, and it was just a rule we didn't there wouldn't be a case.

There's plenty of rules that US teams or players could probably take to court but they don't. A player could argue he's worth far more to his team than the max salary the league allows.

They don't take it to court though. They accept there needs to be measures in place to provide and a more even playing field.

Clearly this is NOT something MC and their ilk want.

It's like you already have enough of an advantage over a club like mine but you want to be able to do all kinds of ****ed up dodgy deals so you can benefit even further from having shady as **** owners.

You're clearly owned by a bunch of scumbags and clearly your sycophant fans are ok with this.

 

[chef]

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Don't know too much about NFL, but if someone refused a trade and they werent entitled to do so under the terms of their contract what would happen?

Suspended? Suspect they'd never get another contract in the league.

Would be an interesting restraint of trade case.

They can have a no trade clause in their contracts. If not and they refuse they don’t play and don’t get paid.

Interesting maybe only to me but was actually three famous cases in the 70s where players sued the league that eventually led to free agency. One in particular an early 70s player refused to sign standard contract as he felt his rights to move clubs afterwards was unfairly restricted. He successfully sued the N.F.L. for violating antitrust laws protecting players’ rights. But later a jury ruled he shouldn’t receive compo. So missed out on his contract and never played again.

But that case helped define what anti-competitive practices a league could impose

 

[Art Vandelay_]

TLDR City admit guilt and call everyone racist.

A tyranny of the majority apparently. There owners aren't used to democracy.

City this last 48 hours a strong endorsement of my decision to de-couple my life from football, and why I have barely even missed this board, or its day-to-day football news and updates.
The game if rife with corruption, greed, boring and repetitive trophy winners. The elite doing everything possible to keep everyone else at arm's length. By honourable means, or more often otherwise.

Now we have the biggest disgrace in world football having the gall to sue another football entity. So lacking in self-awareness.

 

[moomba]

There's plenty of rules that US teams or players could probably take to court but they don't. A player could argue he's worth far more to his team than the max salary the league allows.

They don't take it to court though. They accept there needs to be measures in place to provide and a more even playing field.

More likely they know that you can't by law force an owner of a business to pay more tha they want to pay. And if they challenged it, they'd struggle to get a contract with anyone.

Clearly this is NOT something MC and their ilk want.

It's like you already have enough of an advantage over a club like mine but you want to be able to do all kinds of *ed up dodgy deals so you can benefit even further from having shady as * owners.

I think we want the rules of the sport to comply with UK law. You can speculate that we want anything more than that but it would be strange to start pushing for free reign over finances over a decade after rules have been in place. And plenty of statements to say we support financial regulation.

You're clearly owned by a bunch of scumbags and clearly your sycophant fans are ok with this.

Cool. You obviously don't like the club or its supporters, which is your prerogative.

 

[moomba]

They can have a no trade clause in their contracts. If not and they refuse they don’t play and don’t get paid.

Interesting maybe only to me but was actually three famous cases in the 70s where players sued the league that eventually led to free agency. One in particular an early 70s player refused to sign standard contract as he felt his rights to move clubs afterwards was unfairly restricted. He successfully sued the N.F.L. for violating antitrust laws protecting players’ rights. But later a jury ruled he shouldn’t receive compo. So missed out on his contract and never played again.

But that case helped define what anti-competitive practices a league could impose

Good example where people had to challenge illegal sporting rules in the courts to bring about change.

Obviously mucb harder for individuals as the consequences are much harsher.

 

[Zidane98]

A set of totally normal figures here for commercial growth between 2009 and 2019.