Apologies. I thought you were suggesting the Bosman lawyer is legally challenging FFP. Out of interest, what is the case you are referring to?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Is the FFP system justified?
- Thread starter Creaky
- Start date
Apologies. I thought you were suggesting the Bosman lawyer is legally challenging FFP. Out of interest, what is the case you are referring to?
Apologies from me too. DuPont (the lawyer) is acting on behalf of an agent, who is unhappy about potential loss of income in relation to FFP, in which he has lodged a formal complaint with the European Commission.
I understand he also has a client who has had a transfer request declined, and is threatening the club with legal action unless the club reverses the decision. That is an ongoing action but has not gone to court yet.
I understand he also has a client who has had a transfer request declined, and is threatening the club with legal action unless the club reverses the decision. That is an ongoing action but has not gone to court yet.
Seagull on the wing
New member
Why not
So because a majority of league members at a point in time voted in favour of a rule this cannot be challenged at some time in the future? It's also difficult to see why many clubs pay lip service to the system they "support" whilst at the same time trying to find ways of circumventing the rules and/or ignoring them.
I just find it interesting that such a system seems to have been publicly accepted as a "good thing" by all sectors, (apart from a number of agents who are making a legal challenge), owners, players and fans, without questioning the justification for it.
In a way...correct,I think you'll find because of FFP agents fees are being cut....which will be only good for football.
In the same way a footballer could have a contract to play football, for X games/years.
The point is simply whether someone has the right to go and work for whom they want. George Michael wanted to go and record music away from Sony, so he sued them, and lost. He could have reached an agreement with Sony to cancel the contract, and sign for another label, in the same way a player goes from one club to another. How routine that is isn't the point, either a contract that limits who you work for is enforceable, or it's not. In the past, a court has decided such contracts are enforceable.
Last edited:
There's always a number of years on the contract isn't there. They are not just employees, that can be dismissed without paying off the contract.
Creaky
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #47
I don't know the details of George Michael's contract but can only surmise that there wasn't a cancellation clause included detailing the cost of non-performance - which is surprising.
"Fair" contracts detail the penalties to be paid by each party for non-performance.
nwgull
Well-known member
Going a bit off topic now, but I'm fairly sure that any agreement an employee may sign to not work for a competitor for a certain time is not enforceable and superseded by statutory employment rights. So effectively means nothing.
Ok, so it depends on the market value of the players which should be determined by what a club is prepared to pay for them which in Watford's case, was a nominal fee! Or, in the alternative, Watford's December 13/14 accounts are successfully challenged and they receive a hefty fine by which point they are in the PL and couldn't give a flying f**k!
Not entirely e.g. the image rights part of a players contract.
In specific situations yes. But exclusivity deals are signed every working day and most are totally ligitimate....I imagine there must be some arrangement in a footballers contract to stop him playing for multiple teams? Is this a restraint of trade?
father_and_son
Well-known member
The potential fine for over-spending is equal to the overspend. So blowing the budget to the tune of, say, £10 million will cost you £20 million (the original spend + plus an equal fine). There will be a business decision made at a number of clubs over whether the fine is worth paying. However, as there is no direct correlation between the money spent and the future reward (buying players doesn't guarantee promotion), the down side of the "f*ck it, we're in the prem" is that the club might not actually get promoted, then you are seriously f*cked as a club! And the owner has potentially sp*nked a lot more money away than originally gambled.
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
It's not quite all the overspend, but a significant proportion of it. QPR made an operating loss of 25.7m when they were last promoted to the Premier League. Under FFP rules, a similar loss would result in a fine of +- 18m, assuming they are promoted. I would hope that this makes a few clubs think twice about what they are doing.
Agree. The fines do seem prohibitive. Also, as I understand it, if you consistently knowingly flaunt the rules it could ultimately lead to a vote to kick you out of the league. It's one heck of a gamble.