[Brighton] Barber on FFP from the Forum

[Gwylan]

I'm not regurgitating something, all I'm saying when something isn't law but is policy/rules then it is susceptible to legal challenges.

Of course it could be challenged but I doubt if it would succeed. Courts are very reluctant to get involved in sporting disputes and when they do (which is rare), they tend to side with the status quo - eg Steve Foster being banned for the cup final. I'd imagine that challenging a principle that has been (near-unanimously) agreed would get short shrift from any court

 

[brightn'ove]

I'm not regurgitating something, all I'm saying when something isn't law but is policy/rules then it is susceptible to legal challenges. And because the rules aren't blanket ie other divisions have different rules, you are setting precidents, which surely would be the basis of any legal challenge. For example say N. Forest had were told they couldn't extend players contracts and effectively had to sell their best players, whilst Man City guilty of the same thing just got a fine, then N. Forest could argue that they were being treated differently and there's a whole host of laws/legal rights they could argue were being broken.

Again I'm not trying to belittle ffp or the Albion planning for it, but as said I personally doubt ffp would be able to offer that sort sanction and be able to uphold it if it was challenged legally. And because of that my original point was I wouldn't hold out for players on the cheap.

Another example: Barcelona being given transfer embargo, appealing/threatening legal action, transfer ban put on hold.

FFP punishments will take a long, long time to come into force as clubs will always have the right to appeal or challenge legally.

 

[Braggfan]

Of course it could be challenged but I doubt if it would succeed. Courts are very reluctant to get involved in sporting disputes and when they do (which is rare), they tend to side with the status quo - eg Steve Foster being banned for the cup final. I'd imagine that challenging a principle that has been (near-unanimously) agreed would get short shrift from any court

Keeping the status quo isn't a legal stand point, and drastic decisions do come up from time to time, such as the Bosman ruling.

 

[CheeseRolls]

There's a reason people say this a grey area legally. You are right that the two clubs are subject to different resitrictions but the fact that a championship side could get promoted to the premeir league and the those restrictions change, surely means there's areas to argue agaonst the punishments. I don't know why people seem so aggitated by the fact that clubs might challenge it. I'll point out I'M not challenging or advocating clubs do, I'm just realistic enough to acknowledge clubs with money who get punished will challenge it and I'm also realistic enough to realise it's way to early to say that thos epunishments will definitely stick.

For a detailed explanation of how this works across competitions and specifically in the case of Championship teams promoted to the premiership see below;


http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php

 

[Braggfan]

For a detailed explanation of how this works across competitions and specifically in the case of Championship teams promoted to the premiership see below;


http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php

All I'm saying is just because it's written in the rules doesn't mean it solid as a rock.

 

[El Presidente]

All I'm saying is just because it's written in the rules doesn't mean it solid as a rock.

Yup, City and PSG both came very close to a legal challenge in relation to the UEFA FFP rules earlier this year. Their 'punishment' was that their wage bills were capped (and a squad limit) at those of the previous season. However, given that these wage bills are already the biggest in their countries it wasn't a huge issue for the clubs.

Both Qatar and Abu Dhabi took the view that they have sufficient wealth to bankrupt UEFA by taking the court based approach, but in the end decided the punishment offered was sufficiently diluted so as not be detrimental to their projects.

 

[Acker79]

There's a reason people say this a grey area legally. You are right that the two clubs are subject to different resitrictions but the fact that a championship side could get promoted to the premeir league and the those restrictions change, surely means there's areas to argue agaonst the punishments. I don't know why people seem so aggitated by the fact that clubs might challenge it. I'll point out I'M not challenging or advocating clubs do, I'm just realistic enough to acknowledge clubs with money who get punished will challenge it and I'm also realistic enough to realise it's way to early to say that thos epunishments will definitely stick.

I'm not saying they can't challenge it, just that they can't challenge it on the basis the punishment isn't the same as what another club under another system/authority received.

 

[Braggfan]

I'm not saying they can't challenge it, just that they can't challenge it on the basis the punishment isn't the same as what another club under another system/authority received.

To try and avoid dragging this out further, what we seem to disagree on is exactly what would be debated in a court, whether a precedent has been set or not. Both of us could argue to the cows come home who is right, but ultimately our opinions are irrelevant as we're not making the decision. Ultimately I wasn't trying to start that debate, I was simply trying to show that because that debate exists and what will happen once ffp comes in is about as clear as mud, and I think its unwise to hold money back for potentially cheap players, which is what the OP was asking?

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I didn't realise they don't apply to the Premier League, but that is interesting because that must have implications. Bear in my that ffp is not the law, it's a set of rules/policy put in place by the governing body. If a club was punished under ffp, and say forced to get rid of players, I would think the club could argue ffp was illegal in that it breached employment laws especially given thatother clubs/business operating in the same profession are not being subjected to the same punishments.

Everyone has said ffp is a grey area, and that noboy is sure exactly how it will be enforced. But it wouldn't surpirse me at all if someone gets punished, challenges it and overturns the punishment.

Incidentally I'm not saying it's wrong to plan for ffp, just I wouldn't hold out for trying to get a load of players on the cheap from sanctioned clubs, as it is something that may never happen.

FFp has been in place in the lower professional divisions and recently Crawley were one team that faced a transfer embargo due to as breach. they were forced to rebalance the books before being able to strike new deals and bring in new players

 

[Guy Fawkes]

If a club is failing FFP and is forced to sell / loan out players to become FFP compliant again, if their players are already on long contracts, the club may not need to do anything for a season or 2 if they are happy with the squad they have.

They can sell high earners, but if the high earners will not get the same wages elsewhere, why would they chose to leave if it means a pay cut?

If a club breaks FFP and sells to get back on budget within a transfer window, can't they just over spend in the same transfer window again?

 

[Gwylan]

Keeping the status quo isn't a legal stand point, and drastic decisions do come up from time to time, such as the Bosman ruling.

Bosman was completely different - that was a ruling based on the legality of transfer fees for contracted employees. In that case, contract law was held to be dominant. FFP is an undertaking that has been specifically agreed by clubs - in other words, they are contracted to uphold it. As other people have said, if the FL does back down, clubs that did adhere to it would have a strong legal case

 

[Creaky]

FFp has been in place in the lower professional divisions and recently Crawley were one team that faced a transfer embargo due to as breach. they were forced to rebalance the books before being able to strike new deals and bring in new players

Leagues 1 and 2 have a much simpler system than does the Championship and is one that can be managed month by month. Both Leagues voted not to implement FFP but to continue with their Salary Cost Management Protocol, (SCMP), that has been used by League 2 for over 10 years.

This 'protocol' simply requires that players wages, (not transfer fees), dont exceed 55% of turnover for League 2 clubs and 60% for League 1 clubs. Crawley temporarily, (for about a month), exceeded this limit during the summer transfer window last year. The clubs do not have to keep with profit/loss limits.

It is far easier to enforce an objective system such as SCMP than a subjective one such as FFP where disputes can arise as to what is and what isn't allowable income and expenditure.

 

[Aristotle]

I have a FFP question (I know, another one).

As I have read it clubs will be penalised in owners inject more than £8m in a year. I assume this means that the club could still make a loss of more than £8m in a year if the remainder came from retained profits?

The point is that we have made a lot of money from transfers in the last year, and could plausibly make a profit in the financial year if we don't spend it. Assuming we bank that money, rather than pay it out to Tony, I assume we can spend it next year on top of the £8m without penalty?

Hope that makes sense...

 

[BensGrandad]

May well have been askied previously but why cant one of TB property companies sponsor something to circumvent the FFP if he wants to bring in a striker.

Fernandez owns QPR and the airline he owns Air Asia sponsor their shirts so if needed they can up their payments whenever they want and inject another £2m or £20m

 

[KZNSeagull]

May well have been askied previously but why cant one of TB property companies sponsor something to circumvent the FFP if he wants to bring in a striker.

Fernandez owns QPR and the airline he owns Air Asia sponsor their shirts so if needed they can up their payments whenever they want and inject another £2m or £20m

Because any sponsorship has to be at a fair market value. A panel will decide whether any out of the ordinary sponsorship deals adhere to that or not. QPR are almost certainly going to get a hefty FFP fine, by the way.

 

[Scoffers]

I just worry that the football league will bottle it or there will be a long drawn out legal challenge

That's my fear too. Just how legally enforceable are these sanctions?

 

[KZNSeagull]

That's my fear too. Just how legally enforceable are these sanctions?

Well, the Football League is a effectively a members only club and the members of that club have voted for these rules. Courts rarely get involved in rules of private, members clubs. And as for the FL bottling it, they cannot as they are enforcing the will of the majority of members. If those in charge at the FL do bottle it, they will no doubt get replaced when the members next vote for their leadership.