Guest Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 Cheers for that Monkeh, this completely flew under my radar. I can see exactly where the EC are coming from in rejecting in this instance. FFP as a restraint of trade but not to the club, nor the player, but to the player's agent does seem to smell a bit too remote... but I think it would be much harder to refuse to investigate if a player took the case, or harder still to refuse to investigate if a club complains. If they start to investigate its absolutely clear they will find a restraint of trade, there's no other way to describe a transfer window or FFP. Whether the restraint is illegal notwithstanding club's agreement [did club's actually agree or were they in effect forced to agree, it becoming a condition precedent of them playing in the league], EC support and FIFA, I guess we will know in a few years from now. I must admit I didn't know about the Turkish clubs either. Just hipfiring as I have not ever looked or thought about jurisprudence in instances like this, but being non-EU clubs perhaps they don't fall within the EU compeitition regime and the applicable regime is inadequate... Like I said, completely hipfiring there. I knew a few clubs had been banned from europe but couldn't remember their names, I agree with the FFP rules and so do the clubs otherwise they wouldn't of been voted through, 2013/14 season everyone had to submit to the same rules yet QPR broke those rules and got promoted thus they fell outside of FL's remit to punish them, I really hope they (QPR) lose as it sends a messege not just in english football but in world football as well, Break the rules face the consequences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samo II Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 Its nothing to do with preventing them trading, they can continue to trade in another league, they were bound by the FL rules and regs by playing in the FL and they have blatantly ignored them. They may well argue that FFP is ambiguous etc, but they should have ironed that out once they carried on playing in the FL, if they had reservations they should have stated them at the appropriate time and, if those reservations were not answered to their liking, resigned from the FL. But they got promoted and effectively said stuff the FL - until they got relegated. With other clubs falling into line with FFP, and some clubs already having been punished, they are on a hiding to nothing unless the FL capitulate. This is my perspective too; raising the concept of restriction of trade seem false to me - they can still trade, just not within the Football League, as the arbiters of that competition deem them to have failed to comply with their rules. They've no automatic right to be in the league, hence the Golden Share; being that this also gives QPR rights to TV money, I'd be surprised if the Football League handed this over before getting the legal issues ironed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 This is my perspective too; raising the concept of restriction of trade seem false to me - they can still trade, just not within the Football League, as the arbiters of that competition deem them to have failed to comply with their rules. They've no automatic right to be in the league, hence the Golden Share; being that this also gives QPR rights to TV money, I'd be surprised if the Football League handed this over before getting the legal issues ironed out. yep thats why the league have them by the short and curlies, they can refuse them entry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malago Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 I doubt it is banged to rights. Competition law (if there is a breach thereof) will trump a contract, which may be entirely unenforceable in any case, for example one line you'd argue perhaps is there was no 'meeting of the minds' - ie we've not agreed to be bound by the same things because we both understood FFP to act in different ways. 29A as our legal expert I have two questions for you. Is the Football League legally bound to accept QPR as a member. Suppose a majority of clubs voted not to accept QPR, would a court be able to overturn that decision? Would a second Scottish Referendum be enforceable without a pre-agreement from Westminster? Non football I know, but I've scoured the web and can't find a meaningful opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acton Red Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 I think everyone would have him back here. It's just a shame he has not kicked on and gone on to be the quality premier league defender he looked like he would be. There's still time for him though, so hopefully he turns it around. Does everyone forget the way he talked about us with disdain. Did ne nearly not turn up for the awards even though he won one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Orns Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 I know the bloke is a****, but Caulker should get himself off to a club like West Brom, and have a couple of years with Pulis. He'd sort him out, and get him playing again Cardiff and QPR are two shit showers of clubs, that's four games I'm looking forward to next season - big time Charlie's who have done **** all. Would love them to lose to little Bristol City Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Orns Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 Does everyone forget the way he talked about us with disdain. Did ne nearly not turn up for the awards even though he won one? Don't remember that, I remember him only having good things to say about us? Maybe I missed it though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 Does everyone forget the way he talked about us with disdain. Did ne nearly not turn up for the awards even though he won one? i don't remember that at all, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxy27 Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 Does everyone forget the way he talked about us with disdain. Did ne nearly not turn up for the awards even though he won one? That didn't happen. I think that's why people don't remember it. You're imagining it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 Its nothing to do with preventing them trading, they can continue to trade in another league, they were bound by the FL rules and regs by playing in the FL and they have blatantly ignored them. They may well argue that FFP is ambiguous etc, but they should have ironed that out once they carried on playing in the FL, if they had reservations they should have stated them at the appropriate time and, if those reservations were not answered to their liking, resigned from the FL. But they got promoted and effectively said stuff the FL - until they got relegated. With other clubs falling into line with FFP, and some clubs already having been punished, they are on a hiding to nothing unless the FL capitulate. The 'choice' to withdraw from the league was not really a choice I am certain you will agree. No director of a club could sit on a board which withdrew from the league due to their own fiduciary duties owed and no fans would let it happen. When once course of action is a virtual impossibility it can barely be said to be a choice, legally, morally or otherwise. It is undoubtedly a restraint of trade also. What the football league has completely ignored is that you can still be a trader and make a loss. Amazon for example continually reinvests in itself so much so (I could be wrong with recent results but certainly for a sustained period) I'm not sure if Amazon has ever reported a profit yet in spite of being an incredibly successful business. It speculated to distinguish itself from online retailers at the right time and because of that gamble it has positioned itself as number one internet retailer, number one ebook provider, branched off in to mobile telephony and tablets etc. I'm not suggesting a football club branches out like this but with Premier League money on show that could be enough of a carrot. Amazon is the one name a club needs to point to for evidence that continued losses, even substantial, is only part of the story and that the whole story could be that losses were in the best interest. To that end FFP based upon losses alone is completely flawed, its using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. As for should have ironed it out I agree. But in any case it is for the FL to sort out, it is not QPR's responsibility to iron it out and when they 'agreed' to it they 'agreed' to it as one voice of 72. Who knows how much sway QPR may have held in ironing things out. In my opinion FFP is just plain dumb. Dumb because like I said some businesses can substain significant losses without issue to their suppliers, their creditors or their long term stability. Losses or the ability to trade with losses can help business (amazon) and trading with too much retained income (see Apple) brings its own difficulties. To apply this to the footballing world for example, do you think football clubs and agents aren't vulturing around Newcastle right now - lots of retained cash and the knowledge that you can extort maximum value in terms of wages and fees. The principal and the purpose I agree with, the regulation however is completely unfit for purpose. Finally to address the point of other clubs being punished that's neither here nor there. They could have took their own battle if they wanted to but didn't, probably because not enough in it for them. That doesn't mean that the result is correct though. Plenty of footballers were held to effective slavery prior to Bosman taking his case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 29A as our legal expert I have two questions for you. Is the Football League legally bound to accept QPR as a member. Suppose a majority of clubs voted not to accept QPR, would a court be able to overturn that decision? Would a second Scottish Referendum be enforceable without a pre-agreement from Westminster? Non football I know, but I've scoured the web and can't find a meaningful opinion. Such an 'expert' the short answer to both is dunno:) As for the first I would doubt that the Football League is legally bound to accept QPR as a member, but if they were I would not rub my eyes in disbelief. Certainly there have been instances in the past of refused membership but on pre-published grounds normally (ie facilities not up to scratch). I don't know how the football league exists but within its constitution or in the way it is constituted (by Royal Charter perhaps?) there may well be a rule which means it would have to accept QPR. As for the second I cannot believe that the answer is yes but I couldn't point you to legislation from the top of my head which would confirm that is the case. I'll come back to you in a PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malago Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 Such an 'expert' the short answer to both is dunno:) As for the first I would doubt that the Football League is legally bound to accept QPR as a member, but if they were I would not rub my eyes in disbelief. Certainly there have been instances in the past of refused membership but on pre-published grounds normally (ie facilities not up to scratch). I don't know how the football league exists but within its constitution or in the way it is constituted (by Royal Charter perhaps?) there may well be a rule which means it would have to accept QPR. As for the second I cannot believe that the answer is yes but I couldn't point you to legislation from the top of my head which would confirm that is the case. I'll come back to you in a PM. Thank you. I've always understood that sporting decisions are not legally enforceable. For instance a bookie is not legally obliged to pay out a winning bet and neither can a punter be legally pursued through the courts over an unpaid betting debt. The two parties act in trust. Other example would be a linesman can't be sued for damages for getting an offside decision wrong which costs a club millions, playoff final for instance. The point I'm coming to, is that by going to the courts QPR has broken the trust that should exist between members of a club that disputes are kept in-house without recourse to the law. The court of sporting disputes in Lausanne may have been a better option, if they couldn't have reached agreement with the FL. The seem to have hugely jumped the gun IMO. On the Scottish question, I agree with you, but I'm surprised I can't find an unequivocal reference. Thanks again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malago Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 Re Scotland, Salmond said during the last campaign that it was once in a generation opportunity. This is something Cameron has latched onto. Should the SNP, in the next few years, create the circumstances where they feel able to call a 2nd referendum, I can see a situation arising where Westminster goes to the courts to get an injunction preventing the referendum taking place. It's whether the courts would grant such an injunction which interests me. The political fallout is, I agree, another matter altogether. the thing is the SNP want their cake and eat it as well, they moan they haven't got the govenment they voted for, but its the govenment the UK voted for and they are part of the uk and voted to stay part of it, they can't throw their toys out of the pram now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samo II Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 Re Scotland, Salmond said during the last campaign that it was once in a generation opportunity. This is something Cameron has latched onto. Should the SNP, in the next few years, create the circumstances where they feel able to call a 2nd referendum, I can see a situation arising where Westminster goes to the courts to get an injunction preventing the referendum taking place. It's whether the courts would grant such an injunction which interests me. The political fallout is, I agree, another matter altogether. the thing is the SNP want their cake and eat it as well, they moan they haven't got the govenment they voted for, but its the govenment the UK voted for and they are part of the uk and voted to stay part of it, they can't throw their toys out of the pram now Don't take this the wrong way, gents, but there is a forum for political chat, which isn't this one. Whenever things turn in this direction here, tends to go south; fancy we keep it football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 Don't take this the wrong way, gents, but there is a forum for political chat, which isn't this one. Whenever things turn in this direction here, tends to go south; fancy we keep it football. i was going to mention that scotland play football but then i thought.......they don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murraysrightplum Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 He's had nothing but bad reviews all season. Why is he Prem quality, because he had a good season in league 1? Champ you mean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 Don't take this the wrong way, gents, but there is a forum for political chat, which isn't this one. Whenever things turn in this direction here, tends to go south; fancy we keep it football. Ahhhh. Lib dem member perhaps? ; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samo II Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 Ahhhh. Lib dem member perhaps? ; ) Without wishing to prolong the tangent on this thread, can say to that a big fat NOPE. Now; back to the matters in hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted May 15, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 15, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32742194 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted May 15, 2015 Report Share Posted May 15, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32742194 they haven't ruled out any punishment at this stage however, perhaps they should be docked a point for every million they overspent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.