Transfer in's and out's rumours etc.

[MrsORichSenior]

Mrs O, could you explain to me how a single entity can have a non-trivial financial interest in 2 football clubs which participate in competitions in the same continent? Isn't there possible significant conflict of interest? What for instance would happen if both Genoa and Leeds were to get into the Europa league or Heaven forbid the Champions league? Assuming Radrizzani were to get control of Genoa (which doesn't seem likely) but hypothetically.

The old Fit & Proper test debate ?
The multi ownership of clubs is always a topic of debate for FSA (Football Supporters Association) & FSE (Football Supporters Europe) and has resulted in various calls for one definite rule across all Football Associations to NO avail yet.Both organisations lobby for Fan representation to be compulsory in Football boardrooms by the way of which Leeds United do have now - so we can raise points but cannot vote on matters.

With Radz (he's got a young family in Italy and that situation may need addressing) and the PL rules & slightly different UEFA rules allow him to a certain amount of shared ownership of 2 clubs at once if he desires or if he's about to sell in the future.

Nottingham Forest are owned by Greek shipping magnate Evangelos Marinakis after his takeover was passed by the English Football League (EFL).

The businessman is also the Olympiakos owner who had accusations of match-fixing in Greece but STILL passed the EFL's owners' and directors' test.

So it's the definition of ‘control’ and the PL v UEFA disparity of it that's at odds.

What becomes abundantly clear on a review of the PL and UEFA rules is that there is NO consistent approach across Europe as to what situations in club ownership could give rise to a conflict - which is ridiculous !

One example is the 'ownership percentage' that one owner can have in two clubs in the PL is vastly different from those one can hold in two clubs in a UEFA cup or Champions League competition.

The PL seems to be leading the way in its strict adherence to an almost ZERO tolerance NO conflict rule in club ownership. Whilst one may not have technical control of a club until owning more than 50% in that club it is undeniable that in many situations owners with lower percentages can have great influence in a club. The PL has taken a more prescriptive approach in defining control as 30% and even setting a 10% limit (at which they contend an influence IS possible).The Newcastle takeover failed as the definitive owner was not known.

The UEFA Integrity Rules set a definitive limit of ‘control’ at 50.1% and above 'tho as recently redrafted Rules also make reference to ‘decisive influence’.

The original UEFA Rule which the CAS ruled upon did not make reference to any ‘decisive influence’ stipulation and it is STILL not necessarily clear what would be considered a ‘decisive influence’ over another club’s affairs.

There is no indication that UEFA will follow the PL and tighten its rules. Presumably, they consider that their ‘decisive influence’ clause is a suitable catch all provision. Such ambiguity (some would contend) equates to flexibility in being able to subjectively assess a set of circumstances on a 'case-by-case basis'. On the other hand detractors would point to such a provision leading only to regulatory uncertainty.

With varying club ownership rules throughout Europe, perhaps a more prescriptive approach by UEFA may well be a sensible solution.

MOT

[cherrypie7]

The old Fit & Proper test debate ?
The multi ownership of clubs is always a topic of debate for FSA (Football Supporters Association) & FSE (Football Supporters Europe) and has resulted in various calls for one definite rule across all Football Associations to NO avail yet.Both organisations lobby for Fan representation to be compulsory in Football boardrooms by the way of which Leeds United do have now - so we can raise points but cannot vote on matters.

With Radz (he's got a young family in Italy and that situation may need addressing) and the PL rules & slightly different UEFA rules allow him to a certain amount of shared ownership of 2 clubs at once if he desires or if he's about to sell in the future.

Nottingham Forest are owned by Greek shipping magnate Evangelos Marinakis after his takeover was passed by the English Football League (EFL).

The businessman is also the Olympiakos owner who had accusations of match-fixing in Greece but STILL passed the EFL's owners' and directors' test.

So it's the definition of ‘control’ and the PL v UEFA disparity of it that's at odds.

What becomes abundantly clear on a review of the PL and UEFA rules is that there is NO consistent approach across Europe as to what situations in club ownership could give rise to a conflict - which is ridiculous !

One example is the 'ownership percentage' that one owner can have in two clubs in the PL is vastly different from those one can hold in two clubs in a UEFA cup or Champions League competition.

The PL seems to be leading the way in its strict adherence to an almost ZERO tolerance NO conflict rule in club ownership. Whilst one may not have technical control of a club until owning more than 50% in that club it is undeniable that in many situations owners with lower percentages can have great influence in a club. The PL has taken a more prescriptive approach in defining control as 30% and even setting a 10% limit (at which they contend an influence IS possible).The Newcastle takeover failed as the definitive owner was not known.

The UEFA Integrity Rules set a definitive limit of ‘control’ at 50.1% and above 'tho as recently redrafted Rules also make reference to ‘decisive influence’.

The original UEFA Rule which the CAS ruled upon did not make reference to any ‘decisive influence’ stipulation and it is STILL not necessarily clear what would be considered a ‘decisive influence’ over another club’s affairs.

There is no indication that UEFA will follow the PL and tighten its rules. Presumably, they consider that their ‘decisive influence’ clause is a suitable catch all provision. Such ambiguity (some would contend) equates to flexibility in being able to subjectively assess a set of circumstances on a 'case-by-case basis'. On the other hand detractors would point to such a provision leading only to regulatory uncertainty.

With varying club ownership rules throughout Europe, perhaps a more prescriptive approach by UEFA may well be a sensible solution.

MOT

Thank you Mrs O for the erudite explanation. My understanding has been greatly enhanced. Completely forgot about the Forest owner example. As a fan, I think I would vote for 1 rule throughout Europe.

[MrsORichSenior]

Thank you Mrs O for the erudite explanation. My understanding has been greatly enhanced. Completely forgot about the Forest owner example. As a fan, I think I would vote for 1 rule throughout Europe.

Yep,one rule would be better.

Leeds v Genoa ?
A legal point of view could intervene in any possible 'conflict of interest' scenario as UEFA differs 4 ways in Ownerships to PL presently.

1.shareholders’ voting rights.
2.having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club.
3.being a shareholder and alone controlling a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights pursuant to an agreement entered into with other shareholders of the club.
4.being able to exercise by 'any means a decisive influence' in the decision making of the club.

It is the fourth point that creates some uncertainty as what is a “decisive influence”? Ultimately, if UEFA decides that an owner HAS sufficient control of two or more clubs then they'll NOT be allowed to both participate in UEFA competition end of.

Example - That could be the likely scenario facing Red Bull Salzburg and RB Leipzig. Both are owned by Red Bull and both could finish in the qualifying places for the UEFA Champions League in their respective leagues.

So IF such a situation ever happened you'll get your definitive answer Cherry,but don't hold your breath !

MOT

[hgatenasty]

Yep,one rule would be better.

Leeds v Genoa ?
A legal point of view could intervene in any possible 'conflict of interest' scenario as UEFA differs 4 ways in Ownerships to PL presently.

1.shareholders’ voting rights.
2.having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club.
3.being a shareholder and alone controlling a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights pursuant to an agreement entered into with other shareholders of the club.
4.being able to exercise by 'any means a decisive influence' in the decision making of the club.

It is the fourth point that creates some uncertainty as what is a “decisive influence”? Ultimately, if UEFA decides that an owner HAS sufficient control of two or more clubs then they'll NOT be allowed to both participate in UEFA competition end of.

Example - That could be the likely scenario facing Red Bull Salzburg and RB Leipzig. Both are owned by Red Bull and both could finish in the qualifying places for the UEFA Champions League in their respective leagues.

So IF such a situation ever happened you'll get your definitive answer Cherry,but don't hold your breath !

MOT

Ahh yes i do like Italian Riviera Ventimiglia,potofino,, potovenere, to name a few, hazy days..an long nights.

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

As a fan, I think I would vote for 1 ruler throughout Europe.

are you related to Michael Barnier? 😎😂

[cherrypie7]

are you related to Michael Barnier? 😎😂

Must confess to having a chuckle at the intentional typographical error. And to answer your question, no I am not related to Barnier. I wonder however if he is a Leeds fan. Had a few French players in our club over the years. Now we have Meslier.

[ozleeds]

The old Fit & Proper test debate ?
The multi ownership of clubs is always a topic of debate for FSA (Football Supporters Association) & FSE (Football Supporters Europe) and has resulted in various calls for one definite rule across all Football Associations to NO avail yet.Both organisations lobby for Fan representation to be compulsory in Football boardrooms by the way of which Leeds United do have now - so we can raise points but cannot vote on matters.

With Radz (he's got a young family in Italy and that situation may need addressing) and the PL rules & slightly different UEFA rules allow him to a certain amount of shared ownership of 2 clubs at once if he desires or if he's about to sell in the future.

Nottingham Forest are owned by Greek shipping magnate Evangelos Marinakis after his takeover was passed by the English Football League (EFL).

The businessman is also the Olympiakos owner who had accusations of match-fixing in Greece but STILL passed the EFL's owners' and directors' test.

So it's the definition of ‘control’ and the PL v UEFA disparity of it that's at odds.

What becomes abundantly clear on a review of the PL and UEFA rules is that there is NO consistent approach across Europe as to what situations in club ownership could give rise to a conflict - which is ridiculous !

One example is the 'ownership percentage' that one owner can have in two clubs in the PL is vastly different from those one can hold in two clubs in a UEFA cup or Champions League competition.

The PL seems to be leading the way in its strict adherence to an almost ZERO tolerance NO conflict rule in club ownership. Whilst one may not have technical control of a club until owning more than 50% in that club it is undeniable that in many situations owners with lower percentages can have great influence in a club. The PL has taken a more prescriptive approach in defining control as 30% and even setting a 10% limit (at which they contend an influence IS possible).The Newcastle takeover failed as the definitive owner was not known.

The UEFA Integrity Rules set a definitive limit of ‘control’ at 50.1% and above 'tho as recently redrafted Rules also make reference to ‘decisive influence’.

The original UEFA Rule which the CAS ruled upon did not make reference to any ‘decisive influence’ stipulation and it is STILL not necessarily clear what would be considered a ‘decisive influence’ over another club’s affairs.

There is no indication that UEFA will follow the PL and tighten its rules. Presumably, they consider that their ‘decisive influence’ clause is a suitable catch all provision. Such ambiguity (some would contend) equates to flexibility in being able to subjectively assess a set of circumstances on a 'case-by-case basis'. On the other hand detractors would point to such a provision leading only to regulatory uncertainty.

With varying club ownership rules throughout Europe, perhaps a more prescriptive approach by UEFA may well be a sensible solution.

MOT

Mrs. O people say that the people running the English league and other country leagues for that matter are corrupt main example been FIFA> Yes the greek dude is a criminal (you don't get to be rich and powerful otherwise)He has been buying the home league for years eg see how many titles his club in Greece has won over the last ten years.
So it should not come as a surprise how he passed the requirements, As 2 and 2 go together in harmony.