UEFA's rules at Article 5 do specifically refer to decisive influence. This was updated in 2017 after UEFA changed the rules to accommodate the Red Bull clubs.
See 5.01(c)(iv):
"No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition, such control or influence being defined in this context as:
i. holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights;
ii. having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club;
iii. 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; or
iv. being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club."
I stand corrected. Or rather, yes, but it is another part of the rule. This looks like typically bad drafting. UEFA could argue, presumably, that "involved, either directly or indirectly" trumps "decisive" – but the drafting should be tighter so as to make it clear exactly what the rule is. Happy to acknowledge that "decisive" does feature, but I'm not sure it gives us any answers. It will be interesting to see what happens at the appeal.
I own a 33.33% shareholding in a software company, I am not a director, nor an employee. Companies House list me as a 'person of signficant control' (PSC) anyone that is involved in business should know that above 25% shareholding makes you a PSC. There would be reserved matters agreed at the point of purchase that would need a PSC sign off. Good article Martin 👍
I stand corrected. Or rather, yes, but it is another part of the rule. This looks like typically bad drafting. UEFA could argue, presumably, that "involved, either directly or indirectly" trumps "decisive" – but the drafting should be tighter so as to make it clear exactly what the rule is. Happy to acknowledge that "decisive" does feature, but I'm not sure it gives us any answers. It will be interesting to see what happens at the appeal.
UEFA's rules at Article 5 do specifically refer to decisive influence. This was updated in 2017 after UEFA changed the rules to accommodate the Red Bull clubs.
See 5.01(c)(iv):
"No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition, such control or influence being defined in this context as:
i. holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights;
ii. having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club;
iii. 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; or
iv. being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club."
I stand corrected. Or rather, yes, but it is another part of the rule. This looks like typically bad drafting. UEFA could argue, presumably, that "involved, either directly or indirectly" trumps "decisive" – but the drafting should be tighter so as to make it clear exactly what the rule is. Happy to acknowledge that "decisive" does feature, but I'm not sure it gives us any answers. It will be interesting to see what happens at the appeal.
I own a 33.33% shareholding in a software company, I am not a director, nor an employee. Companies House list me as a 'person of signficant control' (PSC) anyone that is involved in business should know that above 25% shareholding makes you a PSC. There would be reserved matters agreed at the point of purchase that would need a PSC sign off. Good article Martin 👍
I stand corrected. Or rather, yes, but it is another part of the rule. This looks like typically bad drafting. UEFA could argue, presumably, that "involved, either directly or indirectly" trumps "decisive" – but the drafting should be tighter so as to make it clear exactly what the rule is. Happy to acknowledge that "decisive" does feature, but I'm not sure it gives us any answers. It will be interesting to see what happens at the appeal.