Last week I got a copy of the Sankofa judgement, here is my analysis and why I think it scuppers any chance of Sheffield United swapping places with the Hammers.
As I have said before the only course of action for Sheff Utd and the gang of four is the FA, UEFA and Lausanne - the sports arbitration court. No-one can argue that Sankofa or Tevez rulings are unlawful. So why are people talking about the courts who should not (and do not want to) get involved in sports administration.
Their only role, as far as I'm concerned, is for cases of gbh by players on the pitch. And of course for damages / breach of contract aka Jordan vs Dowie!
The Premier League are not going to back down and the FA have a strange relationship with the Premier League since the breakaway.
Instead Platini at UEFA may want to look at the role of agents putting South Americans in the shop window for their own gain. And they may want "equity" in the sports arena as well as putting two fingers up to the premier league.
i'm just glad we finished 19th so we can debate academically instead of sounding bitter!
UEFA won't do too much I am sure. Platini will hold fire and wait till he wants to cut the Premier League down to three Champions League places as this will be a battle he cares about.
The Court for Abitration in Sport would be happy to listen to it but I doubt they will get the chance as neither the Premier League or West Ham are going to go to them for an appeal and I am not sure their regs would allow them to hear a case brought by people not materially involved, although I would need to check.
The point is Sheff Utd ARE materially involved directly - as are Boro, Chester, AFC Wimbledon and all those who have have had points deducted / cup expulsions for player contract irrgularities. And every club is affected in terms of the integrity of the competition.
West Ham lied and concealed documents and many believe they continued with this, especially when the agent said it was news to him that any deals had been rewritten.
I know it's easier next year with Sheff Utd and not West Ham but long term justice should be done.
[cite]Posted By: seriously_red[/cite]The point is Sheff Utd ARE materially involved directly - as are Boro, Chester, AFC Wimbledon and all those who have have had points deducted / cup expulsions for player contract irrgularities. And every club is affected in terms of the integrity of the competition.
West Ham lied and concealed documents and many believe they continued with this, especially when the agent said it was news to him that any deals had been rewritten.
I know it's easier next year with Sheff Utd and not West Ham but long term justice should be done.
sheffield United are nothing more than a third party with a vested interest in the outcome in my opinion.
Point taken - but isn't this why there are four clubs + Boro (which equals 25% of the league) considering the possibilities.
Don't know the detailed procedures of the Premier League (nor do I really want to!) but their must be some appeals process - for both clubs feeling hard done by, and for other clubs contesting leniency?
Does it need two thirds to pass some sort of resolution to revisit the case? In any event, if we'd finished 18th I would have thought UEFA the best route?
Whatever the rights and wrongs the PL have now made it absolutely impossible to EVER deduct points from a team again, they would get absolutely slaughtered.
As I was driving back from the game today, I was listening to 606 on Five Live. A chap rang in who was an expert on sports law. He made a number of points but his main ones were (I think).
1. The FAPL and FA are not considered to be public bodies and thus are not open to judicial review with regard to their rulings. There have been other cases, notably the Stevenage Borough/Torquay case a few years ago where the high court refused to allow a review of the decision not to promote Stevenage.
2. There is a possibility that under the Human Rights act, it may be possible to have the FAPL/FA ruled as quasi public bodies and thus allow their decisions to be reviewed. However, an attempt to do this in respect of the Jockey Club recently failed in the high court. The chances are not good. He went on to say that to obtain a judicial review, it may be necessary to go right to the House of Lords.
He summed things up by saying that there is very little chance of success although he did concede that to take it to the House of Lords needs a lot of money which of course, at least two of the four clubs have access to.
He also offered the opinion that the decision by the commission was so perverse as to be against all common sense and that would be the grounds for overturning if it was held that the courts did have jurisdiction over these matters.
Earlier today before the game, Dave Whelan and the Sheff U chief were interviewed again on Five Live. They made it clear that they would continue to support one another in seeking a legal approach. Whelan mentioned that Al Fayed told them at their recent meeting that he personally would be prepared to pay all the legal costs and would be prepared to take it to the House of Lords if necessary.
I've no doubt though that the Sankofa case has not helped the cause. Did the FAPL deliberately put us up to it as a test case so as to bolster their position and was that the reason why they delayed action for such a long time? In the words of Barry Davies, "interesting, very interesting".
If there is only one good thing to come out of this then the clubs and FA should insist on a proper appeals process for the future - through sporting channels NOT legal ones. In the meantime I look forward to the fixture list coming out in July.
So they are now half way to getting a two thirds majority for an egm or rule change - Ferguson has said it's not his battle but is "uncomfortable" at what has occurred - if someone mentions that teams at the top might pull similar stunts then perhaps he and other clubs might join - especially if that puts Tevez on the market with West Ham down!
'Is it possible that the Premier League pushed Charlton in this case as a means of testing the legal waters in advance of an investigation into West Ham? This case happened in early January around the time the Premier League were being made aware of the full story with Tevez and Mascherano’s contracts and would have provided an ideal opportunity to see how the judiciary approached the second-guessing of decisions made by sporting bodies.'
****
Whether you are right or wrong, its a very interesting angle. I was staggered with the outcome of our case purely because it appeared we had been encouraged by the PL to go down this route.
Not sure if this has been mentioned but the tack of the challenge now appears to focus on the legality of Tevez subsequent registration - new transfer window, etc. This would imply that they have acknowledged the weakness of their case.
Not sure the 'legaility' as such but I have always thought the Sankofa ruling was against the spirit of the appeals rule - surely being punished for appealing goes against the notion of appeals in general.
In either or both circumstances (one disciplinary the other league regulations) one would assume Euefa if not FIFA would be able to override any ruling being the supreme bodies.
This is in the papers today [with analysis lifted direct from Kigelia!] - Wigan (who are best placed to represent Sheff U) have been pursuing this angle for over a week - given that Tevez played against them the day after the hearing. Once again the league say there was never any question about Tevez's registration but I am mystified as to how West Ham claim to have unilaterally torn up the third party's control over where and when Tevez next moves.
The appeals issue is important though Charlton were trying only for an injunction on the suspension pending another hearing ( which would have been handy given that Luke Young was out injured at the time)
The point is that the courts said they would only intervene in exceptional circumstances.
I think the outcome rests on how many clubs come out of the wings before June 1 when there is a meeting about TV money and I assume they formally change the membership of the league to reflect the relegation/promotion/play-off finals.
Comments
Their only role, as far as I'm concerned, is for cases of gbh by players on the pitch. And of course for damages / breach of contract aka Jordan vs Dowie!
The Premier League are not going to back down and the FA have a strange relationship with the Premier League since the breakaway.
Instead Platini at UEFA may want to look at the role of agents putting South Americans in the shop window for their own gain. And they may want "equity" in the sports arena as well as putting two fingers up to the premier league.
i'm just glad we finished 19th so we can debate academically instead of sounding bitter!
The Court for Abitration in Sport would be happy to listen to it but I doubt they will get the chance as neither the Premier League or West Ham are going to go to them for an appeal and I am not sure their regs would allow them to hear a case brought by people not materially involved, although I would need to check.
West Ham lied and concealed documents and many believe they continued with this, especially when the agent said it was news to him that any deals had been rewritten.
I know it's easier next year with Sheff Utd and not West Ham but long term justice should be done.
Its taken ONE YEAR for the Jordan/Dowie case to make it to court, some cases take far longer.
The new season starts in mid-August and there is no way the case will be heard and settled by then so once the new season kicks off then its all over.
sheffield United are nothing more than a third party with a vested interest in the outcome in my opinion.
Don't know the detailed procedures of the Premier League (nor do I really want to!) but their must be some appeals process - for both clubs feeling hard done by, and for other clubs contesting leniency?
Does it need two thirds to pass some sort of resolution to revisit the case? In any event, if we'd finished 18th I would have thought UEFA the best route?
1. The FAPL and FA are not considered to be public bodies and thus are not open to judicial review with regard to their rulings. There have been other cases, notably the Stevenage Borough/Torquay case a few years ago where the high court refused to allow a review of the decision not to promote Stevenage.
2. There is a possibility that under the Human Rights act, it may be possible to have the FAPL/FA ruled as quasi public bodies and thus allow their decisions to be reviewed. However, an attempt to do this in respect of the Jockey Club recently failed in the high court. The chances are not good. He went on to say that to obtain a judicial review, it may be necessary to go right to the House of Lords.
He summed things up by saying that there is very little chance of success although he did concede that to take it to the House of Lords needs a lot of money which of course, at least two of the four clubs have access to.
He also offered the opinion that the decision by the commission was so perverse as to be against all common sense and that would be the grounds for overturning if it was held that the courts did have jurisdiction over these matters.
Earlier today before the game, Dave Whelan and the Sheff U chief were interviewed again on Five Live. They made it clear that they would continue to support one another in seeking a legal approach. Whelan mentioned that Al Fayed told them at their recent meeting that he personally would be prepared to pay all the legal costs and would be prepared to take it to the House of Lords if necessary.
I've no doubt though that the Sankofa case has not helped the cause. Did the FAPL deliberately put us up to it as a test case so as to bolster their position and was that the reason why they delayed action for such a long time? In the words of Barry Davies, "interesting, very interesting".
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/tm_headline=are-hammers-lying-again-&method=full&objectid=19076158&siteid=89520-name_page.html
****
Whether you are right or wrong, its a very interesting angle. I was staggered with the outcome of our case purely because it appeared we had been encouraged by the PL to go down this route.
Certainly one for the consiracy theorists !
Not sure the 'legaility' as such but I have always thought the Sankofa ruling was against the spirit of the appeals rule - surely being punished for appealing goes against the notion of appeals in general.
In either or both circumstances (one disciplinary the other league regulations) one would assume Euefa if not FIFA would be able to override any ruling being the supreme bodies.
The appeals issue is important though Charlton were trying only for an injunction on the suspension pending another hearing ( which would have been handy given that Luke Young was out injured at the time)
The point is that the courts said they would only intervene in exceptional circumstances.
I think the outcome rests on how many clubs come out of the wings before June 1 when there is a meeting about TV money and I assume they formally change the membership of the league to reflect the relegation/promotion/play-off finals.