No the FA is not above the law, but you've missed the point. Norwich City has signed up to the FA’s rules to compete in the Premiership of its own free will, one of those rules is you cannot take legal action against another club instead you have to go through the FA’s disciplinary channels. The FA’s internal process will award modest compensation and may fine Villa up to £75,000 for poaching your manager.
I have not missed the point you moron. Yes, they signed up to the rules. That means they go through FA channels. However, they go through these channels FIRST- then they are perfectly entitled to go to the English courts. None of this excludes them from suing Villa... It just means the first port of call is the FA for the suit . The FA will assess it on a legal basis- just as they did with the Football League Tribunal awarding you £400k for the induced breach. If it went to the FA tribunal, Norwich might get up to £2m in compensation. If we weren't happy with the award, we could THEN go to the English courts. Jesus fvcking christ you're not bright are you? This is unlikely to happen, it will be settled out of court. And for the last fvcking time, Villa are unlikely to be fined because it sounds like they went through the right channels. The restrictive covenants the BBC alleges are in Lambert's contract will be fully enforceable. Do I need to spell it out any clearer?
Actually you've just proved conclusively you don't know what you're talking about! The Norwich/Colchester compensation wasn’t heard in a court of law at all. It was heard before an FA disciplinary tribunal, as were the cases against Lambert, Culverhouse and Karsa. Q. Why were the cases against Norwich, Lambert, Culverhouse and Karsa dealt with by an FA disciplinary tribunal and not a court of law? A. To compete in the Premiership or Football League clubs have to agree not to take legal action against clubs or their employees. Norwich could legally go to court, however the punishment from the FA for breaking their rules would be expulsion to the conference. I can’t see anyone on the Norwich board being willing to sacrifice the club for a managers contract.
Oh my fvcking god you're an idiot. I should explain. I'm a lawyer. The FA disciplinary tribunal (and in fact in this case it was the Football League Tribunal as I stated earlier) IS A COURT OF LAW. Under EU law these have quasi-judicial functions and are certainly a court of law. Given that they appeal directly to English courts they are DEFINITELY a court of law. Tribunals- Employment Appeals Tribunals, all professional tribunals, these are ALL COURTS OF LAW. THEY JUST HAPPEN TO ONLY GOVERN THE LAW OF THE PROFESSIONAL BODY THEY ARE THE TRIBUNAL FOR. You've conclusively proved yourself a moron. Well done. Norwich could go to court. They would first go to the FA tribunals, then they could go if they chose to appeal and there would be no repercussions. They have not agreed to not take legal action against other clubs or their employees, they have agreed to go through the FA Tribunals FIRST. Why can't you understand this? None of this precludes a negotiated settlement first, without even going before a tribunal. This seems likely. Of course, it may be that Lambert's contract has run out and there is no compensation eligible, or Norwich may accept the resignation, but given that all the papers are reporting this not to be the case, it is unlikely. Now fvck off.
No once again you are completely wrong, you cretinous derelict simpleton. If we had wanted to appeal the FA’s disciplinary tribunal decision Cowling would have appealed to the FA.
no YOU are completely wrong! Because no-one gives a **** about colchester! Colchester could burn to the ground tommorrow and no-one would give a ****.
The key point you utter imbecile is the FA Disciplinary Tribunal is under FA jurisdiction, any legal action outside of FA sanctioned action would be against FA rules. You can band around as much JARGAN as you want as this key point is UNBREAKABLE.
OH MY GOD HOW THICK ARE YOU GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE???? You didn't appeal because you didn't feel that you needed to- i.e. your club felt satisfied with the judgment. Let me explain how appeals work: You get a court of first instance (in criminal law this is the magistrate's court) You then get a first appeals court (this would be the Crown Court) You then get a series of further appeals courts if one party is still not satisfied with the judgment (the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Justice and the European Court of Justice) In professional legal actions, often the professions have earlier courts of first instance: - for football league members, they have the Football League Tribunal - then they may have a court of appeal- the FA Disciplinary Tribunal - I think there may be another level in the football heirarchy, I haven't looked it up - THEN if you're still not happy with the judgment, you can appeal to the High Court, and ultimately the SC and/or the ECJ NONE of this precludes the fact that it is still taking legal action. The words you are looking for is "oh I see Rob, I hadn't understood before"
No you utter pleb, you have to go to this FIRST, you can then continue onto the English courts if you feel you can appeal. Again, none of this precludes the fact that, if Norwich took Villa to the FA Disciplinary Tribunal, it would STILL BE A LAW SUIT BECAUSE THIS IS A LEGAL BODY WITH JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS. All it means is that Norwich have no choice but to go to the FA FIRST. If they receive a satisfactory decision then they won't bother appealing (as Colchester did), but if they wanted to, they could keep climbing the ladder. Once again, have you got any legal training or are you prepared to admit you are making this up?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18270735 "Football must always operate within the law of the land," said SFA chief executive Stewart Regan. Same applies to the English FA!! Oh and: http://videocelts.com/2012/05/blogs/former-celts/lambert-in-limbo-as-norwich-reject-resignation? "Steve Bruce and Ian Dowie have both found themselves placed on extended gardening leave as injunctions are thrown around preventing managers from working elsewhere."
Hang on here you dim-witted little pleb, letâs go back to your first post. There is absolutely NOTHING to stop Lambert from taking up his position with Aston Villa before any FA disciplinary tribunal. Therefore your original post was incorrect i.e. balderdash. Talk about EPIC failure. I asserted you would have to go to a disciplinary tribunal instead of going straight to the High Court under FA rules. Factually correct, to which you now concur as per your last post. Pleasure doing business with you Budgerigar Rob!
You complete idiot- yes there is. According to the BBC there is a restrictive covenant in Lambert's contract (just like Steve Bruce above), this means that unless Villa pay Norwich off, he could be forced into a period of gardening leave- Norwich would get an injunction against him doing so. My original post was absolutely correct. [EDIT- the injunction and gardening leave will actually be due to minimum notice periods for terminating a contract, whereas the restrictive covenants will concern what Lambert can and can't do after termination- Lambert would eventually be able to take up the Villa job, just it would take some time and he wouldn't necessarily be allowed to approach for Norwich players. It all depends on the contract, obviously, which I haven't read and so I can't advise fully on this unless I saw it]. I NEVER said it would go straight to the High Court, I said Norwich could sue. You claimed Norwich can't sue, which was where you were entirely wrong. Just admit it, you clearly don't understand the system, EVEN AFTER I HAVE EXPLAINED IT TO YOU. Care to answer whether you have any legal qualifications? Brushing up on the law yet?
No I said Norwich would have to go to a disciplinary tribunal, how EXACTLY is that not SUING… As if a court injunction would be granted AFTER he has quit, not very bright are you? If Norwich wanted to go down that route they should’ve moved quicker, if you have a problem with that you’ll have to go to a FA disciplinary tribunal which can be delayed for months if not years by Villa and Lambert.
Actually, check your post at 9:26pm you said: "The ‘legal obligations’ you mention simply are not enforceable, since you cannot take legal action against another club as per both Premiership and Football League rules i.e. it could never go to court." So, in fact, you did say Norwich couldn't sue. Legal action and suing are synonymous. You were wrong. Norwich can sue- first to the Tribunal. I may not be Einstein, but I'm clearly a lot brighter than you. One thing I know is, you don't understand the law, or legal remedies. An injunction is one form of legal remedy- something the court grants instead of compensation. Let me explain, an injunction is a legal remedy that you apply to court in order to enforce a covenant (a promise) that has been made. If the covenant says "I will not work for 2 months in football after terminating a contract" that means, assuming the covenant is validly created and reasonable, that the covenantor (who made the promise) would not be allowed to do that. As I said, I can't advise on any covenants in Lambert's contract- I haven't seen it and I'm purely going on what the BBC said. Obviously, you can only obtain an injunction AFTER the contract is terminated, because the covenant only becomes enforceable then In this case, in fact, the injunction would be against Lambert being employed, because he will have covenanted not to be employed at the same time as being employed by Norwich. You have to give notice to quit (often this is for, say, one month). This means that you MUST continue working for one more month unless your employer releases you. So your employer can either: make you continue working (difficult), or put you on gardening leave (easy). This means you are still technically employed, but cannot take up employment elsewhere. Unless Villa pay Norwich off, they could do this. This has nothing to do with speed. An injunction can be granted on the same day within a matter of hours. The Tribunal decision would be regarding the breach of contract, not the gardening leave. Seriously Mike, you don't know what you're talking about
As much as I'm enjoying this little tete a tete, I think someone should jump in and pull Rob out of this one. I don't think he's quite got the idea that you can't possibly win an argument on here against this little keyboard warrior bollock and the harder you try the harder his tiny little piggly-wiggly plonker gets. Best to leave it mate, as knowledgeable as you clearly are on all this you honestly are getting nowhere
Rob. May I offer a word of advice to you here please? Never argue with an idiot. He will beat you with experience
Sorry chaps! Point taken. I do honestly think I might finally have got him into a full circle now though. The fact that he's avoided answering means he realises he can't wiggle his way out. The one advantage of making you have to bear with this is that we now know that every time he crops up we can ask him how learning the law is going... But yes, I'll stop before he drags me too far down- I'm bald enough as it is!
Firstly I am clearly vastly your intelligence quotient superior Budgerigar Rob, since you have been hoisted by your own petard. Secondly you made a fallacious assumption, over my use of vagarious phrases such as ‘court of law’, thus fell into the classic straw man trap on more than one occasion. Thirdly you have consistently failed to grasp that the BBC makes no specific mention of any covenant in Lambert’s contract, idle speculations of the press do not constitute factual content.
