There was no procedure in place within the FA rules about consulting fans and other stakeholders so he's saying they changed the rules by having one instead of him just filling in the form and them having a vote on it. The fact the rules give the FA "absolute discretion" to reject the proposal completely destroys the argument though, they're allowed to reject it without justification provided the decision can't be shown by the club to be commercially unreasonable.
A Brazilian case from earlier this year. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/intern...athlete-from-club-pursuing-legal-action.shtml FIFA are saying they could release the players from their contracts with clubs if a club takes legal action in standard courts. The Brazilian FA has already passed a rule saying that if legal action is taken against them then the team in question will forfeit their TV money. So, how long before a similar rule (to the 2nd one) is passed here given we've got the biggest league in the world for TV money?
I was listening to Ashbee on the radio this morning talking about Wembley. I then got thinking about the last time. I was on holiday in Cyprus and before the game we had to walk through a swimming pool complex and quite a few people were jeering and sneering, saying Hull City would never win. It made me doubt it, It was like unthinkable for our little team from a City no one cared about or rated could actually get into the Premier League. We watched in on TV in a bar and felt so proud, got back in time for the celebrations. I actually started to fill up thinking about it and then it dawned on me. This is exactly why Allam doesn't get it, he has never felt like that and never will. Yes he will be at Wembley, he is the owner but I doubt he is a "fan". He will never feel what we feel.
That feeling is what those that "choose" a football club can never experience and is what football is about. Savour and enjoy.
We had no grounds to challenge the decision, just as AA hasn't and we would not have done so. We'd just have campaigned to have it changed back.
Again, another very real risk of just one of the sanctions that could be imposed against our club. But, I’m sure despite this, the few on here will still be standing shoulder to shoulder with Assem Allam rather than shoulder to shoulder with Hull City. Those who support Allam through this, or think ‘way to go’, DO NOT have the best interests of Hull City at heart.
I disagree with the view that there is no challenge to the ruling by the FA. The fact is that the FA did not have a process in place that stated that stakeholders would be consulted. It did not define what constituted a stakeholder. It also did not define what constituted as consultation. There will also be consideration in the challenge to the reason for rejection. Commercially the Allams cannot prove a negative. They cannot prove that the name change WILL bring in more investment as until the contracts are on the table there is no proof and nor can the FA prove that there will NOT be any commercial interest in the name change. It is all about opinion, in the opinion of the FA the name change would have no commercial benefit. My reading of this is going to be challenged (I welcome the challenge as debate but will ignore abuse) I believe that the FA rejected the name change because there was no commercial benefit to the...FA. They did not mention tradition, heritage or supporters. The points about selling the heritage of the FA cup are in my view valid examples of a commercial decision. Please remember that this post is about debating the name change, it is not me supporting the name change, it is me once again slating the FA.
If 14% more people voted the other way it would have been a rigged vote and a criminal investigation would have followed.
There is no challenge, there's no appeal, there's no legal action, the only option is an appeal to CAS about the process and as the rules simply state that the FA have 'total discretion' there isn't really a case there either.
I disagree OLM, is the fact that there is no appeal to the ruling fair business practice? Has the same process been applied for other clubs who have changed their playing name? Just because something is in the rules that you have signed up to, it doesn't mean that it is always legally binding. I am not arguing for the sake of it, I actually do believe that the Allams have a case. I do not think they will get the ruling overturned, but they may get the FA to make the application process better. The situation could then be put to bed finally without it being dragged out though next season.
The FA's rules didn't say that stakeholders shouldn't be consulted. The legal question is what weight the FA put on the opinions of the stakeholders and whether the club was prejudiced by the process. The question of the financial benefit is dependent on the weight given to it in the club's application. If the club said it will make Hull City self-sufficient, which is what Assem Allam said in his media interviews, the FA would be expected to test that claim when considering the application. If the club didn't back up its statements then I would expect the FA to take that into consideration when making the decision. The one potential legal challange available to CTWD, if there had been no consultation with stakeholders by the club, would have been on the grounds that the Premier League rules (to which Hull City were signed up to) were not followed. I think its perfectly reasonable for the FA to have followed the Premier League rules and asked Hull City's stakeholders for an opinion. Again it is the weight given to the responses that is important. I suspect that at the beginning of this the FA took legal advice about what they could and couldn't do. I suspect they have followed it to the letter. The reason for me is clear, the mess that was MK Dons. Unless the Allams can show that the FA was corrupt or irrational they will lose in the English Courts, in my view. Natural justice has been followed and the decision taken was within the rights of the FA and rational. The adding of the sponsor's name to the front of the FA Cup isn't a valid legal argument. Whether they should allow it is another matter. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I take great comfort from this post. Any chance you could direct me to a post of yours where you have been right about anything at all.
It doesn't matter if you think it's fair business practice or not, the FA have followed their procedure, rejected the name change and FIFA rules prevent the club from challenging it through the courts. To my knowledge, nobody has applied under these rules before, so it's a moot point. Who do they have a case with, they can't go to the courts and CAS are likely to throw it out? Nobody wants this nonsense finished earlier than me, but it's not going to happen, AA is going to continue pissing everyone off for another year. And I believe it will ultimately cost us our manager.
If Allam applies again next year without coming up with any real new arguments in favour shouldn't the application just be thrown out on the grounds he'd be wasting the FA's time? Why should a committee of the FA have to investigate the matter, meet the stakeholders, draw up a report all over again, just to hear it repeated that people are crazy about tigers in the Far East?
I'm surprised it hasn't done so already to be honest. He must feel like putting his head through a ****ing phone box window some days with all this **** going on.
I do wonder what would happen if Norwich came in for him, particularly if it's after they've secured next season in the top flight.
