Thats one of my big worries about this , Steve Bruce has been fantastic for us and proved a lot of people wrong , at some point he could just think this really isn't worth it He's left teams before now
FAO Happy Tiger Do you want Assam Allam to take the name change appeal to the CAS and will you support him in doing so?
Cheese. With pickle. Branston pickle mind, and the proper stuff, not that finely chopped up stuff, any other is just a pretender.
Blimey, this is a volte face. Less than a week ago, Happy would have been shrieking paragraphs of his support for Allam on virtually every thread he could whether he was asked or not. Now, even upon asking him politely three times, he cannot write one single sentence on support for Allam’s pursuit of the name change to the CAS. Not one single sentence. Happy Tiger is putting the good of the club first by refusing to support Allam – let this be a lesson to those few who still support Allam. Blindly support City, not Allam.
Isn't it all we ask that Assam just shows some humility here and leaves it. It would be the right and gracious thing to do. But we all know he won't as he is a stubborn old git, I have always backed him; what he has done for the club etc. I find it harder and harder every time I read the next thing he has said, it's not good for you, It isn't good for the club. Just give up. But alas, he won't, the fool.
You did? I always figured you'd be more worldly than that tbh, what with your trips over to the Far East and stuff.
Oh yes, it's a very popular saying in China. As is 'the tiger who clams to be happy, is usually a thick **** pretending to be clever, when really he has the mind of a sea cucumber'.
That's my take on it, but I'm an accountant not a lawyer, we just have to study a bit of contract law as part of the course. If the FA weren't a members club and was just a business we dealt with there'd be much more of a case for challenging it provided there was some financial benefit to changing (that could be proven, not just hypothesised about). As it is and there isn't any evidence of a benefit there's not a lot I can see to give grounds to the challenge. The Socimer test is the main one I've seen getting used for challenging "absolute discretion" based decisions. If the decision can be shown to be commercially unreasonable then it can be challenged. To show it is commercially unreasonable the club would need to demonstrate it has suffered financially as a result of the decision (point 1). The club would then need to show that the FA was unreasonable in causing that adverse financial result (point 2). It would then be rectified in a manner which created a commercially reasonable resolution (point 3). The fact a reasonable resolution destroys the potential benefit we've been denied makes the whole thing cyclical and a bit of a Catch 22. 1) The club has openly stated that there are no deals on the table that are anything to do with the name change one way or another, and that the figures they're talking about are purely hypothetical on the back off absolutely nothing more that Everton having a better sponsor than us and McCoys having a tiger in their advert so they'll fail on that level. 2) The FA as a members club has to act in the interests of its members as a collective. If the purpose of the name change is to benefit us commercially (the requirement for point 1) then the FA is entitled to reject it in order to protect the other 91 members of he PL/FL from the disadvantage our advantage would cause. 3) The remedial action would likely be that we have to be permitted to change our name, but that any financial benefit we receive as a result of the change would have to be distributed amongst the rest of the clubs that are members of the FA proportionally to the relative impact of that benefit on them. The FAs likely response to a legal challenge if one were even allowed would be to say that they were able to reject it outright without any process. Part of that rejection would have been to say that if the Allams wanted, the FA would hold a consultation with various groups and then reconsider the decision. All they did by having the process before the initial decision was accelerate that process as it was seen as being in the best interests of all parties to get it resolved by April 9th.
You've been watching too many Prime Minister's Questions. Just answer the question you were asked not what you would have preferred to have been asked. If it had been an exam question how many marks out of ten do you think you would have got? You're right 0/10, 0/10 ,0/10,0/10.
