"@bbcburnsy: Hull City are not making their name change appeal through CAS. It's going through FA. #hcafc" Thought it deserved a thread on it's own. But merge with others threads if needed.
If Allam is so keen to sell the club why does he give a **** about the name change? It's because he's got to win that battle. It's all about ego.
I think you are probably right, as I think there was no right of appeal on the FA decision. But if that I the case, then that goes against what AA said, that he never goes back on a decision.
"@bbcburnsy: Hull City's Ehab Allam tells @RadioHumberside FA arbitration proces should produce decision by end of Nov. #hcafc"
This is exactly what i think, it's not specifically about the name nor the council but about the fact he cannot (and will not) tolerate anyone questioning let alone opposing whatever he says or does! remember what he said "it's my club and no one tells me what to do"
So what is there to appeal? Ehab said on Humberside its a three man panel, on from each side and one neutral. But a three man panel on that basis cannot challenge a vote of the FA council, surely? Surely this can only be a procedural investigation?
Indeed, and especially considering they said you couldn't appeal the name change last season, I imagine that like any appeal to CAS, this is more about whether The FA followed procedure correctly or not. I don't want to tempt fate, and my memory is hazy, but did the whole Wimbledon/MK bullshit get thrown out at first, only for a kinda dodgy 3-man panel to resurrect it? Not too worried yet though, I have faith in CTWD.
There were some posts this morning ( don't know where now ) and the thinking is, that there is no appeal process at the FA. Cannot take the FA to court as that against EUFA rules. Only place to go is the CAS, and they only rule on the rules being enforced correctly.
I wonder how the people on the panel formed their opinions and who chose them, because each opinion will be qualified with a reason behind it. If that reasoning's flawed, the opinion is.
I've seen that argued a few times, but there are always exceptions, and there's certainly several ways to skin a cat, especially one the size of a tiger.
It's not even a three man panel really. If one guy is appointed by each side, then its a tug of war for the guy in the middle. This must surely only be able to return it to the council, not reverse a decision, or what's the point in the council?
