Hull City Name Change Views?

[Fez]

Is it really? Is it the rule that is being challenged or the fact that the decision is made at the absolute discretion of the committee, or could procedural unfairness be an element of the arbitration? So as the arbitration details are not in the public domain, how do you know what is and what isn't being considered?

I've been led to believe it might be contractual, but I'm unsure what contract that is and no one can enlighten me.

 

[originallambrettaman]

All parties concerned were advised at the outset what the procedure would be, they were advised that stakeholders would be asked to make submissions and who those stakeholders would be.

There were no surprises and I can't see that anyone can now realistically claim the process was unfair.

 

[Obadiah]

Is it really? Is it the rule that is being challenged or the fact that the decision is made at the absolute discretion of the committee, or could procedural unfairness be an element of the arbitration? So as the arbitration details are not in the public domain, how do you know what is and what isn't being considered?

Arbitration looks at two things. First whether the FA followed its own rules in making the decision. The second is whether the FA acted unlawfully in English law in making its decision. This includes whether the FA followed the principles of natural justice, ie was the procedure fair to all parties.

I think it was reported in the HDM that the club said asking the local FA and CTWD for their views wasn't fair. That's because the same procedure wasn't used for Darlington and Brighton. There were rumours that the FA's decision breached European law as well, although no mention of that was made in the article.

The FA had absolute discretion in making the decision which allows them to set up the committee and ask stakeholders for their views. In my view the club has to show that asking the local FA and CTWD was contrary to the principles of natural justice and prejudiced their application. I don't think they stand a cat in hell's chance of proving that. I may be wrong but I think the arbitration will support the FA.

There would have been legal obstacles to both the Darlington and Brighton applications so they didn't need to follow the same procedure to reject the name changes.

 

[PLT]

All parties concerned were advised at the outset what the procedure would be, they were advised that stakeholders would be asked to make submissions and who those stakeholders would be.

There were no surprises and I can't see that anyone can now realistically claim the process was unfair.

While we're on the subject. Do we have any clue when this arbitration process will actually be concluded, other than the vague February we were told months ago? AN and others keep hinting that it's imminent? The silence makes me think it could be a while yet, unless someone else knows differently?

 

[originallambrettaman]

While we're on the subject. Do we have any clue when this arbitration process will actually be concluded, other than the vague February we were told months ago? AN and others keep hinting that it's imminent? The silence makes me think it could be a while yet, unless someone else knows differently?

No idea and I doubt James will tell any of us, I think Dalts is just basing his comments on the Feb date we were given previously.

I don't expect any prior information, I think we'll know nothing until the FA announce the arbitration panel decision and that could be at any time now.

 

[The Omega Man]

Rule K1(a) shall not operate to provide an appeal against the decision of a Regulatory Commission or an Appeal Board under the Rules and shall operate only as the forum and procedure for a challenge to the validity of such decision under English law on the grounds of ultra vires (including error of law), irrationality or procedural unfairness, with the Tribunal exercising a supervisory jurisdiction.

Obi, I am not saying that the arbitration will not look at the legality and the validity of the decision, just that I believe that main focus from the club will be on its perceived procedural unfairness. OLM scoffed at that.

 

[NorthFerribyTiger]

We might do better in the club shop if we didn't make tee-shirts with knock-off Converse logo's on them.

You must log in or register to see images

You must log in or register to see images

It would be interesting to see what Converse think of such blatant use of their copyright logo......it doesn't need to have the same wording....the 3 circles & star are enough for copyright infringement

 

[Obadiah]

Rule K1(a) shall not operate to provide an appeal against the decision of a Regulatory Commission or an Appeal Board under the Rules and shall operate only as the forum and procedure for a challenge to the validity of such decision under English law on the grounds of ultra vires (including error of law), irrationality or procedural unfairness, with the Tribunal exercising a supervisory jurisdiction.

Obi, I am not saying that the arbitration will not look at the legality and the validity of the decision, just that I believe that main focus from the club will be on its perceived procedural unfairness. OLM scoffed at that.

I think I understand what you're saying.

To me the test of whether the procedure was unfair will be judged on the principles of natural justice as per English law, not whether Assem Allam thinks its unfair. Which is why I think the Premier League rules on consultation, the question of who owns Darlington's name and whether Brighton and Hove City contravened trade mark legislation are important. I'd be surprised if the FA's solicitors weren't making similar points.

I don't think asking stakeholders for their views makes the procedure unfair. Its something the club should have done before making the application.

Arbitration just takes the place of the court.

If the FA contravened natural justice then it could be held to be unlawful under English law. I think that's what happened with the move to Milton Keynes. Arbitration found against the FA and sent the decision back to them. They washed their hands of it and we all know what happened next.

Once bitten I'm sure the FA would have taken legal advice over Hull City's application before they started the procedure.

 

[originallambrettaman]

Rule K1(a) shall not operate to provide an appeal against the decision of a Regulatory Commission or an Appeal Board under the Rules and shall operate only as the forum and procedure for a challenge to the validity of such decision under English law on the grounds of ultra vires (including error of law), irrationality or procedural unfairness, with the Tribunal exercising a supervisory jurisdiction.

Obi, I am not saying that the arbitration will not look at the legality and the validity of the decision, just that I believe that main focus from the club will be on its perceived procedural unfairness. OLM scoffed at that.

I understand the point you were making, but on what basis do you think the club could claim the procedure was unfair? From what Ehab said, it seems the club are going to claim that consulting the fans was unfair and I can't see that anyone is going to accept that as being unreasonable or unfair.

 

[NorthFerribyTiger]

I understand the point you were making, but on what basis do you think the club could claim the procedure was unfair? From what Ehab said, it seems the club are going to claim that consulting the fans was unfair and I can't see that anyone is going to accept that as being unreasonable or unfair.

Were they not also opposed to other stakeholders like local FA's being consulted ?

 

[originallambrettaman]

Were they not also opposed to other stakeholders like local FA's being consulted ?

The term Ehab used was 'stakeholder fan groups'.

 

[Obadiah]

I understand the point you were making, but on what basis do you think the club could claim the procedure was unfair? From what Ehab said, it seems the club are going to claim that consulting the fans was unfair and I can't see that anyone is going to accept that as being unreasonable or unfair.

The FA said no so it must have been unfair. My understanding from the HDM article was that because the FA didn't consult the fans and the local FA when considering applications from other clubs the procedure for Hull City was unfair. Its an argument I'll give them that, but a poor one, in my view.

Some of us have an unhealthy fascination with how the legal system (or in this case, a quasi legal system) works. I think, like me, The Omega Man wants to understand why the Arbitration panel makes the decision. After all it will go down in the history books of Hull City AFC, whatever that decision is.

 

[Fez]

I think it has been stated time and time again why the appeal has been made, what it can entail and what outcome it can have, the rest of the on going conversations about fair play and contracts is simply bollocks. It's about procedure, nothing more, nothing less; the procedure might change for the future (probably harden against twats like Allam IMO), but for this case he will be told go away and ****ing grow up.
Bookmark, follow or write that in stone, if you wish.

 

[FILEYseadog]

Mr Ben.

I hope every thing was OK r/e your hospital visit.

 

[DMD]

I think it has been stated time and time again why the appeal has been made, what it can entail and what outcome it can have, the rest of the on going conversations about fair play and contracts is simply bollocks. It's about procedure, nothing more, nothing less; the procedure might change for the future (probably harden against twats like Allam IMO), but for this case he will be told go away and ****ing grow up.
Bookmark, follow or write that in stone, if you wish.

You can't create a group that requires members to sign up to an agreement/contract that breaches the law. A (small) part of the investigation would be to test whether the query has highlighted a potential breach, be it company, contactual or other.

 

[DMD]

The FA said no so it must have been unfair. My understanding from the HDM article was that because the FA didn't consult the fans and the local FA when considering applications from other clubs the procedure for Hull City was unfair. Its an argument I'll give them that, but a poor one, in my view.

Some of us have an unhealthy fascination with how the legal system (or in this case, a quasi legal system) works. I think, like me, The Omega Man wants to understand why the Arbitration panel makes the decision. After all it will go down in the history books of Hull City AFC, whatever that decision is.

I think another reason for digging, is to see how tight the door is closed, or not.

 

[Irememberwaggy]

Every poll that has been conducted(Other then AA's bent one) Has come back as a majority against the name change.

Yet people still claim of the 'silent majority'.

Why aren't the 'silent majority' speaking up? Why aren't anyone champion the idea from outside the club?

The clue is in the word "silent" Doh!!

 

[The Omega Man]

Anyone who has read my posts may gather that I do not think the FA's rules are fit for purpose. The amount of money swilling around football has changed the business of the game. The rules have to be watertight. Processes have to be clear.

In this case I think that there are several issues.

Does the rule restrict business development
The make up of the committee and how its members were selected
The consultation with stakeholders, what constituted consultation
The publication before the council sat, of the recommendation of the committee
Were the processes different to those used when other clubs applied for a name change?

As Obi posted, I do have a fascination with rules, regulations and law.

I believe that the rules should clearly state something along the lines of:

The playing name cannot be changed solely for commercial reasons.
Clubs must demonstrate that there is general support for any change from stakeholder groups.
All surveys and ballots should be conducted and verified independently.

 

[Fez]

You can't create a group that requires members to sign up to an agreement/contract that breaches the law. A (small) part of the investigation would be to test whether the query has highlighted a potential breach, be it company, contactual or other.

That is clearer, as it has other, more probable lines of reasoning beyond contract.

 

[DMD]

That is clearer, as it has other, more probable lines of reasoning beyond contract.

Reworded rather than expanded, but the point made initially still remains.