The Allam's are of the opinion that the FA changed their procedure late 2013, before the application was made but after they were aware that an application was to be made. I don't know what was changed, if anything at all, but that's what they are using as the basis for the appeal.
So the basis of the argument is that the FA changed the rules to cut the name change off at the knees when they found out it was coming.
Well that's tough fucking shit. They should have got their act together and got an application in. One might also point out that a) initially, Allam wasn't even aware he needed permission to change the name, and b) he tried to turn us into 'Hull [City] Tigers' covertly by altering the name of the holding company in April 2013. What a pigheaded, obstinate, impertinent, overbearing, arrogant, conniving, selfish, ignorant, imbecilic CUNT of a man.
cheshireles;7136167]Complete waste of time, The FA won't budge. Don't underestimate the Allam's they ain't as potty as folk try to make out.
The FA rules don't give the arbitration Tribunal the power to change the decision. All it can do is say whether the decision was valid under the FA's rules and English law. It does give him the opportunity to say he is a man of his word and is standing up for the silent majority that want to be called Hull Tigers.
Erik,, Erik, erik. Get to the point man, stop beating about the bush. You seem to be writing within yourself, are you afraid of upsetting someone? Think it'd be better, if ,you'd take the kid gloves off, call a spade a spade, get down from the fence and nail your colours to the mast. I'd just like to get it straight in my own mind, if you're pro name change or not.
Sorry chaps, I'm just passionate about my football club. Giving up my pass (on principal) and not going to games has hit me hard #prayforerik
I would also suspect that he (AA), as the owner of a business, presumably registered in the UK, with some recognition in the EU, may have some rights in determining what he is allowed to call his company. The fact that the FA rules say they have some say in whether or not an owner may or may not change the name of the operating entity within their jurisdiction (ie. The premiership/Premier League), may well be contestable within British Law and EU Law. Could the FA "demote" or "cancel" membership from the FA for such a change ? No criminal event, no financial indiscretions etc etc involved, no other illegalities ! The only offense is that the proposed name-change offends supporters of the club, and other stake-holders in the game's history. What are their legal rights as opposed to the rights of the owner of the business ? What are the FA's legal rights as opposed to the owners of the club.I don't think it's clear cut, but I'm no corporate lawyer. Remember Bosman ? Set a precedent did it not ? Stranger things have happened. It may well get very messy. AA may well need to follow through with his threat & sell up, or drag this fiasco on for a very long time, alienating more than the clubs supporters.
The club will be paying, though as the Allam's own the club outright, ultimately it's their money anyway.
He can call his Company what he likes within the relevant rules. But if he wants that company to own a professional league football club, in order to be a part of the huge product that is the FA/FL/PL, he's got to meet their rules.
Did you see the like I posted a few weeks back showing the barrister the FA have used in the past for Rule K adjudications? It would have been well before your time, but a regular poster and antagonist on CI was a DQPR fan and Director as well as Barrister called Nick DeMarco. There's a beautiful irony if he ends up being the one to help City fans.
I remember the name, but I don't know why, either it's just because it's been referenced on CI, or I've had a run in with him on Twitter over something. I definitely think I've spoken to him somewhere.
What is Allams line of attack with this appeal will his argument be that other "brands" have rebranded for better profitability and that historically clubs have changed their name . It can only be one way or the other that the owner of the club / business can change the brand name and image to better the business or that the Club is not just a brand and the owner is merely a custodian for the fans in any other business , i'd say the owner is within his rights to alter the brand name , but "Marathon" isn't a community identity etc etc.
he can indeed call the holding company whatever he likes and he has done. he can't call the team what he likes. on top of that, fifa rules require the fa to have rules stating that they will impose sanctions on any club or any other fa member that takes them to court on anything other than points of procedure.
Those are all things addressed in his original application, but this appeal is purely on technical grounds and his only options are to either prove the FA did something illegal, or that they broke their own rules, the rights and wrongs of the name change itself can't be discussed.
