they never relinquished it in the first place.. only the names have changed.. see what I've done there?
The winning entry for the aforementioned badge comp will have a smiling Assem Allam on it and the year 2010 under him
Fair enough. I suppose I'm like you in that I feel this is hardly surprising and is probably one of the "lighter" things he has done, hence my lack of concern over it but I get why some may see it as blasphemous. Fez made a good point. I just think he's done things far more deserving of uproar.
The FA did decide. They said no. All these things are happening after the successful campaign to encourage the FA to reject it.
Anyone know, can a third party make a legal challenge to FA/FL rules? The rules seemingly say that clubs can't take legal action against the governing body, which in itself I'd question if that was legal, but could a third party make a legal challenge? If they can, the rule becomes meaningless anyway, doesn't it?
Anyone can sue anyone if they have sufficient grounds. It's a while since we looked at all this, but from memory, it's actually a FIFA rule that a club can't sue it's governing body. In practical terms, a club can still take legal action if it wishes, but it then breaches the membership rules and risks severe penalties(both financial and potentially a points deduction).
Aye, I realised the FIFA bit after I'd pressed send and couldn't be arsed to edit. It's a rule I doubt would pass any legal test, especially as there do seem to have been circumstances where it's gone to court over various issues. There are various acts and regulations that would arguably take precedence. All of which is immaterial, as if anyone can legally challenge (as opposed to sue), the decision, then it's meaningless, as Assam Allam and Allamhouse are seperate legal entities from the club, so that legal entity could challenge a decision or process with no fear of punishment anyway. It's a pointless rule in my view, but one people seem to think prevents legal action.
Assem Allam owns Allamhouse and Allamhouse owns Hull City(Tigers) Ltd, that wouldn't get him round the rules. Not that it matters, he's not going to risk legal action anyway.
That only works if they're part of the same umbrella company. A seperate company or a seperate individual is a seperate legal entity It doesn't alter the main point, that the rules can be legally challenged without reprisal.
I don't think just anyone can take legal action, you have to show you have a legal interest in the decision. So, a Bradford City fan couldn't take action because they have no legal interest in the decision. The FSF may have an interest as a body representing all Football Supporters but that may be arguable. CTWD would have had a potential legal interest, as there was no consultation over the name change application by the club. However the actions of the FA in hearing our submission removed that option, in my opinion. Assem Allam and Allamhouse are connected parties and would be in breach of the FIFA rules in spirit, if not by the letter of the rule. The problem with anyone taking legal action is that the arbitration panel acts as an unofficial court and would consider similar legal arguments as a judge. Unless the arbitration panel makes a serious legal error in arriving at its decision then going to court will result in the same outcome. However the practical consequences of the club taking legal action would be a leap into the unknown. If the unknown is a ravine it may end up losing the opportunity of sharing in the new TV money. The club voluntarily agrees to abide by the rules of the FA. If they don't like them they can try and change them or leave.
Obadiah, are you saying a "Bradford City fan" to differentiate it from a Hull City fan, that would have an interest? In which case "CTWD", could also read "Hull City fan"? On pedantic note, CTWD, couldn't take action as they don't exist, but surely, if it's simply to challenge a point, anyone has the option of taking it to court? The legal interest, would be an interest in the laws of the land? As for the rules being take it or leave it. They must still be fair and reasonable.
I don't believe any club or individual has ever commenced legal proceedings against the FA, lots of clubs and a few players have threatened to, but none have carried out those threats. A high court action costs ten of thousands of pounds and if you lose, you're looking at a six figure bill, when contesting the rules of a private members club it really isn't worth the risk, so nobody does it.
