Part of the problem is that the FA was set up almost as a gentlemans club, so informal agreements were understood, and the spirit of the law more liable to be adhered to. In more recent times, less gentlemanly folk have got involved, pushing some of the boundaries of accepted understanding.
you're beginning to sound like a lawyer and appear to be dragging more and more irrelevant elements into the matter. the fa's reconsideration is only about whether or not they followed their own procedures. they did. you might be interested to know that fifa has regulations which demand that each and every country's fa must include rules preventing their decisions being challenged beyond the stipulated options at risk of a sanction against the challengers. this is part of the regulations under which national football associations are members of fifa. the fa is not going to risk its fifa membership.
The 'silent majority' obviously agree with everything Happy Tiger thinks , he knows because he hears their voices in his head
The FA is a club as Dutch says, if you want to remain you abide by the rules. If you don't like the rules you leave. Although the rules do have to be lawful. The rule doesn't restrict business development as many clubs have prospered under their current names and have done for decades. The FA could point out that the success of the English football brand is due to its tradition and moving to emulate Rugby League or the AFL would be detrimental to that brand. There are no rules governing the make up of the committee. Hull City would have to show that the committee was deliberated stitched up before hand to give a particular result. I never felt certain we were going to win. I eventually thought we could but even when the committee had reported I thought we may still lose. I'd be surprised if City accused the committee of bias. The consultation with stakeholders. I didn't see anything wrong with that. CTWD were told the restrictions we were under and we abided by them. I'm sure the OSC complied as well. We were asked our views and we gave them. Our views were well known before, during and after the meeting with the FA. I'd be surprised if Ehab didn't say we were a vocal minority and the majority supported the name change. The committee would have taken that into account when making their decision. Hull City would have to show how it prejudiced their application. The failure to consult or hold a ballot would have also been taken into consideration. I don't think they'll get very far in arguing otherwise. I don't see what difference announcing the recommendation of the committee made. I'd rather they did that then it be leaked out to the press unofficially. If I was the FA I'd say we had no choice, it would have leaked out anyway. There is nothing in the rules stopping them announcing it. Hull City is a massive club and I think it is reasonable that different procedures apply for different applications. However, the Premier League rules, the question of who owns Darlington's name and the possible trade mark problems of having a brand new club called Brighton and Hove City are enough to justify the differences in treatment between the three applications. if Hull City's application had been rejected like Darlington's I'm sure they'd have called for different treatment given their status. I'd like to see the rules tightened up and include some procedural guidance. I'd like to see some rules on messing about with our name and putting Hull Tigers on social media, but the current rules give the FA flexibility. Something all organisations like. The parliamentary pressure may encourage them to change the rules but the tide may be turning. If Assem Allam accepts the arbitration I feel pressure for change will slowly disappear. Ashley has returned to St James' Park, Cardiff City play in Blue which only leaves us. Only those of us interested in rules and regulations will be left and we are a minority of a minority.
I was going to press the 'Like' on Obi's post, then thought it could easily be edited down to the parts I have quoted; if we accept that the FA acts in a lawful manner (I think a wisearse lawyer would have pounced otherwise, don't you?), then it is all about procedure within the rules of the member association.
It can't be edited down to the two parts quoted because the principles of natural justice apply to the process. The rules can be lawful but the way they are implemented unlawful.
