The rules on arbitration The rules on arbitration are covered in section K of the FA Handbook. They set out when the process can start, over what issues and what the outcome can be. Hull City Tigers Limited do have the right under the rules to seek arbitration, which they have started or will start. The press statements made by Assem Allam and the club are a bit confusing. The FA's arbitrator together with the chairman of the tribunal will be appointed by the Football Regulatory Authority (the FRA). If the FA disagrees with the nominated chairman one is picked by the President of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Rule K 3). What decisions can the tribunal come to? The Tribunal does not have the powers to tell the FA to change the name of Hull City to Hull Tigers. Rule K 1 (d) says: 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. The Tribunal's sole remit is to determine whether the decision by the FA was within its rules, was rational, was procedurally fair and within English law. The FA's rules on name changes Under the rule 3 (l) of the FA: âA Club competing in any one of The Premier League, The Football League, The Football Conference, the Southern Football League, the Isthmian League and the Northern Premier League shall not be permitted to change its playing name (i.e. the name under which the Club competes in a Competition), as recorded on Form âAâ, save with the prior written permission of Council. "Any application for a change of playing name must be received by The Association before 1st April in any calendar year in order for it to be considered by Council for adoption in the following playing season. Council will use its absolute discretion in deciding whether to approve a change in a Clubâs playing name." The procedure adopted to consider Hull City's application The FA's rules are silent on how an application from a club to change its name should be dealt with. On receiving Hull City's application they decided to consult a number of stakeholders, including CTWD, prior to the FA Council making its decision. Do Hull City have any grounds for challenging the procedure? Hull City would have to show the procedure was either unlawful, outside the FA's rules, unfair or irrational. The procedure (not the decision) was obviously legal. The procedure was within the FA's rules as the Council has absolute discretion in approving the change of name. There is no rule stopping them asking stakeholders for their view. The procedure was rational. The Premier League Rules (2013-14), which Hull City signed up to, clearly state that stakeholders should be consulted on major changes (R.20). I would say that given the parliamentary interest in preserving the traditions of English football and the possibility of legislation on grounds, colours and names the FA acted rationally in consulting widely before making its decision. The procedure was unfair. Hull City had every opportunity before the vote to contest the procedure. The club could have opposed the procedure and gone to arbitration. They choose not to. They could argue that asking CTWD for its opinion was unfair. However Hull City did not abide by the Premier League rules and consult fans on the name change. By not asking CTWD for its view the FA could have left itself open to a legal challenge if it decided to change the name. The only thing unfair about the procedure in the eyes of Assem Allam was the decision. In my view the procedure will pass all the tests mentioned in K 1(d). Do Hull City have grounds to challenge the decision? The FA Council have discretion to say yes or no. The decision made was within their rules. Was it fair and rational? The FA Council went to great lengths to consult widely on the proposed name change within the football family. On the basis of the evidence provided by the club and others they voted no. If the procedure was fair and rational the vote was also fair and rational. Was the vote legal? From bits and pieces on the various fan sites Hull City appear to be claiming the vote broke EU law as it is a restriction of trade and places an unreasonable restriction on Hull City's freedom to carry on business. The application of EU regulations 101 and 102 The FA and Premier League are examples of âhorizontal agreementsâ between competing companies (ie football clubs). âHorizontal agreementsâ are not necessarily unlawful. Hull City would have to show that the failure to agree the name change would seriously distort the competition between the Premier League teams. They would have to show that the decision significantly reduced their ability to compete in the Premier League. The FA could rely on the statement by Ehab that there was no sponsor dependant on the name change and the latest transfer window to show that Hull City have suffered no detriment. The FA, as English football's governing body, could argue that they are covered by Regulation (EEC) No 2821/71 of the Council, in that the rules uphold the standards of the sport. The High Court The EU legal question can only be decided by the High Court. Are Hull City going to go to the High Court for a decision. I doubt it. If the FA changes its mind over the name change on the grounds of EU law it leaves them and the Premier League open to future challenges on sponsorship, shirt advertising and the fair play rules. All of which are restrictions on trade and the freedom of owners to run their businesses. Conclusion On the balance of probabilities I cannot see how the failure to change the name substantially affects Hull City's ability to compete in the Premier League. The procedure and decision looked fair and rational, as such I expect the application to fail.
Stop being so disrespectful. Our great chairman has signed 4 new players recently. You obviously just want to go back to the days of playing in the conference. So what if everything he says is a lie.
