Legal Action

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

Lots of mentions . "City will take Legal Action against the Premier League if we get relegated."

So how in practice does this work? Legal Action is very expensive. We are self funding after all.  Typically it uses precedent , but there isn't any. Rule breach ? There is apparently no rule for these circumstances.

 

Where a club or organisation is apparently based on democracy, and 14 of your fellow members disagree with you, what is you legal argument? That the 14 are wrong? When you join the Premier League you sign up to their contractual rules - do they have a "our word is final" rule?

NCFC lawyer - it is unfair that we are relegated with 9 games to go . We can point to examples where others have stayed up, and where there is clear data to support illustrate benefit from being at home . 

Premier League Lawyer (with deeper pockets) when you signed up to our rules you did exactly that, and we need to act as we face unprecedented times. 14 other teams have agreed, and we have our majority (which you signed up to ) . We have government backing (because we have lobbied HMG like there is no tomorrow) 

 

I'm interested in the views of others. Does this go to CAS ultimately?  Class action with other relegated teams? 

 

(Likely solution. 

Premier League give some additional money to NCFC to avoid legal action, and compensate for lost earnings from behind closed doors matches. NCFC accept relegation, accept compensation, and Parachute as per contract , and we drop back down. 

 

 

 

[JF 694]

Peterborough’s owner already threatening it 

 

[sonyc 5,512]

5 minutes ago, JF said:

Peterborough’s owner already threatening it 

 

Saw that but it's all very public and 'shouty' isn't it.  He can be outraged publicly but it will be different when they come to prepare a case because it will have to based on more than emotion. I guess it's an attempt to place pressure again. 

Like the OP I'm equally doubtful of the case. As mentioned many times on threads like this, there is no equitable or really fair outcome.

Edited May 9, 2020 by sonyc

[nutty nigel 7,531]

I agree that there's no fair outcome. But I think null and void is the only outcome unless the rules of the competition are changed to suit the current circumstances. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Clubs could argue restraint of trade no matter what the vote of the EPL is. And Villa will certainly be the first to cry foul.

McAnthony has always shot first and that is his nature. He has been vocal on many issues in the past and he knows he would have support for his lawsuit. It would be a class action with many clubs involved.

If the leaked 5 phase document is correct then the EPL will not be getting any support from the Government.

[Rock The Boat 1,330]

While there are no specific rules about Corona virus there are specific rules such all teams must play each other home and away, and it is on those type of rules that Norwich will base a legal case. 

But there are also rules about rules. In other words what is the procedure for changing rules or creating new rules for unseen circumstances. And then there are precedents - what was lawfully accepted in the past. So any legal argument on EPL side will be centred on these two factors. 

[Capt. Pants 4,227]

I am sure the club has already been over the legal position. Yes it will be expensive but then the club cannot afford not to take legal action. 

If NCFC agrees to participate in any restart then I cannot see any recourse being possible. Worst case scenario half the squad gets COVID but we are forced to play on. 

If we refuse to play then worst case scenario we are relegated from the EPL with no parachute payments and it is left to the EFL to put us in whatever league they decide. Will be very difficult to defend if there has been prior democratic process to restart the season. 

[pete 319]

There are a number of considerations included in the agreement between the PL and clubs one being the season consists of 38 games.  If the season is not 38 games that is clearly a breach of the contract signed by each club in the PL.  Therefore to apply the season needs to be curtailed and Project Restart not to happen.

Whether the PL can make up the way it decides to finish its league can only be considered by analysis of the rest of the contract which will be undertaken by lawyers from each club, legal action will only be taken if PL have contravened the terms of their own contracts.  If one club decides legal action is possible you can be certain that the PL has breached the contract.  And the PL will be unlikely to defend the action.  I suggest any legal action by Norwich can wait until the precedent is set by a club with deeper pockets 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

7 minutes ago, pete said:

If the season is not 38 games that is clearly a breach of the contract signed by each club in the PL.  Therefore to apply the season needs to be curtailed and Project Restart not to happen.

Force Majeure.

Contracts are hundreds of pages long because they are full of caveats and clauses. 

Biggest worry for us is what the contract between Sky and the EPL says. We're in a different boat to Peterborough because of that.

Edited May 9, 2020 by TeemuVanBasten

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

10 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

I am sure the club has already been over the legal position. Yes it will be expensive but then the club cannot afford not to take legal action. 

If NCFC agrees to participate in any restart then I cannot see any recourse being possible. Worst case scenario half the squad gets COVID but we are forced to play on. 

If we refuse to play then worst case scenario we are relegated from the EPL with no parachute payments and it is left to the EFL to put us in whatever league they decide. Will be very difficult to defend if there has been prior democratic process to restart the season. 

If the club agrees to play on, and then a player gets seriously ill with coronavirus, who is the player suing? 

[City 2nd 191]

13 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

If the club agrees to play on, and then a player gets seriously ill with coronavirus, who is the player suing? 

To all a cockup of tremendous proportions from EPL downwards. And now Watford have joined in the revolt, voting to NOT play at neutral venues when that vote is taken.  That’s now three in Brighton, Watford and Villa. Whose next? 

[Capt. Pants 4,227]

18 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

If the club agrees to play on, and then a player gets seriously ill with coronavirus, who is the player suing? 

I would imagine all clubs will have to sign a disclaimer preventing them suing the EPL. But that won't stop dependants of any player taking separate action as they will not be bound by club/EPL disclaimers? You can just imagine what would happen if Harry Kane comes a cropper and all his family sue for loss of earnings. Plus the companies that he has any promotional stuff with.

The EPL had better know what it is doing. As do the clubs that agree to play on.

[TIL 1010 4,738]

Didn't know which thread to post this on so went for this one. Watford now speak out against playing on neutral venues.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52598311

[Capt. Pants 4,227]

Just seen this TIL. NCFC has to come off the fence very soon.

[JF 694]

15 minutes ago, City 2nd said:

To all a cockup of tremendous proportions from EPL downwards. And now Watford have joined in the revolt, voting to NOT play at neutral venues when that vote is taken.  That’s now three in Brighton, Watford and Villa. Whose next? 

All the bottom 6 will vote against it which still isn’t enough. It will need one of the other 14 to vote against it as well which isn’t likely 

[Capt. Pants 4,227]

Southampton could vote against it as a cast iron safeguard against relegation. They are 7 pts clear but nonetheless cancelling the season would definitely make them safe if it reverts to PPG.

It will need more than votes though, one or more is going to have to refuse to play.

 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

40 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

If the club agrees to play on, and then a player gets seriously ill with coronavirus, who is the player suing? 

Subject to negligence/ breach of duty of care, the natural claim is against the Club's Statutory Employers Liability insurance. 

[TIL 1010 4,738]

2 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

 

It will need more than votes though, one or more is going to have to refuse to play.

 

I posted somewhere the other day that Wilder has said that if any of his players don't want to play he will respect their decision.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

I agree that there's no fair outcome. But I think null and void is the only outcome unless the rules of the competition are changed to suit the current circumstances. 

Which I fear Nutty, they will be. 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

The premier league is a company and so in my view company law will be relevant.

Whatever happens will require a change to the rules/articles of the premier league. They can do that if they get 14 clubs voting for any change. If a change is done in accordance with the articles (ie has 14 votes) then it will be harder to challenge legally but not impossible. There are provisions under the Companies act which allow shareholders in companies to petition the court for an order in the event that a company is proposing to act in a manner which is unfairly prejudicial to one or some of its shareholders. I don’t think a vote to continue playing on neutral venues would fall into that category but it seems me that if the season was curtailed early and the premier league tried to relegate clubs on a PPG basis (especially if they are being replaced by clubs promoted on a PPG basis as well) then there must be at least an argument that such a decision has prejudiced the three shareholders who are relegated and that the outcome is unfair/inequitable. Whether it would succeed or not is open to debate but I think there is a credible argument there. of course if you succeeded then you could end up in a situation where the league can’t be terminated early and is left in limbo but then I suppose that would be the sort of scenario where a no relegation type compromise might be negotiated. 

i would stress I’m not an expert on company law, this is just my humble opinion. It may be wrong and there may be other legal doctrines that seems relevant. Hopefully the club have proper corporate/litigation lawyers advising them on all possible angles. 

Edited May 9, 2020 by Jim Smith

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,749]

The good thing is, they cant just relegate 1...its 0 or 3.

Just piggyback on someone elses court case with richer owners i.e Villa

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

9 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

The premier league is a company and so in my view company law will be relevant.

Whatever happens will require a change to the rules/articles of the premier league. They can do that if they get 14 clubs voting for any change. If a change is done in accordance with the articles (ie has 14 votes) then it will be harder to challenge legally but not impossible. There are provisions under the Companies act which allow shareholders in companies to petition the court for an order in the event that a company is proposing to act in a manner which is unfairly prejudicial to one or some of its shareholders. I don’t think a vote to continue playing on neutral venues would fall into that category but it seems me that if the season was curtailed early and the premier league tried to relegate clubs on a PPG basis (especially if they are being replaced by clubs promoted on a PPG basis as well) then there must be at least an argument that such a decision has prejudiced the three shareholders who are relegated and that the outcome is unfair/inequitable. Whether it would succeed or not is open to debate but I think there is a credible argument there. of course if you succeeded then you could end up in a situation where the league can’t be terminated early and is left in limbo but then I suppose that would be the sort of scenario where a no relegation type compromise might be negotiated. 

i would stress I’m not an expert on company law, this is just my humble opinion. It may be wrong and there may be other legal doctrines that seems relevant. Hopefully the club have proper corporate/litigation lawyers advising them on all possible angles but I would assume that is why you won’t publically hear any other party line than “we want to finish the season” from any of the clubs at the bottom because anything else might weaken their positions of litigation does end up happening. In the alternative the threat of litigation may be enough to bring about a negotiated compromise but only if it’s a credible threat! 

The Member Clubs of the Premier League

The Premier League is a private company wholly owned by its 20 Member Clubs who make up the League at any one time.

Each individual club is independent, working within the rules of football, as defined by the Premier League, The FA, UEFA and FIFA, as well as being subject to English and European law.

Each of the 20 clubs are a Shareholder in the Premier League. Consultation is at the heart of the Premier League and Shareholder meetings are the ultimate decision-making forum for Premier League policy and are held at regular intervals during the course of the season.

The Premier League AGM takes place at the close of each season, at which time the relegated clubs transfer their shares to the clubs promoted into the Premier League from the Football League Championship.

Clubs have the opportunity to propose new rules or amendments at the Shareholder meeting. Each Member Club is entitled to one vote and all rule changes and major commercial contracts require the support of at least a two-thirds vote, or 14 clubs, to be agreed.

The Premier League Rule Book, contained within the Handbook (Download: Premier League Handbook; PDF 11.7MB), serves as a contract between the League, the Member Clubs and one another, defining the structure and running of the competition.

Edited May 9, 2020 by Graham Paddons Beard

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

Jim - it looks to me that 14 votes can "change the rules" - and "the Shareholders meeting" would almost certainly include the sort of EGM that is occurring? 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I would like to know why clubs like Burnley and Palace are bothered. Unless they lose money from the Media package, they have nothing to gain and everything to lose. What need do they have to risk their players and other employees and families?

[Jim Smith 2,317]

35 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Jim - it looks to me that 14 votes can "change the rules" - and "the Shareholders meeting" would almost certainly include the sort of EGM that is occurring? 

Yes but I still believe decisions taken/acts done in accordance with the rules can be unfairly prejudicial although it’s harder than if a company acts not in accordance with its rules. These laws are there to protect minority shareholders because otherwise the other shareholders could just do whatever their liked regardless of fairness. For example 14 clubs could just get together at any time and vote that a Liverpool can’t ever win the league!

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

5 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Yes but I still believe decisions taken/acts done in accordance with the rules can be unfairly prejudicial although it’s harder than if a company acts not in accordance with its rules. These laws are there to protect minority shareholders because otherwise the other shareholders could just do whatever their liked regardless of fairness. For example 14 clubs could just get together at any time and vote that a Liverpool can’t ever win the league!

Why bother? Liverpool have already failed 27 times in a row...

[Aggy 755]

3 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Yes but I still believe decisions taken/acts done in accordance with the rules can be unfairly prejudicial although it’s harder than if a company acts not in accordance with its rules. These laws are there to protect minority shareholders because otherwise the other shareholders could just do whatever their liked regardless of fairness. For example 14 clubs could just get together at any time and vote that a Liverpool can’t ever win the league!

There is some fluffy wording about complying with the “spirit” of the rules . Realistically though, as I see it, the only thing stopping 14 clubs from getting together to stop Liverpool winning the league is that nobody would take the league seriously and it would almost certainly get chucked out of European competition - and lose most of its tv broadcasting revenue because why would anyone watch it.

The circumstances here are extremely different. However they vote likely won’t make too many people outraged (other than those who lose out as a result), European footballing bodies won’t take any action, and broadcasters won’t care. 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

2 minutes ago, Aggy said:

There is some fluffy wording about complying with the “spirit” of the rules . Realistically though, as I see it, the only thing stopping 14 clubs from getting together to stop Liverpool winning the league is that nobody would take the league seriously and it would almost certainly get chucked out of European competition - and lose most of its tv broadcasting revenue because why would anyone watch it.

The circumstances here are extremely different. However they vote likely won’t make too many people outraged (other than those who lose out as a result), European footballing bodies won’t take any action, and broadcasters won’t care. 

It’s about what’s equitable as I understand it and that is dependant on the facts and circumstances of the case. I guess the court would have to decide if the decision, and the consequences for the shareholders flowing from it were “unfair” having regards to all the circumstances and I assume other options open to the league. 

im just saying that this appears to me to be one possible avenue for clubs looking to challenge decisions. As I’ve said above, I may be wrong and it’s a non starter but it appears to me to be a possibility. Otherwise, as has been pointed out the opportunities to challenge if any rule change gets 14 votes appears to be quite limited. 
 

 

[Well b back 3,203]

Don’t forget it’s 14 votes for needed not 7 against ie 6 against and at least 1 abstaining means it’s not carried. I think that’s far more likely.

[Hairy Canary 700]

25 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

It’s about what’s equitable as I understand it and that is dependant on the facts and circumstances of the case. I guess the court would have to decide if the decision, and the consequences for the shareholders flowing from it were “unfair” having regards to all the circumstances and I assume other options open to the league. 

im just saying that this appears to me to be one possible avenue for clubs looking to challenge decisions. As I’ve said above, I may be wrong and it’s a non starter but it appears to me to be a possibility. Otherwise, as has been pointed out the opportunities to challenge if any rule change gets 14 votes appears to be quite limited. 
 

 

I have a little work related knowledge (a dangerous thing) and certainly not enough to be confident of any outcome in such a minefield but for what it’s worth I would agree with that Jim.

My take on it would be that it would be unlikely for any legal action to be successful if the 14 votes were achieved in support of Project Restart using neutral grounds. More likely to be successfully claimed as unfairly prejudicial would be if Project Restart was voted down and then then three teams were relegated based on PPG (presumably by the remaining 17 clubs clearly voting in their own interests)
 

imo 🙃