Legal Action

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

2 hours ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

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

Which would bring about another potential set of problems, whether the insurers would consider it reasonable to continue and then we need to think about clauses in the policy's which each club currently have, and I presume the provider would vary from club to club. 

And then the player's insurance, if they've taken out their own. Its an absolute minefield. 

The more I think about it the more obvious it is that football can't reasonably resume any time soon without it becoming messy.

What happens when a steward gets too close to a fan, and that fan then dies of coronavirus? What would happen to a game if a fan ran onto the pitch and spat in the face of an opposition player? Guarenteed abandoned match?

Edited May 9, 2020 by TeemuVanBasten

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,429]

8 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Which would bring about another potential set of problems, whether the insurers would consider it reasonable to continue and then we need to think about clauses in the policy's which each club currently have, and I presume the provider would vary from club to club. 

It’s the same insurers across the whole EPL on a block policy .  It’s already been discussed. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

6 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

It’s the same insurers across the whole EPL on a block policy .  It’s already been discussed. 

What about the additional insurance that a player pays for? 

Also, them sharing an insurer does not mean that insurers will pay out. One tiny bit of evidence that any single club employee has failed to social distance at any time and they will try to get out of paying. That's Villa and Man City stuffed then isn't it, with the former having a chav party and the latter an orgy with prossies. 

Edited May 9, 2020 by TeemuVanBasten

[dylanisabaddog 4,904]

2 hours 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. 

I think you have it spot on except that I think we would have a very strong case. I see our main argument as loss of home advantage. We could produce any number of statistics to prove that other members have put us at a financial disadvantage in order to benefit themselves financially. There is also a good argument that Germany is not using neutral venues.

I doubt we will have to finance any legal action on our own. There are 5 other clubs who will quite happily split the bill. 

Edited May 9, 2020 by dylanisabaddog

[TIL 1010 4,737]

2 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

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.

OGS saying the same thing with regard to Man Utd players.

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

31 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

OGS saying the same thing with regard to Man Utd 

Can you imagine any manager coming out and saying that they'd sanction any player that was unwilling to play? Maybe Brian Clough if he felt it reflected on him in any way. Managers today are too media savvy.

Wilder and OGS might as well have said they are against the return of Slavery or Bearbaiting.

I do wonder what the private thoughts of managers are..... are they really keeen to get going again or would they happily sit this virus out like the rest of the country and take no unnecessary risks.  Because i feel that until an awful lot of more Important parts of life are up and running again then footy of any description IS an unnecessary risk.

Excercise time, well goodformeheadtime as an hour and a half pushing the mower got me sweating enough earlier, now we can travel 5 km i'm off to a place called Sandy cove to try for a few Mackerel, if they are there, theyll be first of the season, previous years the earliest waz about 15 yrs ago, watched FA cup final then got first bluensilver beauties of the year.🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟

 

 

Edited May 9, 2020 by wcorkcanary

[Well b back 3,199]

6 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

Can you imagine any manager coming out and saying that they'd sanction any player that was unwilling to play? Maybe Brian Clough if he felt it reflected on him in any way. Managers today are too media savvy.

Wilder and OGS might as well have said they are against the return of Slavery or Bearbaiting.

I do wonder what the private thoughts of managers are..... are they really keeen to get going again or would they happily sit this virus out like the rest of the country and take no unnecessary risks.  Because i feel that until an awful lot of more Important parts of life are up and running again then footy of any description IS an unnecessary risk.

 

 

Juergen Klopp is. Quite noticeable how he is the only real vocal for play.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

44 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I think you have it spot on except that I think we would have a very strong case. I see our main argument as loss of home advantage. We could produce any number of statistics to prove that other members have put us at a financial disadvantage in order to benefit themselves financially. There is also a good argument that Germany is not using neutral venues.

I doubt we will have to finance any legal action on our own. There are 5 other clubs who will quite happily split the bill. 

I think with the neutral venues decision it would be hard to challenge because by and large all shareholders are being treated the same and the consequences for them are more or less the same.

shortening the season and relegating teams is a different ballgame in my view. 

[Monty13 2,231]

5 hours 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. 

If the rules of the competition are changed midway through it by the majority to suit their current position I’m not sure that can be fair Nutty. 

 

 

[HairyTeeth 16]

1 minute ago, Monty13 said:

If the rules of the competition are changed midway through it by the majority to suit their current position I’m not sure that can be fair Nutty. 

 

 

I agree. You cant just change rules like that without it becoming null and void. We were given a contract when winning the Championship to fulfill by the Premier League stating we must play 19 home games and 19 away games with the use of VAR at all Premier league grounds. All teams sign it when they are promoted. Neutral grounds is not in the contract so straight away its null and void if season not completed or played at neutral grounds without VAR.

[dylanisabaddog 4,904]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

I think with the neutral venues decision it would be hard to challenge because by and large all shareholders are being treated the same and the consequences for them are more or less the same.

shortening the season and relegating teams is a different ballgame in my view. 

Hmmm. I suppose only a court will have to decide. My argument would be that teams at the bottom get most of their points at home against the other teams. We have 5 home games against teams in the bottom half. We lose home advantage on a neutral ground. But your view is probably just as valid as mine. Who knows what will happen, but I think we should at least try. 

[nutty nigel 7,527]

32 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

If the rules of the competition are changed midway through it by the majority to suit their current position I’m not sure that can be fair Nutty. 

 

 

That's what I meant Monty.

Not being able to finish the season is not fair on some clubs but happened through something out of people's control. Changing the rules is making a choice that is unfair.

[Pugin 601]

Lest we forget - there are few things less reliable than unremunerated legal advice 🙂

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

5 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

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?

I have been thinking exactly the same - there is nothing at stake for a clutch of clubs in the middle of the league, even the TV money I thought had been sorted out by providing more games over the next couple of years as compensation for the loss of games this season.

So why take part in a charade to 'complete' the season which won't bring in any revenue, exposes the players and staff to unnecessary risks and the clubs, EPL and football generally to some incredibly bad publicity (which they will completely deserve). In fact I can't believe that the TV companies are seriously contemplating televising games in empty, neutral stadiums - do that and they will seriously damage their product for years to come.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

Anyone know one of those 'No win no fee' lawyers?