Jump to content
dylanisabaddog

Solicitor on Radio 5 this morning

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

You mean like Lakeyo seeing the 'True Message' in DFs post match  interviews. ( see Todders thread)

Bless Lakey - if Daniel let one rip, he'd probably interpret that as a commentary on the benefits of the zonal marking approach. 

OTBC

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s not an echo chamber, a lot of people have different opinions on here. I don’t see many different Leeds forums, but every opinion I have seen on Twitter, is that you should be promoted and we are down. Seems you create more of an echo chamber! 
 

Also, if we go down, we go down, but we should be allowed to play our remaining games before we do! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sgncfc said:

In this case, however, if 14 clubs vote for it there is absolutely no possibility of any legal action succeeding - you probably won't get a solicitor to admit that, but it's true. Everyone signs up to the PL's terms when they join.

I'm not entirely sure that's right - I could well be wrong but I would be very surprised if the terms (and we are talking a variety of contractual terms here) can be changed mid-season even by a majority vote.

One reason for saying that is if you remember at the height of the VAR shambles earlier in the season when there was a huge concensus among clubs, managers, players, pundits and spectators (and FIFA itself) that the Premier League had implemented it wrongly and wanted it fixing, we were told that this was what the clubs had signed up to at the start of the season and whilst it would be reviewed at the end of the season it was impossible to make changes mid-season.

So if they can't even implement some relatively small changes to get VAR working properly mid-season, it seems wildly unlikely that they get away with changing the rules completely about the title, Euro places and relegation without getting into legal battles with a number of clubs - almost all of whom have substantially bigger funding than we have to mount those challenges but I suspect it will be a group effort if we get to that stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lowfields1919 said:

Who are you trying to fool, apart from yourself?

You are 6 points adrift with an inferior goal difference of 10 on top of that.

You were going down before all this happened and you know it, and you will still be going down after this is all over - be thankful its going to be played out BCD, because otherwise you were down on PPG.

No amount of squealing, or excuse making is going to change that, just hold your hands up, be honest and admit you have been garbage all season and therefore deserve all that is coming to you.

Using a global pandemic as an excuse to avoid relegation (and keep your share of the TV cash for another season even though you don't deserve that cash) is shameful IMHO, just show a bit of integrity, because looking from the outside it is absolutely pathetic, and the overwhelming vast majority can see right through it.

Lol! They are really insecure Leeds fans.... Probably why they have to shout Yorkshire over and over... Everyone else knows their county is great, no need for self assurance. 

Wouldn't it be hilarious if they messed up again 😂

Edited by Kenny Foggo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As with the paupers down the road, Leeds massively overspent under Risdale, when trying to regain their rightful place in the sun - with disastrous consequences for both,

The ferret fanciers have been out of the top flight for years, and like the paupers spent time in the third tier

For the paupers there is the bleak prospect of them staring next season as close to Kings Lynn Fc as they are to us, in league standing.

Perhaps we shall see a new forum appears

We Are Not Champions Although Rightly So

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another good point I hadn;t really considered is that by including the playoffs in their proposal, the EFL are basically creating a situation where they know/or can be pretty confident that more teams are likely to vote for curtailment than playing on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lowfields1919 said:

Leeds - Bielsa.

Villa - Dean Smith.

Ill leave that there.

Is that the Bielsa who spied on DerbyCounty’s training regime and then oversaw a massive end of season collapse.

BTW, are there any plans to upgrade that mish mash of a ground of yours? It looks OK on tv but is an utter eyesore when viewed from the car park for the park and ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting from the PFA, with Deeney and Kante refusing to train. The government have already said they don’t know why yet, so I wonder what the PFA will advise BAME players.

PFA to question government over BAME risks

Concerns over an increased coronavirus mortality risk to players from black and other ethnic minority backgrounds will be raised to government officials at a meeting on Friday.

The Press Association reports that Bobby Barnes, the deputy chief executive of the Professional Footballers' Association (PFA), will attend a gathering which will also feature representatives from the Premier League to discuss the issue.

Earlier this week, the PFA called on the Premier League to conduct further research into the issue as it continues its 'Project Restart' plans to resume the 2019-20 season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If PPG to be used to decide PL is it not to be decided by a vote by the clubs, not just a unilateral decision by PL? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colin Suggett instrumental in both goals there.

One of my all time City favourites.👍

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

The more you analyse it the more unfair it is. You gift certain teams promotion on the basis its "unfair" to deny them the chance to go up after having played x games (or in the case of the 6th placed teams you gift them a chance to continue playing for promotion) but at the same time you deny teams at the other end of the table the chance to save themsleves despite the fact they had 10 games to do so. Only an imbecile or someone with a massively pointed agenda cannot see the inherent unfairness in that.

Sleep tight cockwomble @Lowfields1919, I hear the villa forums are looking for some comedy factor! You'll be missed 🙄 keep safe!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lowfields - the sort of person who has so little to do in life , he/she spends time on other clubs message boards. 
 

Of course dear old Lowbrow makes the argument for us. That football should be stopped BECAUSE of the global pandemic and loss of life . Presumably Lowlife thinks football is bigger than thousands of people dying? Who gives a monkies about promotion or relegation  . Lowhanging obviously does

Now that really is pathetic. 

I have a feeling she/he isn’t one of the people we clap on Thursdays . 
 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think I would find anything more pleasurable than to see both the Premier League and Championship resume, and find that in this ‘new season’ a few bits and pieces went our way and we cruised to safety playing in the manner we all know we can, with no injuries, nothing. Whilst Leeds miss out on the autos and screw up in the playoffs.

Now that would just be the most magical thing ever 🙏🏼

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lowfields1919 said:

Who are you trying to fool, apart from yourself?

You are 6 points adrift with an inferior goal difference of 10 on top of that.

You were going down before all this happened and you know it, and you will still be going down after this is all over - be thankful its going to be played out BCD, because otherwise you were down on PPG.

No amount of squealing, or excuse making is going to change that, just hold your hands up, be honest and admit you have been garbage all season and therefore deserve all that is coming to you.

Using a global pandemic as an excuse to avoid relegation (and keep your share of the TV cash for another season even though you don't deserve that cash) is shameful IMHO, just show a bit of integrity, because looking from the outside it is absolutely pathetic, and the overwhelming vast majority can see right through 

The bottom 3 earned the right to be in the prem. Teams in the championship have to earn the right to replace the bottom 3, and unless they finish the season fully  they havent, especially with leeds habit of collapsing under pressure.

Play the prem and championship to a finish and we have no excuses. Otherwise if either was curtailed with completion, then the bottom 3 should stay up as they actually earned/won the right to be in the prem.

But, it's all irrelevant as I cant see the 2 leagues not finishing now, regardless of safety, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ricardo said:

Colin Suggett instrumental in both goals there.

One of my all time City favourites.👍

Yes, he was a very, very good player. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

It may be the same football lawyer who was interviewed about this more than two months ago, and went on to say that not only would a club have a case but that he put the chances of it succeeding at 50:50.

I know I'm not a solicitor but I wouldn't fancy arguing on behalf of the Premier League. 

On the other hand, if we finish our games and the Championship doesn't I don't think we could argue about relegation. But hopefully I'm wrong 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I've had this discussion on another thread. Presumably for financial reasons, the EPL is a Limited Company. There are 21 shares. 20 are owned by the clubs and one by the FA. 

As it is a Limited Company, the Companies Act 2006 gives minority shareholders certain rights. There is no way of knowing what a court would decide but Stuart Webber has clearly taken legal advice. 

I doubt any of this will matter as it's going to take an absolute disaster to stop the season being played out. The relevant legislation is - 

Unfair Prejudice

Where the affairs of a company are being conducted in a manner that is unfairly prejudicial to a shareholder's interests, or an actual or proposed act or omission of the company would be prejudicial, any shareholder can apply to court for relief.

Both prejudice and unfairness must be evidenced.  A member may, for example, be able to demonstrate this where an act or omission has resulted in a disproportionate significant decrease in the economic value of their shareholding, or a company has procured the allotment of shares with the purpose of diluting a minority shareholder's interest.

If successful, the court has a wide range of powers which include:

  • regulating the conduct of the company's affairs in the future;
  • requiring the company to refrain from an act, or to carry out an act that it has omitted to do (including ordering the company to amend its constitutional documents)
  • prohibiting changes to the company's articles of association; or
  • requiring shareholders (or the company) to purchase the shares of other shareholders.

So it looks like Norwich would have a case if relegated on points per game or if the Premier League accepted a club from the Championship if they had not been promoted on a full seasons results. 

We have been invaded once again by a Leeds supporter who accuses us of being underhand. Bearing in mind that they were caught blatantly cheating last season that beggars belief. 

I don't agree that we would have a case on unfair prejudice if 14 clubs vote for something, and hanging on to that possibility is not the way to go. Unless we can convince enough clubs to vote against a proposal we are bound by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Lowfields1919 said:

What have I said that is speculation?

I haven't come here for a wind up, ive come here to put the record straight and give an alternative view to the echo chamber.

Read the first few posts on this thread before I entered, the majority are inaccurate and quite frankly ridiculous.

It is an echo chamber after all, try coming out of it and seeing it from the other side for once.

Anyway keep em coming, I'm confident I can keep batting em away.

You keep using “echo chamber” as reference to this forum! For someone who has been here 23 hours and is literally trying to point out we deserve to be relegated and Leeds deserve to go up. What exactly are you bringing to the table? You have no knowledge of this forum and you are spouting the same old tired none sense all leeds fans are. Can you not just return to your “echo chamber”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sgncfc said:

I don't agree that we would have a case on unfair prejudice if 14 clubs vote for something, and hanging on to that possibility is not the way to go. Unless we can convince enough clubs to vote against a proposal we are bound by it.

I think there would still be a case to be made. Whether it would succeed or not is a different question. Clubs will vote out of self interest (as the EFL well knows and it appears has calculated). If you couldn’t ever challenge something because 14 clubs have voted for it they could just make any decision they pleased and there would be no recourse at all. So whilst I think it makes it harder to challenge, I don’t think it rules it out entirely. I would hope that we and the others down there might already have got a legal opinion on this. 

that said our better hope (although I think the games will be played now anyway) is that clubs develop a sense of fairness (that and the fact I don’t think 14 will agree on any particular form of PPG). Probably a faint hope though. 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I think there would still be a case to be made. Whether it would succeed or not is a different question. Clubs will vote out of self interest (as the EFL well knows and it appears has calculated). If you couldn’t ever challenge something because 14 clubs have voted for it they could just make any decision they pleased and there would be no recourse at all. So whilst I think it makes it harder to challenge, I don’t think it rules it out entirely. I would hope that we and the others down there might already have got a legal opinion on this. 

that said our better hope (although I think the games will be played now anyway) is that clubs develop a sense of fairness (that and the fact I don’t think 14 will agree on any particular form of PPG). Probably a faint hope though. 


 

 

I think the whole problem the EPL has is that it is a limited company and bound by the law as set out by the Companies Act. What the solicitors are saying is that it makes no difference what the vote is, if the majority of shareholders (clubs) take unfair action that is prejudicial against the minority then the minority has a case. I have now heard 2 solicitors on the BBC say that we have a 50/50 chance of a successful challenge if we are relegated on a points per game basis. 

However fair or otherwise we and others see it, that is what the law says. The law is there to protect minority shareholders in company disputes. I doubt that the EPL had thought this might happen when they set up as a Limited Company. They probably did that for financial protection without considering that it might come back to bite them. 

The fact that they seem determined to finish the season regardless suggests that they know what will happen if they don't. Stuart Webber seemed to me to be saying as much when interviewed on Sky. I suspect that he has had legal advice and so have other clubs at the bottom and he was nominated to send a message to the EPL. 

Bear in mind that the EPL has already backed down on neutral venues with barely a whimper. 

But I doubt it really matters. Unless players start dropping like flies the season will be finished. I've had another look at the fixtures. I think we'll finish 18th and be left regretting all those injuries in the first half of the season 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely Dylan. However many straws we clutch at, unless something cataclysmic happens the season will be completed on the pitch and all talk of PPG will be completely irrelevant. Project Restart will be steamrollered through come what may - that much has become very clear in the last few weeks. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the impact the length of time it takes all the games to be completed impact on the start of next season and consequently things like players rest/off season be taken into account for that? Obviously FA Cup games have to be diarised also. The Euros taking place next Summer, will also have to be taken into consideration for timescales for the 2020/21 Prem season.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Mike Williams said:

A legal case and a legal case that is successful is very different 

Quite. Although of course sometimes the threat of a vaguely credible legal case (with the cost, delay and possibility of losing) can be sufficient to focus minds on finding a way through. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I think the whole problem the EPL has is that it is a limited company and bound by the law as set out by the Companies Act. What the solicitors are saying is that it makes no difference what the vote is, if the majority of shareholders (clubs) take unfair action that is prejudicial against the minority then the minority has a case. I have now heard 2 solicitors on the BBC say that we have a 50/50 chance of a successful challenge if we are relegated on a points per game basis. 

However fair or otherwise we and others see it, that is what the law says. The law is there to protect minority shareholders in company disputes. I doubt that the EPL had thought this might happen when they set up as a Limited Company. They probably did that for financial protection without considering that it might come back to bite them. 

The fact that they seem determined to finish the season regardless suggests that they know what will happen if they don't. Stuart Webber seemed to me to be saying as much when interviewed on Sky. I suspect that he has had legal advice and so have other clubs at the bottom and he was nominated to send a message to the EPL. 

Bear in mind that the EPL has already backed down on neutral venues with barely a whimper. 

But I doubt it really matters. Unless players start dropping like flies the season will be finished. I've had another look at the fixtures. I think we'll finish 18th and be left regretting all those injuries in the first half of the season 

It may still matter though because the implication was that clubs would have to agree what happens in the event of a curtailment before it all resumes. I wonder if they may try and swerve that if it’s all looking positive for the restart. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

It may still matter though because the implication was that clubs would have to agree what happens in the event of a curtailment before it all resumes. I wonder if they may try and swerve that if it’s all looking positive for the restart. 

I expect that Webber will just say that NCFC reserves its right to take legal action. Four or five other clubs would say the same and the Premier League would kneel down and pray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I expect that Webber will just say that NCFC reserves its right to take legal action. Four or five other clubs would say the same and the Premier League would kneel down and pray

Not sure who you mean by "Premier League". The entity consists of the 20 members and the FA and it is run by a council or a board like any other legal entity company. It is run solely for the benefit of its shareholders, of which we are one. I doubt they'll be doing any praying - they are in a very strong position. If I were advising the board I would encourage them to try to reach a consensus - preferably a unanimous one, but if that proves impossible, then a majority one in accordance with the articles i.e. 14 clubs and the agreement of the FA, and they would be safe as houses. Technically, if they can't get 14 clubs to agree on a course of action they can't do anything anyway.

Anyone can take legal action over pretty much anything, and there will be plenty of solicitors prepared to take your money whatever the circumstances. But the fact remains that under company law a minority shareholder cannot take action successfully in these circumstances unless there is something about the vote in question which was either misleading, unfairly prejudicial or based on fraudulent information or behaviour. That is the only protection minority shareholders have, unless their standard rights are amended by a shareholders agreement. Every shareholder will normally vote in accordance with their interests because that's what shareholders do - that's not illegal. If the vote is in accordance with the articles (namely 14 in favour) it will stand. I don't think any of the information we are seeing in the public domain has anything about it which could be construed as being misleading, unfairly prejudicial or fraudulent.

Whether Norwich or any other club reserve the right to take legal action is of no consequence. The chance of success is miniscule and with that failure would probably come a costs order, or even a counter suit, so the financial risk would be immense.

Put another way, if 14 clubs vote for something and a shareholder refuses to accept the vote that shareholder could then be forced to pass their shareholding back to the entity or may themselves face legal action. i.e. if we don't play ball we would lose all our tv money including parachute payments and may face a damages claim.

Granted, we don't have access to any shareholders agreement but it is likely that any other prejudicial alliance of clubs may also be disallowed so the "four or five other clubs" would probably not be allowed to operate as one and would all have to take action individually. In this case, NCFC's position would probably be the weakest of all and the least likely to succeed. The law doesn't work on what is "fair", it works on what is agreed and lawful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...