-
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Football club finances / FFP
- Thread starter moomba
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Dec 22, 2009
- 65,438
- 39,780
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
The FA have veto power over all PL rules as special shareholder.
You are suggesting that the FA let a rule pass that's in breach of the law. Desperation on your part to believe that.
Apparently Villa's Egyptian owner has a friendship with one of the turds.
- Dec 22, 2009
- 65,438
- 39,780
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
Especially when your shareholder agreement explicitly states you will abide by them. It isn't Abu Dhabi where MCFC's owners control the justice system, the banks, the associations, pretty much everything. Back in Abu Dhabi if they don't like a rule / law they just change it at their own whim. They want to do the same with the PL.
- Dec 22, 2009
- 65,438
- 39,780
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
Not like you to lose your cool. Something up?
TheGreatBarryB
Hall of Famer
You do realise that many countries and companies have voting rules that require more than 50% of the vote to pass? As for quoting Mills for justifying tyranny of the majority..as that Guardian also states..completely misrepresented what Mills said. I’m sure you were quoting from other City sites that were feverishly pounding that out.
- Dec 22, 2009
- 65,438
- 39,780
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
Wolves proposed a change of rules to remove VAR in the PL. Clubs are meeting today to vote on this.
If the vote to remove VAR doesn't get up perhaps they should just claim VAR is against the law to get rid of it instead.
If the vote to remove VAR doesn't get up perhaps they should just claim VAR is against the law to get rid of it instead.
Well it's not that complicated.
Other clubs can have input into the rules and how the competition is run.
The rules by which all clubs must adhere to have been voted on by the clubs.
If the majority favour a rule but your club doesn't then I guess you have to suck it up.
Like all the clubs who have been against rules that have impacted them have had to do.
Throw in a line about discrimination too.
moomba
TheBrownDog
- Thread starter
- #3,563
I don't have a problem with the current split. And if we are arguing that it's illegal (I doubt we are) I have no doubt that argument will fail.
But 12 clubs voting for a rule change doesn't automatically make it compliant with UK law.
I guess I'll ask you the same question. If the rules are found to be illegal according to UK law would you want them changed, or carry on as is?
As for the Mills quote, not sure what you're on about. Just posted a wiki definition of the term. Haven't seen the legal paperwork, or the context it was used.
- Dec 22, 2009
- 65,438
- 39,780
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
Definitely. Those VAR calls targeting gulf states and/or smaller clubs are clearly breaching anti-discrimination laws in the UK.
Wolves has a case that VAR is against the law. Remember, we can't have rules that break the law. Best that it is stopped until the issue of whether VAR breaks the law is resolved.
- Dec 22, 2009
- 65,438
- 39,780
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
So what you are saying is any club that doesn't agree with a rule change can just claim it is against the law. Kind of renders the whole shareholder agreement with the PL useless.
I don't believe you realise how ridiculous your premise is on this issue.
I'm coming from your owners are bad for the game and they should go spend their filthy lucre in their own nations league of they don't like a bit of democracy.
moomba
TheBrownDog
- Thread starter
- #3,570
It's not a case of disagreeing with a rule change. There have been plenty of those made that we have disagreed with.
We clearly believe that the changes made to APT rules in February are illegal according to UK law, and we flagged that up to the league back then.
The Premier league will argue that the rule changes are compliant with UK law.
The it's up to the tribunal to decide who is right and who is wrong.
The PL has its own rules.
Follow them, abide by them.
Such rules only impact the most corrupt of owners.
TheGreatBarryB
Hall of Famer
Well if they breach UK law then they need to change them. These rules are put in place with legal advice to ensure they don't breach any UK laws.
Tell me this - is it the same for a wealth rich nation to challenge whether a football rule is compliant with the laws of another nation that it has political ties with than it is for a local or overseas corporation? In regards to influence and political waves it may cause? I think you'd be naive to think so.
We will now start to see why other sports will never allow sovereign nations to have majority ownership.
SM
Bigfooty Legend
There are plenty of 'rules' or laws in sporting codes that wouldn't hold up in a court of law but are allowed because everyone who plays the sport sign up to abide by them. You can punch someone on a football field and get a red card and 3 game suspension but not face an assault charge for instance (other than in extremes).
Similar threads
