Yes, and the lawsuit would be about the legality of that.
City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with 130 FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th Sep 2024 | Concluded 9th Dec 2024 - Awaiting outcome
- Thread starter VanGaalEra
- Start date
Yes, and the lawsuit would be about the legality of that.
You're the only one I've seen who seems to think that could be the case.
Every piece of information out there is saying the final option is an arbitration tribunal (for which there are quite narrow grounds) after appeal and that it cannot be taken to CAS.
What are you basing this on?
I am basing it on the rather obvious fact that City does not want to lose the case, or at least not receive a heavy punishment. If they are punished, they'll probably do what they can to get out of it, and when the agreed to avenues are exhausted, the next step would be to challenge the legality of the agreement. You do that by suing.
Having a contract say "oh by the way you can't sue" doesn't mean that you can't.
So a league isn't competitive unless newly promoted teams can win the league?
When has that happened in any league, anywhere in the last 50-60 years?
So you think they can go to CAS anyway, by suing, despite every article saying that they can't bring the matter to CAS?
No. I think they can challenge the legality of the clause that says they can't appeal to CAS, in a normal court, and if that clause is thrown out, then they can take it to CAS.
The "every article" thing you keep referring to is just people pointing out what the PL rules say, but that's irrelevant if it's not legally binding.
Fair enough but I thought somebody, somewhere, on the multitude of articles and podcasts, I've read or listened to on the subject, would have mentioned that if it was a possibility. It seems a bit remiss of everyone involved.
So why hasnt anyone else challenged the legality of the clause?
Ok, I don't know what stuff you read and listen to, so I can't speak to that.
I don't even understand what you're doubting. It's obviously a possibility, that's not even debatable. You can sue for anything, and contract disputes is probably one of the most common things to sue over. It doesn't mean they'll be successful with it.
Why would they?
There are other teams like Everton and Forest who've been punished via the same process, wouldnt they be challengeing the legallity if the claus that stopped them appealing their case's to CAS?
They were straight forward breeches with relatively minor penalties. Spending loads of money and more or less declaring war on the system over appealing a minor thing they'd lose anyway seems pretty dumb.
Yes yes it's all so obvious that nobody but you has mentioned it to date.
I'm actually super curious now, what is it that you think would make this impossible?
Is it very general, where you think that if two parties agree on something in writing, that is automatically legally binding no matter what? Or is it narrower, but still pretty general, as in do you think that if two parties agree not to sue then they automatically can't sue? Or, something else?
As an example, I've seen a surprisingly high amount of tenancy agreements where the contract says that in case of economic disputes between landlord and tenant, this will be handled by some sort of third party mediation, and not by the court. Do you think a contract like that would stop a tenant from suing the landlord?
I’d say they couldn’t because they’d signed up to it (and it’s very hard to argue that it was invalid when you have the best lawyers money can buy advising you… they’d have to admit they gave City invalid legal advice when agreeing the PL rules). But, it’s City… the arrogant, cheating xxxxxxs so who knows. That said, some very clever, sports lawyers have said it can’t happen. I’ll go with them for now.
I think their case would have to be being denied an appeal AT ALL and denying an appeal specifically TO CAS is entirely different. If the PL didn’t allow appeals at all, City might (might) have some case but the PL isn’t denying them an appeal.
Also, getting an appeal from CAS shouldn’t help. CAS found them guilty last time but the punishment had to be light because of City’s prevarication and CAS being stupid and only asking for a handful of documents (and other reasons). The PL clearly learned from that and ensured they had all the information so they could reign down charges (not leave one or two to be wormed out of) and they don’t have the time barred issue that the first charges/CAS had. The PL also has a senior City executive admitting the validity of the documents from the first time (City didn’t argue that, they argued whether they should be allowed).
It’s done, it’s just how many charges stick (or are let go in some agreement) and the level of punishment.
They don't have to argue anything about invalid or bad legal advice. I have knowingly signed bad contracts before, because I knew if it came down to it it wouldn't hold up. That's a pretty standard thing.
But, I'm not saying that they're going to be successful in throwing that rule out. I have no idea. I'm only saying that they'll have the opportunity to try, and unless they think it's completely hopeless they'll probably take it if they're facing serious punishment. It's a pretty mild claim.
If anything Id rather they take their time and make sure everything sticks so they can give them the proper punishment rather than rush through this.
So a league isn't competitive unless newly promoted teams can win the league?
When has that happened in any league, anywhere in the last 50-60 years?
That’s your take from all that is it?
Well in that case long may the select few predominantly continue too be the only winners then hay, with all the other historical clubs having practically no realistic chance of ever winning, what a League, what a system
and at this point the Premier League should have the cahones to kick them out once and for all
Can you name any league where there arent recurring dominant teams?
You still don't understand what he is saying.
City will not try to go to court to argue their case/punishment, at least not at this point in time.
City will sue to challenge the framework under which the investigation took place. The decision that they have to go arbitration and not being allowed to carry on in front of the CAS will be their issue, not what the FA have decided. One doesn't have anything to do with the other. These are separate factors.
If the punishment is severe enough, they will take any action that is legally possible. Challenging the rules isn't a bad idea.
I understand and I never said anything was impossible, as was suggested. I was surprised that the possibility hadn't been mentioned to date and the repeated use of the word obvious irked me somewhat.
I wasn't being sarcastic when I said it was remiss of those involved. If that route would have a realistic possibility of success for them then it really should have been discussed. Presumably the journalists spoke to legal experts on the likely aftermath of them being found guilty.
But it tells us very little about their chances of success in taking that route other than obviously they'll try anything to get out of punishment if it's anything other than a slap on wrist.
Last edited:
Well it's something you actually wrote in your post though is it not?
Are you now saying that isn't your opinion?
I’m struggling too see where I’ve changed my opinion with regards to the BIB you’ve highlighted?
My stance is still the same, for a truly competitive league, there should surely be a chance for all teams to have a crack of the whip for winning, I don’t get how this is a hard message too get across?
clearly it’s not an issue as the premier league is an absolute powerhouse financially, most would say why would you want too change that? My answer would be because we’ve made it all about finances and elitism, might have always been like that too an extent but its gone so far away from being a true competition now that I just ain’t bothered by it no more
I’d rather see true competition for all, but it’s all spiralled way out of control now that I’ll never happen
Instead we’ll get a European super league instead to compound the elitism even further if that’s even possible
Kind already got the super league with the new champions league lay out I guess
I’m essentially just bored of it all
Last edited:
Embarrassing?
Look at any league in any country. Most if not all will constantly have the same 4-5 teams at the top end of their tables. Look at Scotland, look at Germany, look at France, look at Spain, etc. the PL is not unique
Especially since most of these leagues have seen much more one team domination recently than the PL. It's a total myth that the PL isn't competitive at the top.
Exactly, his head is in his cornflakes bowlSo a league isn't competitive unless newly promoted teams can win the league?
When has that happened in any league, anywhere in the last 50-60 years?
I’ll tell you what would make the league more competitive: allowing nation states to buy football clubs and spend unlimited amounts of money on transfer fees and wages.
United Nations Premier League let's go
Exactly
Because of money, it’s not just an EPL problem, it’s a European problem amongst the European elite leagues
Same old same old teams winning titles and trophies generally year in year out, how fantastically competitive
again not too Americanise the topic, but they do know how too make things genuinely competitive across their sports, their “soccer” might be lower in quality, but atleast it’s not a rinse and repeat job with who wins their competitions which has to be admired.
The financial powerhouse our EPL has become for me isn’t admirable when you look see that actually, only the elites wins
You think a closed shop league is more competitive than the English football pyramid?
It is, from a certain point of view. Ironically US sports is pretty socialist when it comes to levelling the field.
It would never work in Europe for a plethora of reasons though, so it's a moot point. It'd be the death of lower leagues and any kind of hierarchy
Does a wider variety of champions = more competitive?
Yes. Obviously
I'd say more teams having a shot at the title makes it more competitive. You have 32 teams with a somewhat realistic chance (over a handful of years at least) with every other team at 0% chance. In football, you have a handful of teams with a realistic chance with every other team at more than 0% though
Well, I disagree that it’s obvious. I think teams fighting for survival in the league, and the financial implications of that, add a different element of competition, so it’s not black and white, to me.
Sorry, I took it as competitive about the league title. You're totally right that relegation adds another layer to competitiveness
Yeah, sorry. I meant in the more general sense.
On average only 1 of the 3 promoted teams face relegation the following season. I’d say that reflects a competitive footballing ladder?
You’re trying to debate something that could never work across Europe