High Court Appeal

[Linz]

not to mention the 5000+ who will not be going to the games + the sponsorship

See, they are more "ifs and maybes"... not definites, so the courts would be reluctant to take those into account when calculating our loss. They're still extremely valid points, but not ones the courts would like to second guess. The examples I used were ones where we know we lost out on a set amount of money to which we can point at and say... due to the actions of the Premier League, we know we have lost at least £50 million due to this and this.

 

[happyhippy]

The problem being, as I'm sure you're aware with your experiences, there is no black/white right/wrong in law. In criminal law, "beyond reasonable doubt" is the benchmark for a guilty verdict but in civil law, the weight of evidence does not have to be that strong... one side just has to prove there is more evidence that their side is correct than the other.

Not when it gets to this point. At this point it's whether a decision was made using the law incorrectly. How innocent or guilty the relevant parties are doesn't matter.

I suppose this is where the famed contract documents could come into play... (are Sir Alex and Bryan Robson friends )

Which would be slightly different , and rather amusing . The decision could be 'set aside', due to the absence of a material fact in the original, and subsequent hearing. There, in truth, would be no need for the High Court to get involved

Courts do tend to have a problem in questions of pure economic loss but they don't tend to have the definite figures of loss like we do. We're missing out on the TV money and we missed out on 17th place... easily calculated.

McCabe is only wanting to protect the monetary interests of himself, his shareholders and Sheffield United PLC/FC. The footballing side of the matter is now dealt with, we're in the Championship. But if we can push for compensation, with the sympathetic hearing at the arbitration panel, there's always a chance we could get something. If not, we know that every avenue possible has been explored.

But there's the rub. The decision was upheld, and so going to the High Court to look for compensation because of that is futile. We must have another card up our sleeve, because I cannot see any reason to appeal to the High Court, save for the fact that lawyers want work.

"Why didn't the sharks eat the lawyers from the Titanic?

Professional courtesy."

 

[bladeswench]

Unless they are disputing the wording of the rules. I mean if they feel that they are victimized by the subjectiveness of the penalties they may have some footing. Otherwise I am not sure what standing they have for damages other than "well we wont overturn it but if we had done it we would have done it differently"

Would be interested to see the actual filing.

 

[happyhippy]

Unless they are disputing the wording of the rules. I mean if they feel that they are victimized by the subjectiveness of the penalties they may have some footing. Otherwise I am not sure what standing they have for damages other than "well we wont overturn it but if we had done it we would have done it differently"

Would be interested to see the actual filing.

I don't think you can dispute the wording of the law, just its interpretation. You can get the law changed, but not then used in retrospect.

 

[bladeswench]

True. IT is all quite confusing at this point.

 

[happyhippy]

True. IT is all quite confusing at this point.

Ar, 'tis verily.

 

[Bladesman]

Blades ready for high court Tevez battle
Thursday, July 12, 2007

Sheffield United and the Premier League will clash in the High Court tomorrow as the Carlos Tevez saga rumbles on.

The Blades are seeking leave to appeal against an arbitration panel's decision to dismiss their claim for new disciplinary action to be taken against West Ham.

Legal experts believe Sheffield United's chances of overturning the panel's verdict about that decision are remote, but that they may have a better chance of success in claiming that the Premier League should not have allowed Tevez to play for West Ham for the final three matches of the season.


If they are given leave to appeal on those grounds, it would not affect West Ham's top-flight status but could lead to a new compensation claim against the Premier League by Sheffield United, who claim relegation will cost them £50million.

The Premier League remain confident the High Court will completely justify the way they have handled the whole affair.

Peter Coyle, senior partner in dispute resolution experts Coyle White Devine, said: 'My view is that the High Court will take the same view as the arbitration panel and see no reason to intervene on the decision to fine West Ham rather than dock them points.

'What could turn out to be more interesting is if they seek a judicial review of the league's decision to allow Tevez to play the last three matches of the season.

"'To me, that issue does not appear nearly so clear-cut.'

The league took that decision after West Ham said they had unilaterally terminated the third-party agreements with the Argentina striker's representative Kia Joorabchian.

Tevez went on to play a key role in the final three matches of the season which saw West Ham escape relegation by a whisker.

Meanwhile, Joorabchian has written to the Football Association claiming Tevez is no longer under contract to West Ham and that he is a free agent and therefore able to sign for Manchester United.

The FA have written to West Ham to seek clarification of their position, and will be told that Tevez is under contract with them until 2010 and that they hold his registration.

Joorabchian is also trying to use the Sheffield United court action to put pressure on the Premier League to permit the Argentina striker's move to Manchester United to proceed.

He has confirmed he is prepared to hand over all documentation relating to Tevez's contract at West Ham if instructed by the High Court.

It is understood West Ham are adamant all documents relating to the club and Tevez have already been handed over to the Premier League.

Pretty much sums up alot so far.

Fingers crossed for some money.

 

[silverfox]

Pretty much sums up alot so far.

Fingers crossed for some money.

Probably have to wait 5/6 months for it to be sorted out anyway!

 

[happyhippy]

Pretty much sums up alot so far.

Fingers crossed for some money.

IF the High Court grants us leave to appeal. I think that now we're pinning our hopes on the High Court agreeing that those documents were in existence, legally binding, and not disclosed, and then granting a 'set aside', paving the way to potential compensation.

It all depends on whether the High Court, no matter how sympathetic, grants leave to appeal. If it doesn't, it all ends here.

 

[Foxy]

It all depends on whether the High Court, no matter how sympathetic, grants leave to appeal. If it doesn't, it all ends here.

Only from this angle.

Listening to McCabe last night, there are to be other issues raised and also the possibility of persuing West Ham in other ways.

One mooted possibility was to persue West Ham on the grounds of deception, with reference to tort law.

 

[Come from away]

So, do they get an instant response on Friday or do we have to wait for another month to find out if the High Court will hear the case?

 

[Foxy]

Todays timetable..

Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand.
COURT 67
Before MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH
Friday 13 July 2007
At 10:00
IN PRIVATE
2007-1098 Fulham Football Club Ltd v Football Association Premier League Ltd
2007-1092 Sheffield Utd Football Club Ltd v Football Association Premier League Ltd

 

[sendô WHU]

Is that today?

Fucking hell that came around fast. If only the PL could do things that quickly.

Not really sure what the court case could achieve for you lot, as it's not really a point of law, it's a PL rule?

 

[Foxy]

Not really sure what the court case could achieve for you lot, as it's not really a point of law, it's a PL rule?

Surely the enforcement of contracts and their repercussions is kinda in the remit of contract law? Though we aren't a direct party to that.

Also whether or not the original commision and the arbitration commision came to a lawful decision/looking into the matters within the remit and guidelines of the law?

 

[dingledog]

Of course if we lived in the US(thank the lord we don't) we would probably be able to watch the appeal live on TV( I realise the first meeting is behind closed doors though)

 

[sendô WHU]

Surely the enforcement of contracts and their repercussions is kinda in the remit of contract law? Though we aren't a direct party to that.

Also whether or not the original commision and the arbitration commision came to a lawful decision/looking into the matters within the remit and guidelines of the law?

I think you may be right on the contracts front, though I'm not so sure as to whether the original commission/arbitration panels came to lawful decisions. I guess it all boils down to how much the courts can get involved in football, which given how the Premier League is effectively a club with it's own rules which member clubs sign up to, I dont think is that much.

 

[Foxy]

I guess it all boils down to how much the courts can get involved in football, which given how the Premier League is effectively a club with it's own rules which member clubs sign up to, I dont think is that much.

True enough, but it's only considered in that way when it suits the Premier League

No company can be above the law and to my knowledge signing up to a set of rules in order to be a shareholder in a company doesn't absolve you from being bound to the laws of the country you are operating in

I think any outcome now will result in the PL pinning any blame back on West Ham to be honest, rather than standing up and admitting they made mistakes.

 

[sendô WHU]

I think any outcome now will result in the PL pinning any blame back on West Ham to be honest, rather than standing up and admitting they made mistakes.

Oh I dont doubt that.

 

[Linz]

SSN live from court in about 5 minutes...

 

[Linz]

SSN reporting we've lost the appeal...

Gist of report:

In last few mins judge has refused to grant appeal

“I refuse leave to appeal this does not amount however to a general endorsement of this matter”

Blades are not prevented from taking further action.

Blades will consider position after speaking with advisors.

Still on first page of McCabe’s agenda.

We’ve got an uphill battle and it’s looking increasingly like compensation if anything we’ll try for.

Blades cannot be criticised for trying, showing we aren't a club that can be pushed around.

Considering whether to take private action against PL or WHU

 

[sendô WHU]

You'd think McCabe would drop it now. All this legal business must be costing the club a fortune in lawyers/court fees. Plus the options left are limited. Europe? Private case against WHU/PL?

I can't see it myself, if Sheff Utd were to get anything they'd have got it by now.

 

[Linz]

All this legal business must be costing the club a fortune in lawyers/court fees.

£700k legal fees v. £50 million we've lost.

McCabe is a businessman who obviously thinks it's worth it... at the end of the day, it's mostly his money...

 

[silverfox]

You'd think McCabe would drop it now. All this legal business must be costing the club a fortune in lawyers/court fees. Plus the options left are limited. Europe? Private case against WHU/PL?

I can't see it myself, if Sheff Utd were to get anything they'd have got it by now.

It's McCabe's money and I don't think he will let it drop.

He talked about new evidence the other night which he couldn't use today.

 

[jodman]

For all of McCabes positivity on the matter we seem to be having the door slammed in our face at every turn.

I don't blame him for fighting but if we have such a good case how come we continue to lose whenever we have a chance to put it forward?

 

[matth]

You'd think McCabe would drop it now. All this legal business must be costing the club a fortune in lawyers/court fees. Plus the options left are limited. Europe? Private case against WHU/PL?

I can't see it myself, if Sheff Utd were to get anything they'd have got it by now.

I'm sure your club would do the same in the circumstances. All we want is justice.

 

[silverfox]

Statement from OS.........

Sheffield United can confirm that it has not been granted leave to appeal aspects of the arbitration tribunal's decision of earlier this month.

This application was made on very narrow grounds and has also been denied on very narrow grounds.

Sheffield United has not precluded taking further action, whether against the Premier League or West Ham and we are currently considering our position with our professional advisers.

 

[Bladesman]

Well if this new evidence is worth putting forward then it might be worth one last punt.

Although it seems we have pissed enough up the lamp post and i really cant believe we have come away with fuck all so far. Everyone knows who is wrong in all this but yet it seems independent panels and the high courts dont agree.

 

[Foxy]

Everyone knows who is wrong in all this but yet it seems independent panels and the high courts dont agree.

From the quotes, even they agree, they just don't think they can/want to do anything about it.

 

[dingledog]

its time to move on and show them on the pitch why we should be in the premier league, everyone has had enough of it all, we know we were stitched up but its like a Kafka novel. Please lets get back to the football.

 

[happyhippy]

Well if this new evidence is worth putting forward then it might be worth one last punt.

Although it seems we have pissed enough up the lamp post and i really cant believe we have come away with fuck all so far. Everyone knows who is wrong in all this but yet it seems independent panels and the high courts dont agree.

But that's the point. The panels DID agree with us, but the first imposed a farcical penalty, when everyone went loopy; the second disagreed with the decision, but couldn't change it as the decision was made within the rules; and the High Court couldn't use the evidence which 'was about to come forward' from KJ, as it wasn't in front of them, and so the decisions were made correctly, legally, if not morally.

Lest it be forgotten, all of this was an action against the PL, not West Sham itself, or Kia for that matter. Now there could be recourse to the civil courts, but we'd be talking silly money then.