PL Trial Verdict: £5.5m fine, no pts deducted, Tevez safe

The very best posts from KUMB over the years ...

Moderator: Gnome

Postby Mad Professor on Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:44 am

Trap1 wrote:Joorabchian hasn't done a lot wrong imo. My own personal thoughts are that he never submitted the bid because he saw the undercurrent that was flowing through the club. I also believe that Aldridge is guilty of assuming the takeover was done and dusted rather than anything more serious (there is a connection).

I will try and expand on this later this weekend but ultimately this is a f*ck up that was meant to be a clever bit of business that went horribly wrong. People need to look at the conduct of the previous Chairman's running of the football club between July and November to see how the Joorabchian deal collapsed and why we are 5.5 million pounds light.

Eggy has been an excellent Chairman imo but those who compare him vs Joorabchian should note that Joorabchian is actually a little more switched on then people gave him credit for.


Good observations imo. Uncle Terry seems to have rather stepped out of his league and read the runes rather badly. Joorabchian was always a lot smarter than most gave him credit for and spotted a ramshackle outfit when he saw it.
User avatar
Mad Professor
 
Posts: 1352
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:58 pm
Location: Forever Blowing Bubbles

Complete Fudge

Postby Swiss Pauli on Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:01 am

http://www.premierleague.com/public/dow ... 7final.txt

Been reading this a few times this morning and the following points occured to me:

1. 3rd Parties seem irrelevant according to rule U18 (my emboldening):

"No club shall enter into a contract which enables

any other party to that contract to acquire the ability

materially to influence its policies or the performance

of its teams in league matches or in any (other)

competitions."

This 'any' could equally mean the player (and not a third party to which no reference is explicitly made), and would call in doubt the validity of 'release fee' clauses per se, as these clearly affect the policies of the club regarding transfers.

2. Restraint of trade: mention of this (by our lawyer) puts the fear of God into sporting authorities. Most footballers' contracts can be argued to be a restraint of trade (as are transfer windows). I see this as influencing both our guilty plea and the outcome - guilty, fine not points penalty - much more than guff about supporters suffering, or the timing of the verdict. A points deduction would have surely been appealed and could lead to an unravelling of contractual rules by order of the courts.

3. Lack of utmost good faith (Rule B13) seems pretty clear if one accepts the evidence presented. The 'private agreements' were withheld, and Aldridge said there was nothing more than a 'gentleman's agreement' regarding future tranfers of Tevez and Mascherano, according to Scudamore's report on their meeting.

4. Going after Brown for the money seems senseless when WHU have now pleaded guilty. He could easily contend that the U18 was no more breached by these contracts as any other containing release clauses, and thus WHU should not have pleaded guilty, and that submission of all required documents was part of Aldridge/Duxbury's remit. Brown isn't mentioned in the detail of the judgement: only that he was Chairman, probably the biggest shareholder, and anxious to secure the transfers.

5. Writs will surely fly if we stay up. I can see this being a very 'Italian summer' whereby various clubs appeal this judgement and threaten the FAPL with legal action.
Swiss Pauli
 
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 12:44 pm
Location: Reading

Previous

Return to KUMB Hall of Fame

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests