League Rules vs Law (1 Viewer)

[chiefdave]

I think what we're getting to here is the difference between what is allowed under league rules and what is allowed by law. The league is a members club and they can make pretty much whatever rule they like. When ever there's been a threat of legal action from a member club to the league the league has told the club they wouldn't be allowed to play in the league if the legal action was pursused (think of what happened at Leeds as an example).

What happens when they come up against someone like SISU who won't back down when threatened with being thrown out of the league? Can the league afford a huge legal battle? I suspect not as in the past they have justified the fit and proper test being essentially self certification on the basis that they can't afford the defend the potential legal action if they refused ownership to someone.

Is there a scenario where SISU believe they have an entitlement to the share under law which doesn't fall within the league rules? In that scenario someone else could buy ltd, the FL could issue them with the share and transfer player registrations but SISU could then take legal action against the league which could clearly impact on the new owners. Might explain the silence from the league. In that scenario the easy option for the league would be to allow SISU to by the ones who take ltd out of admin and everything is back under one organisation.

One way or another the league are going to have to do something soon. It sounds like there won't be much progress in the administration before the point at which it needs to be confirmed that we're playing next season, you would assume at that point the league will have to decide what they're going to do.

 

---

[dadgad]

That's a fair summation.
Frankly doubt that the FL have any balls at all.

 

[RogerH]

I think that while it comes down to court battles, financial arguments, company structures etc, SISU are in their comfort zone, they do this sort of thing every day of the week, and I fear will always be one step ahead.
A way has to be found to bring things out of their comfort zone into areas where they have less control and expertise. The Football League can play a big part here. Does anybody on here have a definitive answer to what powers the FL have regarding the Golden Share. Can they reclaim it (if they don't already have it) and only re-issue it to parties who meet the fit and proper test, have a credible plan to play within Coventry. Without the GS, SISU cannot operate a football club. There is an argument that they are bringing the game into disrepute.
I think that interested parties such as Haskell's team, the Sky Blue trust, the Football Supporters Trust should meet with the FL and make them fully aware of the mess that is currently CCFC and also of their responsibilities to ensure continuity of clubs operating under their umbrella.
SISU have to be isolated then they may be forced to go.

 

[torchomatic]

League Rules vs The Law.

Won't be played at the Ricoh obviously.

 

[SkyBlueBlood]

It is league rules that no member club can take action against the league or they would immediately cease to be a member. Yes that means that if we get a new buyer (please let it happen) SISU as a company could take legal action against the Football League to get the Golden Share back, but even if they won they would be rejected as a member of the Football League. So that would be a no win for SISU.

 

[mattylad]

It is league rules that no member club can take action against the league or they would immediately cease to be a member. Yes that means that if we get a new buyer (please let it happen) SISU as a company could take legal action against the Football League to get the Golden Share back, but even if they won they would be rejected as a member of the Football League. So that would be a no win for SISU.

They won't try and get the share back just hit the FL for its losses

 

[RoboCCFC90]

League Rules vs The Law.

Won't be played at the Ricoh obviously.

Even if it did one party would not pay the rent and leave ACL in the mire.

 

[duffer]

As long as the FL has worked within it's own rules, and hasn't broken criminal or contract law, I can't see that anyone can either sue them for the 'value' of the share (which the league say is nil), or force the league to allow them to take part in its competitions.

The share by definition, belongs to the FL. SISU can set a football club up anytime they like, but the neither the FL nor the FA are obliged to let them play. I don't think SISU have won this yet, despite their Administrator seemingly doing his best to fudge the issue.