How should the breakaway clubs be dealt with now?

[flappyjay]

City doesn't have the best players. They have the best coach and the best team. That's why they win most matches. They play as a team. Liverpool no longer do play as a team. That's why they are struggling. Manchester United can buy the same class of players like City.

City easily spent a 129m last summer. The only other team to break a 100m is Chelsea who had to sell Hazard for 130m,Morata for 50m to be able to spend like that.

 

[duffer]

I thought it was easy, have we started season 2021/2022 already?

You thought what was easy?

 

[Giggsyking]

You thought what was easy?

To know that it is from next season if the clubs enter the competition.

 

[duffer]

To know that it is from next season if the clubs enter the competition.

It says "during the season", meaning during the football season.

It didn't mention 2021/2022 specifically anywhere in my post.

 

[christinaa]

No punishment should be meted out.

 

[Giggsyking]

It says "during the season", meaning during the football season.

It didn't mention 2021/2022 specifically anywhere in my post.

Yes, during the season (if the clubs would still participate in the competition 2021-2022) without the approval of the PL, then they are breaching the contract for the PL season 2021/2022.

 

[duffer]

Yes, during the season (if the clubs would still participate in the competition 2021-2022) without the approval of the PL, then they are breaching the contract for the PL season 2021/2022.

Do you think that because they've conspired to leave next season, they've not broken any rules now?

I don't know the answer to my question by the way, just asking.

 

[gajender]

Do you think that because they've conspired to leave next season, they've not broken any rules now?

I don't know the answer to my question by the way, just asking.

I think so PL clubs signs yearly contracts because only 20 can be part of it due to yearly relegation.
All contracts between Clubs and Pl are signed before the start of the season so all the stipulation must be applicable for the same season as well , how can you adjudicate or punish Clubs for future endeavours when it's not even guaranteed they would be part of PL.

Clubs Enters into Contract with PL and UEFA on yearly basis so they can't be punished for anything outside of their agreement length. Whatever stipulations are within that agreement that would apply to ongoing season only not beyond that.

 

[Cal?]

Do you think that because they've conspired to leave next season, they've not broken any rules now?

I don't know the answer to my question by the way, just asking.

The ESL was never about leaving the EPL, they never "conspired to leave".

 

[Tom Cato]

The question is if the clubs have done anything legally to be punished at all.

There is legal precedent in the EU courts that protect the rights to take part in contest outside of the federation. It has been tried before and found in favor of the plaintiff.

I'm not defending anyone, but UEFA or the FA may not have a good case here, despite the very obvious skullduggery.

On a more personal level. When this broke my initial reaction was that I wanted the clubs to be deducted heavily, even sent down a division if need be. Hell, I even took 2 days off work because I was so engaged in this thing I couldn't do anything productive anyway. Now that the heat of the moment has subsided a bit I'm a bit more concerned about the players and staff of the respective clubs that are completely innocent parties in this. My hope is that the punishment is levied upon the human beings that engaged in this within the confinements of applicable local law and not the club, ie. the players and staff itself, who again, are innocent parties.

 

[Giggsyking]

Do you think that because they've conspired to leave next season, they've not broken any rules now?

I don't know the answer to my question by the way, just asking.

The contract is on yearly basis. The 6 clubs have not signed the next season contract.

 

[Giggsyking]

I think so PL clubs signs yearly contracts because only 20 can be part of it due to yearly relegation.
All contracts between Clubs and Pl are signed before the start of the season so all the stipulation must be applicable for the same season as well , how can you adjudicate or punish Clubs for future endeavours when it's not even guaranteed they would be part of PL.

Clubs Enters into Contract with PL and UEFA on yearly basis so they can't be punished for anything outside of their agreement length. Whatever stipulations are within that agreement that would apply to ongoing season only not beyond that.

Exactly

 

[duffer]

The ESL was never about leaving the EPL, they never "conspired to leave".

Yeah, worded that wrongly. Conspired to join the Super league and leave the Champs League I meant.

 

[duffer]

The contract is on yearly basis. The 6 clubs have not signed the next season contract.

Interesting.

So no possible punishment from the Premier League then?

 

[Giggsyking]

Interesting.

So no possible punishment from the Premier League then?

Do you think the clubs Lawyers did not read that line before announcing the ESL? They know there were no legal breach. The problem was they did not know the public reaction.

 

[Tom Cato]

This is the Premier League rule they were trying to break...

“Except with the prior written approval of the board, during the season a club shall not enter or play its senior men’s first team in any competition other than

L.9.1 – The UEFA Champions League
L.9.2 – The UEFA Europa League
L.9.3 – The FA Cup
L.9.4 – The FA Community Shield
L.9.5 – The Football League Cup or
L.9.6 – Competitions sanctioned by the County Association of which it is a member.”

If I was litigating this case I'd point to the word 'during' and head out for lunch. Arguing that a contest can not be entered before it actually starts is a easy argument to make.

The FA needs to introduce langauge that bans any player or staff from competing in any other competitions as long as they are participating members in the Premier League. That was the clubs have to leave the league to be allowed to compete. This needs to include a "non-compete" clause that covers the period between end of season and the time until the next Premier League seasons starts as to ensure that the clubs must sign the new Premier League contracts

And even then the Britsh Parlament can introduce legislation that makes it impossible for players to get work permits to compete in any other competition. Brexit gives Britain a whole host of options to curb any attempts at breaking free for the British clubs.

 

[Dr. StrangeHate]

Guardian saying UEFA are considering imposing sanctions. If we get thrown out of the CL next season, what happens if Liverpool or Chelsea don’t make it? So they don’t get punished at all. I know some have suggested “next time they qualify they get banned” has that ever been a punishment before?

Funny thing is if they actually ban the breakaways clubs, the ESL will most certainly be formed.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Funny thing is if they actually ban the breakaways clubs, the ESL will most certainly be formed.

No doubt, a 2 year exclusion for example would guarantee that it was fast tracked. I think many are underestimating just how much these clubs need CL money during Covid-times.

 

[duffer]

Do you think the clubs Lawyers did not read that line before announcing the ESL? They know there were no legal breach. The problem was they did not know the public reaction.

That's a "no" to my question then. Thanks.

 

[Nogbadthebad]

I would think the best approach is to ban the likes of woodward from all PL activities.

Forcing the scab clubs to find new representation at executive level to play an active part in decision making.

Ignoring the cover story, its probably why woodward brought his resignation out in public, after leaving UEFA and so on, even he had the self-awareness to know he'd burned his bridges.

 

[duffer]

I would think the best approach is to ban the likes of woodward from all PL activities.

Forcing the scab clubs to find new representation at executive level to play an active part in decision making.

Ignoring the cover story, its probably why woodward brought his resignation out in public, after leaving UEFA and so on, even he had the self-awareness to know he'd burned his bridges.

The likes of Woodward are just doing what they're told though. Its the likes of Glaziers/John Henry/Abramovic/etc who make the big decisins and their minions (try to) make it happen.

 

[Nogbadthebad]

The likes of Woodward are just doing what they're told though. Its the likes of Glaziers/John Henry/Abramovic/etc who make the big decisins and their minions (try to) make it happen.

Yes.

But there is very little they can do to owners directly. Declaring them unfit would be a minefield that would only lead to millions in legal costs and a 5 year court case.

Doing so to their representatives at PL level would force some level of change.

 

[Erebus]

The club played a suspended player and won the cup tie, thus profiting from that rule break.
They absolutely did something wrong, he was suspended.
Their records were poor and they got poor info from the local FA but it’s ultimately the club’s responsibility to keep track of yellow cards and suspensions so yes, they broke rules, benefitted and rightfully in line with rules forfeited the match, their opponents reinstated as is correct in that situation.

Ok, I'm not going to argue anymore, but the local FA accepted that the error was not by the club but with their reporting system. The local FA confirmed the club had checked on the elegibility of the player and the centralised record keeping system showed no outstanding card issues. And no, the responsibility of clubs at non-league level is to consult the 'Whole Game System' where records on cards are kept, a system ran by the the national FA - which they did, and it showed no problems with the player. The club did absolutely nothing wrong, with the local FA supporting their position and defending the club, stating in their press release ' North Ferriby made a detailed effort to clarify the eligibility of their players prior to the fixture in an open and transparent fashion and following these discussions established their player was eligible to play. They should not be punished due to human error within a dated process for handling discipline in comparison to other levels of the game. At the point of the fixture, there were no outstanding suspensions on (the) Whole Game System and the club had specifically asked The Football Association to clarify the eligibility of its players.” The local FA, who administer football at this level were very clear the club had done no wrong and had followed established procedures which absolutely, at the time, showed the player was elegible to play in the game. The club therefore did nothing wrong and did everything they could to ensure things were done correctly. They were clearly not responsible for the error, but they were the ones punished - and their fans and players. But those of us involved with non-league are used to this kind of thing by the FA.

 

[roonster09]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Ok, I'm not going to argue anymore, but the local FA accepted that the error was not by the club but with their reporting system. The local FA confirmed the club had checked on the elegibility of the player and the centralised record keeping system showed no outstanding card issues. And no, the responsibility of clubs at non-league level is to consult the 'Whole Game System' where records on cards are kept, a system ran by the the national FA - which they did, and it showed no problems with the player. The club did absolutely nothing wrong, with the local FA supporting their position and defending the club, stating in their press release ' North Ferriby made a detailed effort to clarify the eligibility of their players prior to the fixture in an open and transparent fashion and following these discussions established their player was eligible to play. They should not be punished due to human error within a dated process for handling discipline in comparison to other levels of the game. At the point of the fixture, there were no outstanding suspensions on (the) Whole Game System and the club had specifically asked The Football Association to clarify the eligibility of its players.” The local FA, who administer football at this level were very clear the club had done no wrong and had followed established procedures which absolutely, at the time, showed the player was elegible to play in the game. The club therefore did nothing wrong and did everything they could to ensure things were done correctly. They were clearly not responsible for the error, but they were the ones punished - and their fans and players. But those of us involved with non-league are used to this kind of thing by the FA.

So let’s go at this from a different angle... what do you think should have happened? They won the cup tie with the suspended player, should the other team just lose out?

Doesn’t matter how many times you say “it wasn’t their fault”, the fact remains they had an advantage over the other side by playing a suspended player in their cup game.

Why is the other team being punished in that way?

 

[alexthelion]

City easily spent a 129m last summer. The only other team to break a 100m is Chelsea who had to sell Hazard for 130m,Morata for 50m to be able to spend like that.

Plus the fact that they've virtually got two PL quality teams. No other team has depth like that.

 

[alexthelion]

The ESL was never about leaving the EPL, they never "conspired to leave".

Exactly, which is why all this talk of punishment by the PL is ridiculous.

They've broken no rules (yet), so there should be absolutely no punishment.

 

[alexthelion]

I would think the best approach is to ban the likes of woodward from all PL activities.

Forcing the scab clubs to find new representation at executive level to play an active part in decision making.

Ignoring the cover story, its probably why woodward brought his resignation out in public, after leaving UEFA and so on, even he had the self-awareness to know he'd burned his bridges.

Yep, all CEOs should be banned from the PL forthwith. Assuming, that is, they are deemed to have broken a rule. If not, then how can you justify any punishment?

 

[alexthelion]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

In other words, they can't do anything because no rules were broken.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

A 20 point league deduction so Leicester can win again !

I know you're joking (or maybe half joking!)
But it made me think, how would you feel if you actually won the league because United and city were docked a substantial amount of points?

If it were me, i think i'd find it amusing and enjoy it a little. But I also wouldn't really take it as a serious title win.

 

[RoyH1]

There is no way Ceferin lets this slide.

Juve and specially Madrid though, UEFA is going to go medieval on them. Tebas the La Liga president hates Madrid and Pérez with passion before any of this happened and now he has the excuse to bury him.It won't be pretty. I expect a ban from the CL from UEFA and a lifetime of Catalan and Basque referees for Madrid's games from the spanish league.

 

[Zaphod2319]

I don't think docking domestic league points can happen? They did not do anything to conspire to leave the domestic leagues and any action would end up in the hands of the lawyers. I think EUFA could impose a CL punishment next year, but they will also be damaging their product in doing so.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

I expect a ban from the CL from UEFA and a lifetime of Catalan and Basque referees for Madrid's games from the spanish league.

Madrid just played a game and got a VAR penalty immediately.

 

[Erebus]

So let’s go at this from a different angle... what do you think should have happened? They won the cup tie with the suspended player, should the other team just lose out?

Why is the other team being punished in that way?

I think my original point has been lost somewhere in this. I understand fully your question, and think it's a valid question. I really think it's a bit of a no win situation for anyone. If the result stands there's injustice for West Auckland. I think there's also injustice here for North Ferriby. I originally used the example to demonstrate that there's always an issue with fans and players being punished whenever teams are. Having said that someone is going to lose out. But the game took place at a time when everyone thought that all the players on both sides were elegible to play. Now I know that happens sometimes, and retrospective suspension happens, but on all occassions I can remeber (and there will be others), suspension of a result has always been when it's become clear on investigation that there was a willing and knowing decision taken to field a player who was inelegible. No-one is accusing North Ferriby of that. I therefore see no reason why the original result shouldn't stand. I do apprecaite there will be people who disagree with me. Had their been a wilful and knowing disregard of the card issue, and North Ferriby had therefore knowingly played a suspended player, then I'd be wholeheartedly with the punishment. But there wasn't, and they'd taken all conceivable steps as practised at this level to try to ensure this situation didn't happen. On balance, I can't see that they should be punished for the error of a third party. Complicated though, and I can see the validity of different opinions in anwer to your question. I should say I'm not a supporter of either of these teams, if I were then that might easily colour my view on the issue.

 

[jeff gurr]

I know you're joking (or maybe half joking!)
But it made me think, how would you feel if you actually won the league because United and city were docked a substantial amount of points?

If it were me, i think i'd find it amusing and enjoy it a little. But I also wouldn't really take it as a serious title win.

I was joking mostly but I would struggle to take that kind of win seriously
The players on those six teams should not be punished for something their greedy owners did.

 

[duffer]

I was joking mostly but I would struggle to take that kind of win seriously
The players on those six teams should not be punished for something their greedy owners did.

It's a tough one but the players on teams who have been docked points (for financial things) previously were also blameless.

There's no way any of the six get points deducted though.

 

[jeff gurr]

It's a tough one but the players on teams who have been docked points (for financial things) previously were also blameless.

There's no way any of the six get points deducted though.

I understand it has happened before but in this case it would be very wrong. I am desperate for a top four finish but would like to feel that we have earned it.
I agree with you, I don't see a points deduction happening.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I originally used the example to demonstrate that there's always an issue with fans and players being punished whenever teams are.

Yes and no-one is debating that, what we are debating is that fans and players are punished when a team gains an advantage from breaking rules, be it on field or financial.

NF clearly gained an unfair advantage, if we play Arsenal in the final of the EL and Bruno is suspended, and so is Aubameyang, but Bruno plays because of poor paper work, of course we’d lose the final retrospective, regardless of fault because gaining an unfair advantage is the point in question.

As for who’s responsibility it ultimately is to not play a suspended player, it’s the joint responsibility of the player and the club, not the county FA. So yes, they got a little fecked over by trusting the county FA info rather than their own info, but both the club and the player should know and also have paperwork showing how many yellows the player has accumulated.

 

[Erebus]

Yes and no-one is debating that, what we are debating is that fans and players are punished when a team gains an advantage from breaking rules, be it on field or financial.

NF clearly gained an unfair advantage, if we play Arsenal in the final of the EL and Bruno is suspended, and so is Aubameyang, but Bruno plays because of poor paper work, of course we’d lose the final retrospective, regardless of fault because gaining an unfair advantage is the point in question.

As for who’s responsibility it ultimately is to not play a suspended player, it’s the joint responsibility of the player and the club, not the county FA. So yes, they got a little fecked over by trusting the county FA info rather than their own info, but both the club and the player should know and also have paperwork showing how many yellows the player has accumulated.

Ok we'll leave it at that. Been good discussing it with you though

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Ok we'll leave it at that. Been good discussing it with you though

Absolutely pal, we’ll see where this leads but I think legislation giving more power to fans is on the cards if we can keep up the momentum. That’ll be serious punishment for the owners involved & will benefit the entire football community so win win, and lose lose for the owners.
It’s vital we protest to the FA & Parliament and don’t get too wrapped up in a direct protest with the owners again.
Good chatting.