Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

LegalEagle

Members
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

89

Recent Profile Visitors

1,160 profile views
  1. The problem is that it's a very easy fix to get their proper name and badge in the game - one which they'll argue that Sports Interactive endorse. That's the part where they could have a case, and it could have a chilling effect on the game as a whole.
  2. We do take special measures for flu every year though including free vaccinations for all vulnerable people. And flu hasn't killed 60,000 people in the UK in a year for a long time. In fact it's not killed more than 30,000 people in a season since the late 1960s. Regardless, surely the long lockdown we're still in lets you see that this is slightly different from "a bad year for flu"?
  3. The thing about salary caps is that they work really well in closed-shop leagues where you have a regular supply of fresh talent and not much competition from abroad for players. But they don't work in a system with promotion and relegation. If we're talking about capping total team salaries, either you have a different cap for each league in a system (which massively disadvantages promoted clubs and causes issues when teams are relegated too), you have a set cap for all levels (which would be far too high for 90% of clubs to even notice it and would hence not prevent overspending), or you tie the cap to team revenue (which is basically FFP). Each one of those options comes with pretty clear disadvantages. There are also issues regarding enforcement - for example, should youth team salaries be counted against the cap or not - which almost all leagues that have salary caps (aside from perhaps rugby and cricket leagues) do not have to consider. If we talk instead about capping individual player earnings, that simply reinforces the current status quo. In the NBA, where individual player salaries are capped, players simply gravitate to teams where other stars are playing, teams which have a history of winning, or teams based in cities that are nice to live in (usually some combination of all of the above). Teams from smaller markets can usually compete for a while (because the league further limits the movement and salaries of recently drafted players in a way which would be completely illegal under EU law) but then find they cannot offer enough money to tempt their best players to stay in town when a team from LA or Miami comes calling offering the same salary but right next to the beach. Also, unilaterally implementing a salary cap in England would risk the loss of a lot of players to foreign leagues not instituting salary caps, which could decrease the quality of the domestic game significantly. If a salary cap were imposed instead by FIFA or UEFA that causes a huge number of other questions. For example, what currency should the cap use? What do you do about the massive differences in national tax regimes? What's to stop a country from doing what Colombia did in the late 1940s and early 1950s and operating outside of FIFA jurisdiction in order to create a national super league? As well as them being completely unworkable in practice, I don't like the idea of salary caps for another reason - that they tend to redirect money from the people who do all the work towards owners who are simply riding a wave and looking for a return on their investment. They want to compete without having to pay to do so. Salaries should be held in check by the prospect of going out of business (like in any other business) and not artificially limited.
  4. Because feeling justified is no excuse to manhandle and intimidate officials so that would send completely the wrong message.
  5. I've not read the court report from this case as I can't find it anywhere but this case almost certainly won't set a precedent. For a start there is a general principle under the law of negligence that footballers owe each other a duty of care on the pitch and that reckless tackles using excessive force breach that duty of care if damage is caused. There have been numerous cases decided on this point at both amateur and professional levels. At professional or semi-professional levels as the club is acting as an employer they become vicariously liable for the damage caused. The precedents are already there. There are pictures of the tackle in question and it looks like the tackler jumps off the ground into the standing leg of the injured player. He stated that he "admittedly [...] went in with a tough challenge" and the referee gave evidence that the tackle was reckless and with excessive force. Tackles like that have no place in football and there is rightfully a claim there if serious injury results. Similar arguments about floodgates being opened were probably made after McCord v Swansea or Watson v Gray, but it's been 20 years since then and cases are still few and far between. The 2 scandalous elements of the case involve the league and its clubs having insurance which doesn't cover legal costs, and then a club running up legal bills of over £110,000 fighting a claim worth less than £20,000 and then starting a GoFundMe page expecting the general public to bail them out.
  6. You're almost completely right here. ETs only have to look at whether procedure was followed and if so whether a dismissal fell within a "band of reasonable responses" to the misconduct in question. It's pretty clear that fining the two drivers 6 weeks wages is within that range of responses, and it's also pretty clear that dismissing Keogh would be considered to be within that range too (albeit at the more extreme end). However, how other people involved in instances of misconduct were disciplined is directly relevant to whether a dismissal falls within the band of reasonable responses. There have been cases where employees were dismissed while other, more senior/more culpable employees, were merely warned or fined for their part in the same incident. These cases are sometimes decided in favour of the dismissed employee; however, given Keogh's senior role at the club relative to the drivers it's very unlikely that such a decision would be reached in this case. Of course, even if it is found that he was unfairly dismissed the maximum award at an ET is just under £100,000 (absent certain circumstances which definitely don't apply here). This is far less than the amount outstanding in his contract, so it makes financial sense for Derby to dismiss him regardless, if his resale value is next to nothing. The chance that Keogh would be reengaged as an employee of Derby following an ET is almost nil given the bad blood that has been generated by the actions of both parties.
  7. That's the problem right there. As we didn't present any new evidence the appeal was merely procedural in nature, focusing on whether the initial tribunal was conducted properly. It's pretty common in other areas of the law where there is tribunal involvement (e.g. social security law and employment law) and its main function is to stop people gambling on appealing in hope that the appeal tribunal may take a different view of the facts to the initial tribunal. It would be rare for a review appeal to lead to a change in the decision unless the initial decision is completely wrong or there was some appearance of bias. Even in the latter case it would be likely that the case would just be sent back to be reheard by a different tribunal. And on your CAS point, it's pretty rare for CAS to get involved in such cases as CAS generally trusts that the governing body has properly applied the relevant laws. In any case, it'd take 3-12 months for a result to be reached so the ban would've already ended well before any arbitration award takes effect.
  8. AJIB is not an Islamic bank, it's just owned by Muslims.
×
×
  • Create New...