levy take uefa and chelsea to court.

[Kendall]

levy is my guess seeking legal advice. seeing what they come up and keeping his cards close to his chest until the lawyers give their opinion and have researched the matter.

If that was the case, then our site wouldn't have accepted the Europa League as our fate next year,

 

[Destroyer]

If that was the case, then our site wouldn't have accepted the Europa League as our fate next year,

The official site you mean ?? It did look like a way of expressing acceptance, however Levy may just be playing things very cunning - as cunning as fox, & if Lasagne Gate is anything to go by, Daniel will fight tooth & nail to get that money into our clubs coffers.

Btw i would assume the Official Site is run by the clubs Press Team/Media Group - not the legal team.

 

[StartingPrice]

If that was the case, then our site wouldn't have accepted the Europa League as our fate next year,

Accepting Europa placing does not rule out making a representation as to the shortfall in finances that we are losing out on, having qualified fairly and squarely, because UEFA decided to change the rules more than a decade afterthe inception of the competition, to accomodate Liverpool (and, I may add, allowing Everton to compete, as well, setting the precedent that, intrinsically, there is nothing to prevent 5 teams from one country competing in the one year).

 

[Sweatybum]

You're letting the team down SP. Your last post didn't have a single smiley in it. Not one!

 

[StartingPrice]

You're letting the team down SP. Your last post didn't have a single smiley in it. Not one!

<MEMO TO SELF: MUST TRY HARDER>

 

[sloth]

Slothio, I have just made a response to this, and it hasn't posted.

I can't be bothered to do so, in full, again.

I will say, however, that I said as I explained above and not I will now explain to you because you are a cretin. In context, also, it was that you were asking something that had been answered several times in the post if you had bothered to read it. So, if you want to take exception to a fairly basic expression that is your problem.

Also, YES, we know what the rule says, and that it was changed to accomodatae Liverpool - and therein lies the issue. UEFA altered the rule to accomodate Liverpool - it wasn't a hard and fast rule, established before the first ever CL game, in 1993. By doing that, they showed that the rules aren't immutable. And they didn't change it when Liverpool won the CL, they changed it after representation was made concerning Liverpool's inability to defend their cup, as they had fecked up in the league. SO, why shouldn't we make representation, as well?

You haven't, at all, attempted to interract with the point I made concerning omission being relevant grounds to make representation that we should be compensated, as it was an omission that allowed them to bend over for Liverpool.

And, as I have said a couple of times, in the thread, already, I am not a legal expert, I merely responded to posters saying (surprisingly - see you weren't the first), the rule is the rule, what grounds could we have to question it, by suggesting grounds upon which we may be able to make representation. Daniel Levy has a highly qualified legal team - if, after due consideration, he decides that we don't have a case, then, fine - I am all in favour of giving the Europa a fair go, as I think it deserves more respect. I just do not believe that when they changed the ruling to allow Liverpool in, they gave due consideration to compensating the team who is somewhat arbitrarily being forced out, and that may be grounds on which to appeal. They have shown that rules can be changed; they have shown that they are susceptible to pressure; they have shown that there is no intrinsic inability to allow a country to ahve five representatives (as they did when they let Liverpool in, and allowed Everton to retain their place).

It would help if, rather than saying what we all already knew, that the ruling was there before the start of the seaosn, you actually read through the thread, and gave a detailed explanation as to why all of the issues raised (including by the Journo) are ill-conceived.

I don't understand what this "omission" point is. It sounds like legalese, is it?

On the Liverpool thing, didn't they bring in the rule which we've just suffered from precisely because previously they didn't have a rule which covered the eventuality of a team winning the CL, but not qualifying via their domestic league? So this was an eventuality they hadn't considered, for which they made an exception when it occurred. On the other hand we're in a situation where they have now considered what it is they think should happen and have written the rules to account for it. We entered the competition knowing what the rules are, so that's all there is to it. There is no basis that I can imagine for challenging the rules now. We may lobby to have them changed in the future, but that won't make any difference to our circumstance this year.

I would say a vital difference for me would be if Lazio and Borussia M-G are missing out due to rules established at the inception of the competition. I believe it is. We are missing out because of a rule that was a change to the original rule, which was only made to accomodate Liverpool after they whinged. That, to me, is a very big difference. If the original ruling had stood, we wouldn;t be missing out. The original ruling is what is making them miss out - maybe they could have it changed, Liverpool did. Seemingly, it is only the amended ruling, the let's change it quick to stop liverpool boo-hooing rule that is sacrosanct.

This doesn't make sense. UEFA run a competition, they amend the rules according to their regulations from time to time. Teams are invited to take part in their competitions based on who their national associations deem have qualified. The teams then decide if they'd like to take part. If they don't like the rules before they've entered, they can say we don't like the rules, but once you enter the competition you accept them. What possible difference does it make in a legal sense, if the rules were brought in as an amendment or were there from the outset? Rules are rules surely?

All of that said I can see the moral argument that life has been pretty unfair to us on this occasion. But that's not the basis for a legal challenge, is it?

 

[StartingPrice]

I don't understand what this "omission" point is. It sounds like legalese, is it?

On the Liverpool thing, didn't they bring in the rule which we've just suffered from precisely because previously they didn't have a rule which covered the eventuality of a team winning the CL, but not qualifying via their domestic league? So this was an eventuality they hadn't considered, for which they made an exception when it occurred. On the other hand we're in a situation where they have now considered what it is they think should happen and have written the rules to account for it. We entered the competition knowing what the rules are, so that's all there is to it. There is no basis that I can imagine for challenging the rules now. We may lobby to have them changed in the future, but that won't make any difference to our circumstance this year.



This doesn't make sense. UEFA run a competition, they amend the rules according to their regulations from time to time. Teams are invited to take part in their competitions based on who their national associations deem have qualified. The teams then decide if they'd like to take part. If they don't like the rules before they've entered, they can say we don't like the rules, but once you enter the competition you accept them. What possible difference does it make in a legal sense, if the rules were brought in as an amendment or were there from the outset? Rules are rules surely?

All of that said I can see the moral argument that life has been pretty unfair to us on this occasion. But that's not the basis for a legal challenge, is it?

You say you don't know what the omission is, and then talk, length, at the eventuality that UEFA failed to cover. That is the omission - they omitted to account for the possibility that the trophy winners might not qualify for the CL. Although, to be exact, they did, because the situation arose between Real and Zaragoza - and yet, when Liverpool won it, there was no provision for them to re-enter the tournament the following year, when they failed to attain top 4.

If you take the above definition of omission into account: UEFA omitted to account for the possibility that the trophy winners would want to defend their crown, backed by an upsurge in public opinion, (even though they had acconted for it, previously). We coould argue that they amended that rule to account for this, but failed to account for the issue of compensating the club who misses out, adequately - it was an omission to do so.

The point about Borussia M-G and Lazio actually makes perfect sense: they aren't missing out due to a rather arbitrary rule change, they are missing out because of a clearly established principle before the competition commenced, in 1993. Obviously, UEFA have never given any indication that the coefficients are incorrect, since 1993, and so missing out because of them is fair. They have, however, given indications that the ruling we are missing out from, is severely flawed - why shouldn't we popint to another flaw in it?

Essentially, I repeat, I am not making exact legal arguements (ignoring the thread title, I didn;t make it). I just set out to show that when some posters said we could have no grounds for complaint, that I could think of some grounds for complaint. I didn't say they wuld be legally binding. Mr Levy will have a legal team working on this, and if he doeesn't feel that there is scope to make any representation to UEFA, he won't. I am not that concerned about not being in the CL, anyway, but I do think we should be financially compensated for missing out on CL finances, and I do believe that UEFA/FA omitted to consider this, properly, when they reached the decision about letting the winners defend their crown - I think they were just thinking about how to make that so, and didn't give a second thought for the clubs who would lose out, thereby, after having qualified by UEFA's original ruling, through no fault of their own. I see the decision making process I see as flawed in the extreme.

 

[bigturnip]

Doesn't mean much, but maybe we will see a rule change in the future?

Mike Collett Reuters ‏@footballmc
Had v interesting chat wth Sepp Blatter 2day who said all confeds shld follow FIFA lead-title holders shldnt automatically defend trophies!

Mike Collett Reuters ‏@footballmc
To be fair to him he didn't mention any particular team by name, but I did. He was just talking generally No story, just a chat! #THFC !

I agree with Blatter, and it's not often I say that, Chelsea had every chance to defend their crown by qualifying for the next tournament through their league position, just like Spain will have every chance to defend their World Cup crown by qualifying for the next World Cup finals. But unfortunately those aren't the rules in place at the moment for the Champions League, as much as I disagree with the rules, the club knew them and can't complain now after having had 7 years to protest them.

 

[Destroyer]

I agree with Blatter, and it's not often I say that, Chelsea had every chance to defend their crown by qualifying for the next tournament through their league position, just like Spain will have every chance to defend their World Cup crown by qualifying for the next World Cup finals. But unfortunately those aren't the rules in place at the moment for the Champions League, as much as I disagree with the rules, the club knew them and can't complain now after having had 7 years to protest them.

Could the same not be said of Liverpool since the rules that were in place in when they appealed had been set in stone for 15 years or more ?? Just because we are just little Spurs why should we just lay down & accept it ??

 

[StartingPrice]

Could the same not be said of Liverpool since the rules that were in place in when they appealed had been set in stone for 15 years or more ?? Just because we are just little Spurs why should we just lay down & accept it ??

Which has been part of the issue, all along - I suspect Levy feels this, too, but has been informally told that, no matter how strong a case we can make, even for some form of recompense, we will just be given the bum rush...and if we make too much noise, we will go into the black book, too (though it feels like that, anyway).

 

[Destroyer]

Which has been part of the issue, all along - I suspect Levy feels this, too, but has been informally told that, no matter how strong a case we can make, even for some form of recompense, we will just be given the bum rush...and if we make too much noise, we will go into the black book, too (though it feels like that, anyway).

Just go for it , what have we got to lose ?? We've lost out already, we can only gain !! To Dare Is To Do !!!

 

[AngerManagement]

Just go for it , what have we got to lose ?? We've lost out already, we can only gain !! To Dare Is To Do !!!

Worst that can happen is we look stupid and UEFA laugh at us like FIFA laughed at Ireland, but frankly who gives a fuck

Although in reality I suppose if Levy feels it's a futile effort then time and resources/money is what we/he has to lose

 

[Destroyer]

Worst that can happen is we look stupid and UEFA laugh at us like FIFA laughed at Ireland, but frankly who gives a fuck

Although in reality I suppose if Levy feels it's a futile effort then time and resources/money is what we/he has to lose

Well seeing as he's in Holland he may as well nip across the border & speak to comrades at Anderlecht & Borussia (the other teams affected ??) as see if they are prepared to join forces & lobby Uefa for an emegency meeting to discuss this situation in a dignified manner.

 

[AngerManagement]

Well seeing as he's in Holland he may as well nip across the border & speak to comrades at Anderlecht & Borussia (the other teams affected ??) as see if they are prepared to join forces & lobby Uefa for an emegency meeting to discuss this situation in a dignified manner.

I'm sure Levy will try something if he thinks there is a chance he could be successful, even the smallest outside chance.

So his actions will tell us everything I believe

 

[Jay The Yid]

I would be astonished if we DIDN'T at least try to get the rules amended.

 

[ShayLaB]

I doubt there was ever a question of courts but I'd be astonished if we haven't at least asked UEFA if they could make an exception. It is such an unusual situation.

 

[Destroyer]

I'm sure Levy will try something if he thinks there is a chance he could be successful, even the smallest outside chance.

So his actions will tell us everything I believe

Like i said earlier, maybe he's playing things as cunning as a fox

 

[AngerManagement]

Like i said earlier, maybe he's playing things as cunning as a fox

An apparent official statement accepting our fate is an odd tactic

 

[beats1]

I'm sure Levy will try something if he thinks there is a chance he could be successful, even the smallest outside chance.

So his actions will tell us everything I believe

Agreed I would be even more pissed because we wasted alot of time on the olympic thing even when it was lost and was unclear if we wanted it

 

[Destroyer]

An apparent official statement accepting our fate is an odd tactic

Maybe if 'Legal Action' is out of the question there could be room for some 'Diplomacy' here, maybe its a case of lets get everyone around the table & talk about this rather than the 'All guns blazing' approach ??