|
Four relegation threatened clubs are threatening to sue the Premiership over its controversial decision not to deduct points from West Ham over the transfers of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano. The four clubs - Charlton, Fulham, Sheffield United and Wigan - met yesterday at Harrods, the store owned by Mohammed al Fayed. They are taking legal advice, but have written to the Premiership in a bid to settle the matter outside the courts. A statement from the clubs said, 'The FA Premier League have a duty to act in good faith and with reasonable diligence. That duty extends to investigating an alleged breach of the rules where there is some apparently credible evidence of a breach. Furthermore, given the potential significance to our clubs of any further serious breach of FAPL rules by West Ham at this point in time would be a breach by the League of their obligation of utmost good faith to us under FAPL rule B13.'
The Premiership has also taken legal advice and retorts that its position is unassailable. Its defence is that it is entirely up to the independent commission to decide on the punishment, and that if the Premier League had any influence over the decisions it would be a conflict of interest. It would argue that the commission had a full range of sanctions available to it, and that Premier League rules do not state what the punishment should be for such rule breaches. Harsher punishments have been given out in the past. For example, Middlesbrough were deducted three points in 1997 for failing to fulfil a fixture when sixteen players were ill or injured, a decision that condemned them to relegation from the Premiership. The application of the rules is far from clear, however, as is shown by the reduction of an eighteen point penalty on AFC Wimbledon by the Ryman League for playing a player without international clearance to three points.
I am not a lawyer, but I do work with lawyers, and we were recently discussing a completely different case which the courts would clearly rather not have had brought before them. The courts in effect refused to act on a case brought by Charlton Athletic this year in relation to an unsuccessful appeal against a red card issued to one of their defenders. This case has split football fans who hold a range of contrasting views. Fans of the club threatened with relegation allege that West Ham have benefited from cheating. West Ham supporters point out that the clubs concerned would be better off spending their time on a meeting about improving their play on the pitch. Fans in general have shown some concern about West Ham getting off relatively lightly, despite the large fine imposed. However, the panel is allowed discretion in its decisions (which a court would probably accept provided that there was no evidence of the decision having been improperly arrived at). In his explanation of the decision Simon Bourne-Aston QC, who headed the commission, said that a points deduction at this stage of the season would have condemned the Hammers to certain relegation. A different decision may well have been taken if the hearing had been held in January which raises questions about why it took so long to convene the panel.
Given the sums of money at stake in relation to relegation from the Premiership, it is perhaps not surprising that matters are being referred to the courts rather than being settled on the pitch or by the game's ruling bodies. Whatever else is the case, this is not a public relations triumph for the Premiership. However, one has to wonder how far the trend for litigation will go. Will controversial refereeing decisions be brought before the courts?
|
