Sheff Utds bit arbiatritititition...

[TANGODANCER]

"Paging Mr Dave Whelan... can a Mr Dave Whelan please return Sheffield United's calls... please, Mr Dave Whelan, you were making a big enough noise about it when it was YOUR arse on the block..."

Ah well, er, cough, er, as circumstances had it, it worked out okay. I mean, er, Sheffield have all our sympathies etc, but it's er, a bit water under the old Pier now isn't it, ha ha. But we do stand behind them in theory of course and wishn them every bit of luck in their er, quest, as you will. Now then, about this Koumas character......

Can I just reiterate that I despise Mr Dave Whelan and yet again he has shown himself to be an utter arse of the highest water? Thanks.

[CrazyHorse]

Sheffield United want £20m from the Premier League if they are not reinstated back into the top flight. (The Sun)

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

As Fozzy pointed out, all the clubs signed a contract at the start of the season agreeing to let the Premier League enforce its rules and decide on appropriate punishments for infringements. I just don't understand what the basis of the claim is. Are Sheff Utd suggesting that the Premier League has breached a term of their contract with them (and other clubs) by making (or delegating) the decision in a way not permitted by the contract? Or is Sheff Utd's claim directly against West Ham for a breach of a contract that every club has with each other, agreeing to play by the rules?

A lot would depend on the terms of this contract (about which I know nothing). Are there any conditions that go with the authority or is the Premier League totally unfettered as to disposition of cases? Clearly there is an appeal mechanism - the arbitration tribunal - that Sheffield is following. Perhaps there is recourse to the courts beyond that. All I was saying is that United have been damaged by the decision, which was inconsistent with past practice and that the PL said they would have made a different decision in January. However, I have no idea what rights United may have given up in their contract with the PL.

Your point I have highlighted in bold is the very point I go on to consider in the next-but-one sentence of mine after the one you emboldened (and I share your ignorance on the point of content).

Though I'm not it's quite right to speak of the possibility of Sheff Utd "giving up rights" in their contract with the PL, because that contract is the only source of those rights anyway.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Your point I have highlighted in bold is the very point I go on to consider in the next-but-one sentence of mine after the one you emboldened (and I share your ignorance on the point of content).

Though I'm not it's quite right to speak of the possibility of Sheff Utd "giving up rights" in their contract with the PL, because that contract is the only source of those rights anyway.

I simply meant that in signing a contract you might give up more fundamental rights normally enjoyed under the laws of the land. For example, the contract may have a clause in which you agree not to take a matter to court even if the League has acted inappropriately. You probably can still take legal action but agreement to the clause would fundamentally damage your case.

Now, Sheffield has apparently assessed the damage they suffered at £20 million - perhaps they'll get paid off.

[FaninOz]

Your point I have highlighted in bold is the very point I go on to consider in the next-but-one sentence of mine after the one you emboldened (and I share your ignorance on the point of content).

Though I'm not it's quite right to speak of the possibility of Sheff Utd "giving up rights" in their contract with the PL, because that contract is the only source of those rights anyway.

I simply meant that in signing a contract you might give up more fundamental rights normally enjoyed under the laws of the land. For example, the contract may have a clause in which you agree not to take a matter to court even if the League has acted inappropriately. You probably can still take legal action but agreement to the clause would fundamentally damage your case.

Now, Sheffield has apparently assessed the damage they suffered at £20 million - perhaps they'll get paid off.

Surely any contact that removes your rights under English Common Law is an invalid contract and as such Shef Utd have a right to appeal. The problem is if they win and the Premiership has been proven to have acted incorrectly It may mean that they will dock points from the teams implicated by the Steven's Report. That means us next season.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Your point I have highlighted in bold is the very point I go on to consider in the next-but-one sentence of mine after the one you emboldened (and I share your ignorance on the point of content).

Though I'm not it's quite right to speak of the possibility of Sheff Utd "giving up rights" in their contract with the PL, because that contract is the only source of those rights anyway.

I simply meant that in signing a contract you might give up more fundamental rights normally enjoyed under the laws of the land. For example, the contract may have a clause in which you agree not to take a matter to court even if the League has acted inappropriately. You probably can still take legal action but agreement to the clause would fundamentally damage your case.

Now, Sheffield has apparently assessed the damage they suffered at £20 million - perhaps they'll get paid off.

Surely any contact that removes your rights under English Common Law is an invalid contract and as such Shef Utd have a right to appeal. The problem is if they win and the Premiership has been proven to have acted incorrectly It may mean that they will dock points from the teams implicated by the Steven's Report. That means us next season.

I think we would have to consult Pencilbiter on this one, Perth. However, for example, it seems to me one has a basic right under law to one's intellectual property but one can sign a contract of employment in which one's employer acquires the rights to any patents or royalties (indeed one may have to sign such a contract in order to get a job). My own divorce settlement represented an agreement between parties that did not follow what the law prescribes. Still I'm not an expert on this side of things.

[communistworkethic]

oz is right IIRC - Unfair Contract Terms would seem to fit the bill in that respect.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Surely any contact that removes your rights under English Common Law is an invalid contract and as such Shef Utd have a right to appeal. The problem is if they win and the Premiership has been proven to have acted incorrectly It may mean that they will dock points from the teams implicated by the Steven's Report. That means us next season.

I think we would have to consult Pencilbiter on this one, Perth. However, for example, it seems to me one has a basic right under law to one's intellectual property but one can sign a contract of employment in which one's employer acquires the rights to any patents or royalties (indeed one may have to sign such a contract in order to get a job). My own divorce settlement represented an agreement between parties that did not follow what the law prescribes. Still I'm not an expert on this side of things.

Oh jeez....

It's basically true that one can't 'contract out' of the common law. One of land law's 'leading cases' that illustrates this proposition is Street v Mountford in which it was decided that is impossible to 'contract out' of the rules regarding leases, even if in the contract both parties agree to a term such as "what we are signing is not a lease but is in fact a licence".

However, it is also true that a promise not to enforce your legal rights is a valid, enforceable promise, and good consideration for the promise of another, in a contract. Whilst this does not remove common law rights as such, it is certainly a breach of contract if somebody sues when they have made it a term of a contract that they would not. I think this covers the good examples provided by Monty.


All of which brings me back round to this:

Surely any contact that removes your rights under English Common Law is an invalid contract and as such Shef Utd have a right to appeal.

Sheff Utd did not sign away a common law right. The common law does not give a toss how the Premier League is run unless the criminal law is broken, torts are committed in the process, or parties breach terms of their contract.

Sheff Utd have a contract with a "private members' club" i.e the Premier League, and part of that contract outlines the applicable procedure when the club's stated rules are broken. The Premier League are under no obligation to act judiciously, carefully, sensibly, or in-line with precedent, unless that it what their contract with Sheff Utd (and the other clubs) says they must do. Sheff Utd must be alleging that they have discharged their duty to arbitrate in a way not permitted by the contract, but unfortunately we can't comment on whether or not they are right, as we haven't seen that contract.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Thanks, PB, for a thorough explanation. What mark did you get in contracts?

[Montreal Wanderer]

McCabe says on SSN:

"It's about writing the wrongs from the first decision. That's really part of the arbitration proceedings and why we served the notice on the Premier League back in mid-May."

So PB, can you explain to me under English common law, how you write wrongs?

[Verbal]

Lol that is shoddy editing and writing. Not righting.

[Bruce Rioja]

So PB, can you explain to me under English common law, how you write wrongs?

By scribbling them down?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Thanks, PB, for a thorough explanation. What mark did you get in contracts?

I might tell you on the 23rd.

As for writing wrongs... oh dear.

[hisroyalgingerness]

been looking forward all day to finding the result of this out... delayed til tues

[Le Snake]

Just been reported on BBC radio that Sheff Utd's claim has been dismissed.

[Soldier_Of_The_White_Army]

Just been reported on BBC radio that Sheff Utd's claim has been dismissed.

Shock!

[Worthy4England]

Sheffield United have failed in their attempts to be reinstated in the Premier League after an independent arbitration panel dismissed their claim of an unfair punishment handed out to West Ham United over the Carlos Tevez affair.

The Blades had wanted the panel to order a new disciplinary commission deal with West Ham but had their claim dismissed on Tuesday.

The Yorkshire outfit also lost another claim - made jointly with Fulham - that the Premier League should have forced West Ham to de-register Tevez and it means United will be forced to concentrate on life in the Championship for the coming season.

A statement from the arbitration panel read: "The tribunal have found in favour of the FA Premier League on both issues and dismissed the claims of Sheffield United FC and Fulham FC."

[Leyther_Matt]

Can't say I'm surprised. The longer it dragged on, the less likely it was to be overturned. Bet Wet Spam are pissing their sides but hopefully Tevez will bugger off in the summer anyway.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Any comment, Mr Whelan?

'sfunny, his phone's not usually turned off...

[Mich Caine]

That is a crock of shit. If that was Man Utd rather than Sheff Utd the decision would have been different. The fact West Ham have Brooking and are a London club is what it comes down to. The reality is Tevez kept West Ham up single handedly and if he was an illegal player then surely points must be deducted.

But like people have said, this has gone on for too long and West Ham have made two big signings Parker and some French guy for £13m, the FA would be taken to court by West Ham if they were relegated, and then there was no chance of a 21 team Premiership.

I do think its wrong that West Ham had a big fine, maybe the FA needed the money after Sven and Wembley? Sheff Utd will feel hard done by, but at the end of the day they knew what they had to do last season to stay up - avoid defeat on the last game of the season to crappy Wigan and they would have stayed up.

So then, Jagielka's relegation clause has been activated, what odds of him ending up at Bolton? I am offering odds of 33/1 if anyone is interested?