spen666 wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:53 pm
lo36789 wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:13 pm
spen666 wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:07 pm
A club like York that want the season to carry on, would have a very good claim to take ot court that the voting is invalid, because after some clubs voted, the NL moved the goalposts ( re the testing).
I would think such an argument had a good chance of succeeding.
Not sure this would be much of a claim.
Who is the claim against? The National League for applying their rules at the time they were applicable or all the clubs who York dispute that they voted in the 'right' way?
The resolutions mention nothing of testing / funding. They are absolute decisions "what do you want to do"?
As I understand it any time the league can ask it's members that question if they are prompted to do so by a member (that will be in the league rules somewhere). In fact the stronger case would be if the resolutions werent put to members as that would likely be against the organisations rules.
That sounds like a very thin claim to me.
The claim would be a strong claim, because the league asked clubs to vote on something, then halfway through voting changed the position.
The claim would be against the NL Management Board.
The claim would almost certainly be bound to succeed on its merits. York could rightly argue that the provision of testing was one of main objections of clubs, and it now being available would affect how clubs voted. The NL should have made the announcement before the voting started.
The remedy would be for the voting to be re run. The voting is a farce when half the clubs vote on one basis of facts, then the facts are changed by the poll organiser
It cannot be a fair poll when the poll organiser changes the facts halfway through voting after clubs have started voting
The problem is to re run the voting takes time and if clubs in re run vote decided to carry on season, the clubs have very little time to finish season unless playing 3-4 games a week.
Its a stupid action by the NL Management and one that opens up a legal challenge that would not have existed if they hadn't made the announcement part of the way through voting
This is fascinating. We're so lucky to have somebody who is able to provide such a detailed and accurate legal analysis.
"The claim would almost certainly be bound to succeed on its merits."
What claim, exactly? What is the cause of action? Breach of contract? Tort?
"The remedy would be for the voting to be re run."
So now we're into the realms of asking a court to order declaratory relief or some sort of specific performance against the National League for having enforced its own rules? By all means explain to me how that would work: I'm all ears. I also assume that, given your clear statements, you know the details of all of the relevant contractual dispute resolution procedures, but do correct me if I'm wrong.
We can, I think, all agree that the NL has been a joke in how they have handled this. What we don't need is a conniving arsehole from Spennymoor claiming that he understands the legalities of the position better than anybody else.
That is all the more so when that very same conniving arsehole was, until very recently, claiming that the NLN clubs (and, by implication, DFC) were actually responsible themselves for the current situation.
"Spen666", two questions:
1. Do you now accept that you were utterly wrong when you repeatedly claimed that the NLN clubs had voted for the situation in which they currently find themselves;
2. Do you accept that Brad Groves has already funded Spennymoor Town in a seven figure sum, and that his funding as a benefactor is ongoing?