Skip to main content

Difficult for Liverpool to get redress for VAR fiasco

The release of the audio exchanges between officials at Saturday's game between Spurs and Liverpool has fanned the flames of the controversy about the offside decision.   They reveal an unacceptable level of incompetence and casual decision-making.

Dan Chapman, partner and head of sport and employment at Leathes Prior, said it was difficult to see what legal claims Liverpool had.  He told The Athletic: “What Liverpool are probably going to do, perhaps with the support of most clubs, is say, ‘This is no longer acceptable’ and, ‘There needs to be radical changes’. I can’t realistically see there is a legal route. But you don’t need a strong case sometimes, you need an arguable case and then you use it to bring about change.

“I can’t see any circumstances where it’s going to result in any changes being made to the fixture because you can’t demonstrate that the game would have been different had that goal counted.”

Hannah Kent, a senior associate in the dispute resolution team at Onside Law, agreed any legal challenge is unlikely to succeed.

She said: “On-field decisions don’t tend to be interfered with after the event. There are very limited exceptions — if there’s been evidence of corruption, for example.

“Their course of action would be to get the official sanctioned or taken off their matches. If Liverpool tried to get the match replayed, which is extremely unlikely and they haven’t called for this, then all sorts of other clubs would try to do the same thing.”

Dev Kumar Parmar, a sports lawyer and principal director at Parmars, suggested Liverpool’s statements were part of a communications strategy designed to “keep the rhetoric going and show they are not taking it lying down”.

Stephen Taylor Heath, co-head of sports law at JWM Solicitors, concurred that Liverpool would find it hard to bring a legal case when it could not definitely be proved that allowing the goal to stand would have changed the result.

By way of comparison, he cited the example of Sheffield United in 2008 when a Football Association arbitration panel ruled the club had been relegated from the Premier League because West Ham United broke the rules when they signed Carlos Tevez.

Liverpool do not want a replay.   What they do want a transparent investigation into the procedural failings so lessons are learned going forward. Their immediate priorities are to establish what form the review will take, who will oversee it and what role the Premier League will play in it. The audio should provide a clearer understanding into how and why Diaz’s goal was disallowed.

They want to know why the decision was taken so quickly and why there was no intervention when the mix-up quickly became apparent.

 

 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Fulham requires big funding from owner

After lengthy delays, Fulham’s shiny, new Riverside Stand has finally opened, creating “a unique Thameside destination with first class facilities for supporters and partners on match days, as well as for the wider community year-round”. This ambitious project has increased Craven Cottage’s capacity by around 4,000 to 29,600, while it has also taken advantage of the club’s fantastic location and wealthy catchment area by including two Michelin star restaurants, a rooftop swimming pool, corporate hospitality and event space, all benefiting from views of the Thames. Chief executive Alistair Mackintosh observed, “Fulham is the sort of club that can have a business class or first class and have fans that turn left on a plane.” Indeed, there is also an exclusive members club – with a football season ticket as an optional extra. It’s fair to say that “the times they are a-changing”, as this is a long way from the traditional pie and a pint. However, in a world where clubs face the tw...

It's no deal say Spurs insiders over Taiwanese takeover

Senior figures at Tottenham Hotspur insisted on Friday that they had not been informed of any deal to sell Daniel Levy’s stake in the club. A business group, Eight Sports Capital — which is said to include a billionaire Taiwanese financier — claimed that it had an agreement in place to buy a 24.99 per cent stake in ENIC, the club’s majority owners, from Levy, who owns 29.88 per cent. The Times has been told Ng Wing Fai and Brooklyn Earick form part of the group, having both been linked previously to potential takeovers of the Premier League club. The Taiwanese businessman, Richard Tsai, is also said to be part of the consortium. He is reportedly worth £7 billion.  Last year Earick, the former DJ and tech entrepreneur, was part of an attempted £4.5 billion takeover, which was “unequivocally rejected” by Spurs.  An ENIC spokesperson said: “We can confirm that neither ENIC nor THFC are aware of any sale by Daniel Levy’s Family Trust of its minority stake in ENIC, THFC’...

Threat of financial calamity removed from Baggies

West Bromwich Albion had effectively been in decline ever since the club was sold to a Chinese consortium in August 2016, paying a figure north of £200m to buy former owner Jeremy Peace’s stake. Controlling shareholder Guochuan Lai’s ownership was fairly disastrous for the club, but his unloved tenure finally came to an end after Bilkul Football WBA, a company ultimately owned by Florida-based entrepreneur Shilen Patel and his father Dr Kiran Patel, acquired an 87.8% shareholding in West Bromwich Albion Group Limited, the parent company of West Bromwich Albion Football Club. This change in ownership was urgently required, due to the numerous financial problems facing West Brom, including growing high-interest debt and serious cash flow concerns, following years of no investment from the former owner. Indeed, West Brom’s auditors had already rung the alarm bell in the 2021/22 accounts when they cast doubt on the club’s ability to continue as a going concern without making player s...