The biggest difference in all of this is
LAW ie enforceable by a court process
RULES ie enforceable by the ruling committee of a members only club
By law the FL can do nothing to prevent SLH selling SFC to whoever it likes, but it can prevent SFC being a member of its league according to its own rules.
However back to the start of the thread I take no one is ever allowed to change their viewpoint? Thats exactly what we're asking the FL to do, to allow a reexamination of the facts but probably from a LAW point of view rather than a moralistic interpretation of the RULES ,just a review which follows the actual wording of the RULES
So what if people laughed at Leeds, Brighton, Cherries the world and its political climate moves on.
The biggest difference in all of this is LAW ie enforceable by a court process RULES ie enforceable by the ruling committee of a members only club By law the FL can do nothing to prevent SLH selling SFC to whoever it likes, but it can prevent SFC being a member of its league according to its own rules. However back to the start of the thread I take no one is ever allowed to change their viewpoint? Thats exactly what we're asking the FL to do, to allow a reexamination of the facts but probably from a LAW point of view rather than a moralistic interpretation of the RULES ,just a review which follows the actual wording of the RULES So what if people laughed at Leeds, Brighton, Cherries the world and its political climate moves on.