Postby Rambo the randy pig » Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:40 am
I actually have a massive problem with the inclusion of the term "Good faith" within the context of the FL rules (3.4).
I can understand the intent of the rule drafters to include a "Catch all" to prevent the sort of cheating that would undermine the entire spirit of the game but I tend to think that introducing the doctrine of good faith was likely to cause, as it is now causing, more trouble in the event of an alleged breach than the wrong to was seeking to prevent.
I have to say that my experience with good faith is in a contractual sense. It is written into contracts as an expression that the parties will act in an honest and forthright manner within the performance of the contract. Of course a properly worded contract shouldn't need this however a "catch all" clause is always useful for either party to claim a breach of the contact but in many cases is left to interpretation as to what a breach of good faith could be. It is somewhat easy in a contractual sense as interpretation can be assisted by the specifics of the contract.
It could be said that the FL rules form part of the contract under which clubs play within their competition. All clubs subscribe to those rules so is there anything else within those rules that would assist in the interpretation of good faith.
The FL have referred to 21.2.1 whereby clubs undertake not to bring the League or any club into disrepute. Not much help there in interpretation as again what would bring the League or any Club into disrepute is open to interpretation. I believe the FL is looking at whether we have contravened 21.2.1, I think that we could be said to have brought the League into disrepute by the amount of press coverage but that charge, in my opinion, hangs on whether we have breached the good faith principle. If we've done nothing wrong then no amount of negative press coverage of the FL can be laid at our door. It's merely the desire for sensationalism within the media. I believe, therefore, that any breach on 21.2.1 hangs on any breach of 3.4
Regulation 3 deals with membership of the League. I won't repeat any of it here suffice to say that nothing within that regulation assists in the interpretation of good faith. There is a specific rule against belittling other clubs or disclosing financial information about other clubs. If I were looking at regulation 3.4 outside of the current situation I would tend to interpret it as not dealing with other clubs in a genuine manner to the belittlement or detriment of the game or to take a deliberate action tot he detriment of another club.
So we are back to a definition of good faith. Generally dealing with another party in an honest, fair and forthright manner. How do we interpret good faith in a sporting situation. Is it easier to look at examples of bad faith. Turning off the heating/hot water in the opposition dressing room is the one that immediately springs to mind but almost every action by a team or manager before and during the course of a game that seeks to take advantage of a situation to the detriment of the opponent would be a breach of good faith. All gamesmanship by a manager who seeks a tactical advantage is dishonest at it's heart. Signalling to a player to pretend he's injured to waste time or carry instructions on to the pitch - clearly a breach of good faith if we applying this definition.
I agree with Yeboah that the FL can't define each and every wrong that a club could do hence a catch all clause but a catch all with such a wide definition? Is a breach of good faith the same as cheating? Cheating would certainly be an example of a breach of good faith but probably not the only one. As such every club probably breaches 3.4 every game.
Have we overstepped the boundary of the doctrine of good faith. I think not. If it's correct that an club employee has watched training session from public land have the club been dishonest. No. Is it unfair. No. Anyone else could have done it. Any club could seek to do the same if possible. The fact that some clubs have more secure facilities doesn't equate to fairness. Have we sought an advantage. Yes. If such an advantage was sought by underhand means then I would say it was a breach of good faith. Infiltrating the training ground would be such a breach. There is no suggestion this has been done although the other clubs' letter to the FL suggests this is what they are looking for evidence of.
Our actions were not to the detriment of any other club save as a means to assist in winning a football match.
I would submit we have sought an advantage but not through any unfair or underhand means and therefore have not failed to act in good faith to other club and have breached regulation 3.4. Accordingly for the reasons stated before we have not breached regulation 21.2.1 either.
