Written reasons published into Blackburn Rovers' failed EFL appeal

The EFL board rejected the application on the grounds that paperwork had been submitted late, with William Norris KC, the sole arbitrator, upholding that decision.

Summing up the case, Mr Norris KC said: “For all the foregoing reasons, I consider that the Appeal must fail, unfortunate though the consequences are for the Club and, perhaps more seriously, for the Player in question.

“But I am afraid the reality is that somebody failed to upload the documents in time, which may be understandable in the particular circumstances faced by the Player and the Club’s officials as the 23:00 deadline passed and the 23:15 long stop time approached, but it is not a sufficient excuse.”

The background to the case outlines that while Rovers accept required documentation was sent through after the 11pm deadline on Tuesday, January 31, the club argued it had instigated the ‘quick application’ process before 11pm, and that the EFL were wrong to impose a strict 11.15pm cut-off point for the supporting documents.

The ‘quick application’ process was introduced in January 2018 to assist club secretaries, effectively granting a 15-minute extension for all documents to be uploaded to the iFas digital system, but only if the relevant transfer forms are submitted from 10.45pm and before the 11pm cut-off.

Rovers, the claimant in the case, argued the EFL were wrong to regard 11:15pm as a ‘hard deadline’ in the same way as the 11pm deadline.

The EFL's case was that the fact Rovers’ supplementary documentation didn’t arrive until 11:28pm could not be regarded as coming ‘immediately following’ either 11pm or 11.15pm.

Within the document came an agreed chronology of the events of January 31.

Mr Norris KC concluded 'the real issue' at hand focused on the Guidance to Regulation 44.8 and legal status of the wording within it.

The EFL board’s decision to not grant the initial application came after a hearing on February 14. 

That decision was reached as they disagreed with Rovers’ claim that the term ‘immediately following’ should have afforded the club some ‘latitude’.

The board stated: “The context had been clarified to all Clubs in clear and simple terms which were well understood by all Clubs. BRFC had reasonable opportunity to provide its evidence in support of its position but on both the Loan Transfer and the Permanent Transfer these applications were submitted late.”

Rovers’ said in their submissions that delays of 30 minutes were caused by communication with the EFL in respect of the loan transfer.

However the EFL said it was considered ‘in a timely manner’ and that the club ‘had failed to submit the playing contract, which was to form part of the Deed' and was requested.

They added that a resolution regarding an amendment that was contested by the club was reached over an hour before the deadline.

Rovers also raised the issue of their FA Cup replay against Birmingham City, which clashed with deadline day, put them at ‘a disadvantage’ and ‘senior executives of the club were at the FA Cup replay and delayed due to traffic’.

The EFL board concluded that Rovers’ game was one of five played on the night and that ‘The BRFC executives had a choice: (1) to make themselves available to assist with transfer or (2) attend the FA Cup replay.’

The replay was also said to have impacted on Rovers’ ability to carry out a medical, but the board judged that ‘BRFC had enough time to arrange more medical staff to be at the training facility rather than the FA Cup replay (if required). That is a matter solely within the control of the Club.’

The board also said ‘the Club should have considered where their Club Secretarial Team were best situated on deadline day. This isn’t a reason for any discretion to be applied in this case.’

That was in response to Rovers’ point that O’Brien’s loan agreement received late due to the player being at their Brockhall training centre, and secretarial team being in the offices at Ewood Park.

Another of Rovers’ submissions was the complexity of the deal with regards to O’Brien, an initial loan transfer with the option to make it permanent should they win promotion to the Premier League.

However, the board concluded: “BRFC had the benefit of the ‘Quick Application’ process, to enable it to upload and submit the registration form before 23:00, with fully executed document to follow immediately before 23:15 and the evidence is clear that BRFC failed to do so until 23:28 (some 13 minutes after the deadline has passed).

"Further, the Loan Agreement (a required document for the registration to proceed), was in the Club’s own case, not signed by LO’B until after the 23:00 deadline. As such, this was not a reason for any discretion to be applied in this case.”

Rovers last bid to get the deal ratified was at an independent arbitration hearing where they were represented by Kendrah Potts, instructed by Centrefield LLP.

That was held on Friday, February 24.

The club’s case was that the 11:15pm cut-off ‘was not a deadline at all, but an arbitrary figure that had no such status according to the Regulations’, and should not have been applied by the EFL board.

Ms Potts submitted: “The EFL will no doubt argue that BRFC’s appeal amounts to a distinction without a difference. However, that would be wrong.

“There is a significant difference between approaching the time of 23:15 as a hard deadline and asking whether the EFL Executive and Board should exercise a discretion to permit a late application, in which case it is to be expected that there is a high threshold to exercise the discretion; and asking whether the Quick Application process was made before the hard deadline of 23.00 and whether other relevant documents were sent immediately following the deadline.

“BRFC is merely asking the EFL Executive and Board properly to construe and apply its Regulations.”

In response, the EFL argued that while the ‘strict deadline’ was 11pm, the 11:15pm timeframe was ‘was legitimate and helpful guidance’ and ‘the Board and the Executive were entitled to treat it in the way they did’.

Summing up the case, Mr Norris KC said: “In my view, the Board was entitled to approach matters as it did and was also entitled to decide not to exercise its discretion in the Club’s favour.”

Rovers said in a statement: “The club is bitterly disappointed by the outcome, but now accepts the decision.”

A decision over the awarding of costs will be made in due course.