The Veres club has expressed concern over the absence of a final decision from the Disciplinary Committee (DC) of the Ukrainian Football Association (UAF) regarding the UPL championship match between Metalist 1925 and Veres, which was prematurely halted due to lighting issues. It is worth noting that yesterday, DC members postponed the consideration of this case for the second time.
This is reported by Rivne24
Veres club’s lawyer, Yuriy Yurchenko, shared details about the committee’s meeting.
– Mr. Yuriy, was a decision made at yesterday’s DC meeting?
– Unfortunately, no substantive decision was made again. The DC members decided to postpone the consideration of the case due to the need to involve independent experts for additional examination of the materials. This position, to put it mildly, surprises us.
– Why does such a position from the DC surprise you?
– Our club provided two expert opinions from the Kyiv and Rivne Chambers of Commerce and Industry, confirming that the power supply issues at the stadium in Zhytomyr on December 7 are not force majeure. In other words, the DC already has official confirmations from institutions that have the exclusive right to determine the presence of force majeure. This is a fact we have proven, and it is the only proper evidence from an independent institution.
However, a final decision regarding the match has still not been made. The conclusions from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry serve as a basis for decision-making in all judicial instances, but for some reason, they are not sufficient for the UAF DC. It gives the impression that our arguments and evidence are simply being ignored, which is not in favor of Metalist 1925.
We are concerned that this issue is being postponed for the second time, raising doubts about the objectivity of the approach to the evidence from Veres and Metalist 1925. The Ukrainian law “On Chambers of Commerce and Industry” clearly states that only the CCI confirms the presence or absence of force majeure circumstances, and no one else can replace this. The DC has questioned the independence of the CCI’s conclusions, which is nonsensical.
– What do you understand by the term “independent expertise”? How should this be conducted?
– We do not understand which independent experts are being referred to, given that the only authorized institutions – the CCIs – have provided a clear conclusion that there is no force majeure. Who will hire these independent experts and how will their qualifications be confirmed? What is their independence compared to the CCIs? There is already all the confirmation that the organizers did not ensure proper power supply to the stadium. All of this appears to be an attempt to circumvent the existing Regulations in favor of Metalist 1925.
In fact, this is an attempt not to adhere to the Regulations when resolving the case and to justify non-compliance. Why agree to play under conditions of war if later one refers to the war as force majeure? It was precisely with regard to football in wartime that changes were made to the competition Regulations, requiring the host club to take all necessary measures to ensure proper conditions for the match.
The People’s Club Veres continues to uphold the position that the match on December 7 did not take place due to the fault of the organizers, who did not prepare the venue for the match. The Regulations are strict, but they should be the same for everyone.