Taip pat tikimasi, kad dabartiniai treneriai išliks ir dirbs kitame sezone.

Taip pat kitais metais DFK „Dainava“ minės klubo 90-metį. Žadama ne tik istoriškai prisiminti tuos metus, bet ir įprasminti šį jubiliejų įvairiais įvykiais.

Po pergalingo sezono DFK „Dainava“ klubas apžvelgė visus metus ir ateities planus
https://dfkdainava.com/2024/11/13/po-pe ... es-planus/

Taip pat tikimasi, kad dabartiniai treneriai išliks ir dirbs kitame sezone.

Taip pat kitais metais DFK „Dainava“ minės klubo 90-metį. Žadama ne tik istoriškai prisiminti tuos metus, bet ir įprasminti šį jubiliejų įvairiais įvykiais.

Ir ką bendro turi Lietuvos Šaulių sąjungos futbolo komanda, sovietinis elmentas, III kartos dainava, IV kartos dainava ir DFK??? Aišku visiems stebuklingu būdu gaunasi lygiai 90.

Čia Makenziui:

16. To that end, the Single Judge would first like to refer to the decisions that had dealt with the question of the succession of a sporting club in front of the CAS and in front of FIFA’s decision-making bodies which have established that, on the one side, a club is a sporting entity identifiable by itself that, as a general rule, transcends the legal entities which operate it. Thus the obligations acquired by any of the entities in charge of its administration in relation with its activity must be respected; and on the other side, that the identity of a club is constituted by elements such as its name, colours, fans, history, sporting achievements, shield, trophies, stadium, roster of players, historic figures, etc. that allow it to distinguish from all the other clubs. Hence, the prevalence of the continuity and permanence in time of the sporting institution in front of the entity that manages it has been recognized, even when dealing with the change of management completely different from themselves (CAS 2013/A/3425).

17. In these circumstances, CAS already considered that a “new” club had to be considered as the “sporting successor” of another one in a situation where a) the “new” club created the impression that it wanted to be legally bound by obligations of its predecessor, i.e. the “old” club, b) the “new” club took over the license or federative rights from the “old” club and c) the competent federation treated the two clubs as successors of one another. By the same token a “sporting succession” is the result of the fact that 1) a new entity was set up with the specific purpose of continuing the exact same activities as the old entity, 2) the “new” club accepted certain liabilities of the “old” club, 3) after the acquisition of the assets of the “old” club, the “new” club remained in the same city and 4) the “new” club took over the license or federative rights from the ”old” club.

18. Further, the issue of the succession of two sporting clubs might be different than if one were to apply civil law, regarding the succession of two separate legal entities. “A sporting entity identifiable by itself that, as a general rule, transcends the legal entities which operate it”. Consequently, elements to consider are amongst others the name, the logo and colours, the registration address and/or the managing board of the club.

19.For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge wishes to point out that this established jurisprudence from CAS has now been reflected in the 2019 FDC, under art. 15 par. 4, which states that “The sporting successor of a non-compliant party shall also be considered a non-compliant party and thus subject to the obligations under this provision. Criteria to assess whether an entity is to be considered as the sporting successor of another entity are, among others, its headquarters, name, legal form, team colours, players, shareholders or stakeholders or ownership and the category of competition concerned”