Jump to content

SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )


Heres Rixxy

Recommended Posts

davemclaren
8 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

I'm always amazed at posters willingness to state as absolute fact things they clearly don't know for sure.

 

The idea that releasing the partial vote result makes the vote legally illegitimate is a good example. Based on reporting the vote appears to be a mechanism for executing a written resolution of members. It would be perfectly normal in signing a written resolution for the member of a business to know who else had signed it before you. There might be rules stipulating that this won't happen, but those without access to those rules stating as fact  that it would be easy to challenge the outcome on the basis of partial results being released don't know what they are talking about.

 

The question of whether the Dundee vote was properly recieved may also be more complicated than it first appears. I read through a long email from our in house lawyer yesterday detailing the steps we needed to take and software we needed to use to electronically signed document. This was based on guidance issued by the Law Society of Scotland. It is possible that the SPFL had stipulated a process for confirming your vote and that Dundee either haven't followed this or made a mistake whilst doing so. This might explain the slightly odd suggestion that the "competence" of the Dundee vote was being questioned.

 

There is lots of uncertainty for those of us looking in from the outside of this process. Probably easiest to just learn to live with that. It will resolve itself in a few days as the outcome of the vote is confirmed and members then decide whether to challenge the outcome. Those confidently asserting that already know what the result of a legal challenge would be are wrong.

I think you are right in that the Dundee vote should be cast one way or other over the weekend and, if required, the Legal people of Hearts and Rangers will look at it to understand what options, if any, there are. It’s certainly been a more interesting process than anticipated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mikey1874

    2099

  • Pasquale for King

    1723

  • Ethan Hunt

    1598

  • Beast Boy

    1415

Hungry hippo

Even if they somehow get this proposal through there will be a lot more pressure on the SPFL to seriously look at urgent league reconstruction.

 

16 team league is a complete non-starter as will never get enough votes but 14 is and would still improve opportunities for progression for Dundee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheBigO said:

I know youre not asking me but I've thought about this a fair bit and I'd love to think no matter where we're in the league or anyone else was, that my opinion that this proposal stinks wouldnt waiver. And, aunty n baws as it may be, I'd have loved Hearts to be the team in a position to pish on it.


Do you genuinely think that that would be the case though if we where 11th? 
Would you then accuse the club of taking Celtics boaby? A ridiculous analogy(pardon the pun).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Some reports suggest Dundee did vote but it wasn't received. If Budge was told by ICT Partick and Dundee reps they were voting against then she had every right to be confident.

No wriggle room there at all to be confident.

Somebody's been having her on.

My money is on her pal at ER.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NaturalOrder74
1 minute ago, Hungry hippo said:

Even if they somehow get this proposal through there will be a lot more pressure on the SPFL to seriously look at urgent league reconstruction.

 

16 team league is a complete non-starter as will never get enough votes but 14 is and would still improve opportunities for progression for Dundee.

 

They may as well push for 16 why not ? worst that can happen is they just say no to the proposal and expose all the wrong doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

Ann has just realised the level of corruption exist. Some clearly changed their minds. When they all had the same info? And were against it. So what happened in the last minute for the bankers to change their minds? And why is the whole league trying so hard to screw us over?


I did think after the Vlad era, when a reputable Scottish business woman took over Hearts that we would get a bit of slack cut our way from the SPFL and media.........🙈

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

Basically :laugh:

 

Hearts and Rangers are now in a predicament whether to release statements absolutely trashing the SPFL and the vote, or keep their powder dry. Tomorrow might be even more mental. 

We now have to wait on Gordon Strachans, Paul McGowans, Conor Hazards Dundee voting to save us hahahaha. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hungry hippo said:

Even if they somehow get this proposal through there will be a lot more pressure on the SPFL to seriously look at urgent league reconstruction.

 

16 team league is a complete non-starter as will never get enough votes but 14 is and would still improve opportunities for progression for Dundee.


No there won’t.  The Prem clubs all voted it through apart from us and Rangers.  Why would they then want league reconstruction.  Maybe if one or two others voted against there would be a chance.  Nobody in the top league including Rangers would vote that through.  It would be us and that’s all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pasquale for King
13 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

I reckon they want a 16 team league. 

It’s the only way they’re coming up this summer, stay down and it’s playoffs at best again next season really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pasquale for King said:

It’s the only way they’re coming up this summer, stay down and it’s playoffs at best again next season really.


And it’s never going to happen.  Result today is a disaster for the club.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s clearly more to come on subject of Dundee vote. If it was sent, what original vote was, why it was rejected (if it was - this “technical issue” thing), status of abstentions if they don’t re-submit. All sorts of things.

 

It’s already messy but looks like it’s maybe going to get a whole lot messier. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, luckydug said:

No wriggle room there at all to be confident.

Somebody's been having her on.

My money is on her pal at ER.


Her cosy relationship with Dempster certainly back fired on her!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Last Laff said:


Do you genuinely think that that would be the case though if we where 11th? 
Would you then accuse the club of taking Celtics boaby? A ridiculous analogy(pardon the pun).

WTF has that got to do with our case  ?

You should give up the devils advocate routine before folk get doubts about you. 

Who's side are  you on  ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

annushorribilis III
17 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

I'm always amazed at posters willingness to state as absolute fact things they clearly don't know for sure.

 

The idea that releasing the partial vote result makes the vote legally illegitimate is a good example. Based on reporting the vote appears to be a mechanism for executing a written resolution of members. It would be perfectly normal in signing a written resolution for the member of a business to know who else had signed it before you. There might be rules stipulating that this won't happen, but those without access to those rules stating as fact  that it would be easy to challenge the outcome on the basis of partial results being released don't know what they are talking about.

 

The question of whether the Dundee vote was properly recieved may also be more complicated than it first appears. I read through a long email from our in house lawyer yesterday detailing the steps we needed to take and software we needed to use to electronically signed document. This was based on guidance issued by the Law Society of Scotland. It is possible that the SPFL had stipulated a process for confirming your vote and that Dundee either haven't followed this or made a mistake whilst doing so. This might explain the slightly odd suggestion that the "competence" of the Dundee vote was being questioned.

 

There is lots of uncertainty for those of us looking in from the outside of this process. Probably easiest to just learn to live with that. It will resolve itself in a few days as the outcome of the vote is confirmed and members then decide whether to challenge the outcome. Those confidently asserting that already know what the result of a legal challenge would be are wrong.

In that particular instance , what happens if you fail to follow due process - is your vote "spoiled"  or invalid , in effect ?

 

I appreciate your experience may not mirror the SPFL "process" but I am struggling with the idea that DFC were told what the process is (presumably) and didn't comply (for whatever reason) - but then get ANOTHER vote ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd really like a 16 or 18 team league. 

 

14 is just more of the same. I would take it over the current 12 though. Just one more disaster away from actual change :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pasquale for King
Just now, Last Laff said:


And it’s never going to happen.  Result today is a disaster for the club.  

You can’t know that for certain, nobody knows what the future holds. Reconstruction might just happen if clubs fold. 
Today’s was a disaster for us though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheGoodLord
11 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

I'm always amazed at posters willingness to state as absolute fact things they clearly don't know for sure.

 

The idea that releasing the partial vote result makes the vote legally illegitimate is a good example. Based on reporting the vote appears to be a mechanism for executing a written resolution of members. It would be perfectly normal in signing a written resolution for the member of a business to know who else had signed it before you. There might be rules stipulating that this won't happen, but those without access to those rules stating as fact  that it would be easy to challenge the outcome on the basis of partial results being released don't know what they are talking about.

 

The question of whether the Dundee vote was properly recieved may also be more complicated than it first appears. I read through a long email from our in house lawyer yesterday detailing the steps we needed to take and software we needed to use to electronically signed document. This was based on guidance issued by the Law Society of Scotland. It is possible that the SPFL had stipulated a process for confirming your vote and that Dundee either haven't followed this or made a mistake whilst doing so. This might explain the slightly odd suggestion that the "competence" of the Dundee vote was being questioned.

 

There is lots of uncertainty for those of us looking in from the outside of this process. Probably easiest to just learn to live with that. It will resolve itself in a few days as the outcome of the vote is confirmed and members then decide whether to challenge the outcome. Those confidently asserting that already know what the result of a legal challenge would be are wrong.

 

Do we think the SPFL during the single biggest decision of its life just sat and waited till 5pm and then checked it’s inbox to see who had replied?  Pretty sure it would have been sending reminders to any club who had not replied at least every 15mins. If Dundee did send a reply which had not been received pretty sure they’d have been chased by SPFL and it would have been fixed. All sounds highly unlikely it’s been sent but not received, Virtually impossible for there not to be record of it at least having been sent. Somebody is at it. 

 

 

 

3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, busby1985 said:

We now have to wait on Gordon Strachans, Paul McGowans, Conor Hazards Dundee voting to save us hahahaha. 


Does James McPake get a say? 🙈

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, annushorribilis III said:

In that particular instance , what happens if you fail to follow due process - is your vote "spoiled"  or invalid , in effect ?

 

I appreciate your experience may not mirror the SPFL "process" but I am struggling with the idea that DFC were told what the process is (presumably) and didn't comply (for whatever reason) - but then get ANOTHER vote ? 

 

That's an excellent point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Saughton Jambo said:

Budgie needs to cease with the vermin dumpster love in. It’s becoming embarrassing and it’s only her that can’t see it. Wake up and listen to fans please Ann? We’ve known all along that rats will always be rats 


amen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Cruickshank for Scotland said:


Does James McPake get a say? 🙈

Probably more so than Berra, Hamilton, McGee and Callachan, sadly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
13 minutes ago, Last Laff said:


No honest answer then? 

My honest answer is to declare things null and void. This shitshow shouldn't be happening in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pasquale for King
1 minute ago, busby1985 said:

Probably more so than Berra, Hamilton, McGee and Callachan, sadly. 

Not sure if any of those four rejects would back us either to be honest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Last Laff said:


No there won’t.  The Prem clubs all voted it through apart from us and Rangers.  Why would they then want league reconstruction.  Maybe if one or two others voted against there would be a chance.  Nobody in the top league including Rangers would vote that through.  It would be us and that’s all. 

I agree we have no chance on league reconstruction no matter what Dundee vote its just a matter of time before we are done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saint Jambo
2 minutes ago, annushorribilis III said:

In that particular instance , what happens if you fail to follow due process - is your vote "spoiled"  or invalid , in effect ?

 

I appreciate your experience may not mirror the SPFL "process" but I am struggling with the idea that DFC were told what the process is (presumably) and didn't comply (for whatever reason) - but then get ANOTHER vote ? 

 

In the case of my work, if you didn't properly sign a document, as long as no deadlines for signatures had past, there would be nothing to stop you signing the document.

 

If that analogy is applied to the SPFL vote, if you submitted something that didn't meet the legal requirements for a valid vote, it would be as if you had not voted. As long as the deadline for voting hasn't passed (and it appears not to have done) then there wouldbe nothing to stop Dundee from submitting a valid vote before the deadline.

 

But as I say, I don't have enough information to say this is actually what has happened, merely that it isn't as black and white as some people are suggesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

annushorribilis III
5 minutes ago, TheGoodLord said:

 

Do we think the SPFL during the single biggest decision of its life just sat and waited till 5pm and then checked it’s inbox to see who had replied?  Pretty sure it would have been sending reminders to any club who had not replied at least every 15mins. If Dundee did send a reply which had not been received pretty sure they’d have been chased by SPFL and it would have been fixed. All sounds highly unlikely it’s been sent but not received, Virtually impossible for there not to be record of it at least having been sent. Somebody is at it. 

 

 

 

3

Pretty much what I've been saying. It beggars belief.

NB The SPFL never said they didn't received it . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

My honest answer is to declare things null and void. This shitshow shouldn't be happening in the first place.

This is what it all boils down to. If Rangers were 4 points clear with 24 to play for, Celtic wouldn’t accept the league being called, they’d want it null and void. We are perusing this route because Celtic are chasing 9 in a row and potentially 10 in a row. The SPFL will dress it up as protecting the game from the lose in money due to unfulfilled fixtures and having to pay back sponsors and broadcasters etx. That’s total nonsense and a smoke screen. This is an exercise in protecting 10 in a row. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
1 minute ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

In the case of my work, if you didn't properly sign a document, as long as no deadlines for signatures had past, there would be nothing to stop you signing the document.

 

If that analogy is applied to the SPFL vote, if you submitted something that didn't meet the legal requirements for a valid vote, it would be as if you had not voted. As long as the deadline for voting hasn't passed (and it appears not to have done) then there wouldbe nothing to stop Dundee from submitting a valid vote before the deadline.

 

But as I say, I don't have enough information to say this is actually what has happened, merely that it isn't as black and white as some people are suggesting.

And that's fair. What isn't fair is the subsequent "discussions" over Dundee's vote after effectively saying they have the casting vote. That is corrupt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

annushorribilis III
1 minute ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

In the case of my work, if you didn't properly sign a document, as long as no deadlines for signatures had past, there would be nothing to stop you signing the document.

 

If that analogy is applied to the SPFL vote, if you submitted something that didn't meet the legal requirements for a valid vote, it would be as if you had not voted. As long as the deadline for voting hasn't passed (and it appears not to have done) then there wouldbe nothing to stop Dundee from submitting a valid vote before the deadline.

 

But as I say, I don't have enough information to say this is actually what has happened, merely that it isn't as black and white as some people are suggesting.

Sure : I was trying to understand what happens in electronic ballots (or whatever the process is called) where the voter doesn't follow due process. 

 

 

Cheers for the response. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

annushorribilis III
1 minute ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

And that's fair. What isn't fair is the subsequent "discussions" over Dundee's vote after effectively saying they have the casting vote. That is corrupt.

Agreed. All that is required is for DFC to correct their failings and make their vote valid (on the basis the deadline hasn't closed) - which should take minutes to do.  Presumably the SPFL already know DFCs voting intention. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fozzyonthefence
8 minutes ago, busby1985 said:

This is what it all boils down to. If Rangers were 4 points clear with 24 to play for, Celtic wouldn’t accept the league being called, they’d want it null and void. We are perusing this route because Celtic are chasing 9 in a row and potentially 10 in a row. The SPFL will dress it up as protecting the game from the lose in money due to unfulfilled fixtures and having to pay back sponsors and broadcasters etx. That’s total nonsense and a smoke screen. This is an exercise in protecting 10 in a row. 


Won’t they have to pay back sponsors and broadcasters for non fulfilment of fixtures anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
1 minute ago, Fozzyonthefence said:


Won’t they have to pay back sponsors and broadcasters for non fulfilment of fixtures anyway?

Who knows? They've probably never heard of "force majeure" at Hampden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fozzyonthefence said:


Won’t they have to pay back sponsors and broadcasters for non fulfilment of fixtures anyway?

Yeah, sorry I should’ve made my point better. They have to pay back the broadcaster or will have to fight off the broadcasters anyway so no idea why they have referenced this as a reason to vote to end the league early. They’ve only used it as another weapon in the arsenal to pile on the pressure to clubs. It all boils down to

protecting 10 in a row. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saint Jambo
3 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

And that's fair. What isn't fair is the subsequent "discussions" over Dundee's vote after effectively saying they have the casting vote. That is corrupt.

 

Totally agree. Whether it breaks the SPFL rules or the law though is probably in doubt. I'd imagine the SPFL will try to claim that they are just trying to provide existing information to ensure Dundee are able to make an informed decision, in the same way they would for any club that asked a question ahead of voting. But they'd probably put themselves in murkier water if it could be shown that something material had been changed as a result of these discussions, something that hadn't been disclosed to other teams before voting.

 

Tom English raised the prospect that if the clubs rejected the proposal, the SPFL might just bring it back again in a slightly different form. One possibility is that Dundee vote against the current proposal but in the discussions have told the SPFL what they require for them to vote for a slightly amended proposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Who knows? They've probably never heard of "force majeure" at Hampden.

they would try and fine us the amount so their darlings didn't lose out financially

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like Dundee have effectively, ‘spoiled’ their ballot paper, thus their vote is effectively ‘null and void’! Therefore there is no need for Dundee to do anything else. I’m sure if it had been a ‘spoiled’ yes vote the SPFL would have counted it!

 

Dungcaster - cesspit - corruption - pigs - trough 

Edited by Jambo-Fox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pasquale for King
3 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Who knows? They've probably never heard of "force majeure" at Hampden.

Forced MANURE is what the Scotland team has produced for the majority of this century. Long may it continue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

Forced MANURE is what the Scotland team has produced for the majority of this century. Long may it continue. 

😂 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
3 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

Totally agree. Whether it breaks the SPFL rules or the law though is probably in doubt. I'd imagine the SPFL will try to claim that they are just trying to provide existing information to ensure Dundee are able to make an informed decision, in the same way they would for any club that asked a question ahead of voting. But they'd probably put themselves in murkier water if it could be shown that something material had been changed as a result of these discussions, something that hadn't been disclosed to other teams before voting.

 

Tom English raised the prospect that if the clubs rejected the proposal, the SPFL might just bring it back again in a slightly different form. One possibility is that Dundee vote against the current proposal but in the discussions have told the SPFL what they require for them to vote for a slightly amended proposal.

If the last paragraph is true then the clubs should be saying give us the fookin money while the proposal is recast. Get the bribery away from this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kirky Jambo
15 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

In the case of my work, if you didn't properly sign a document, as long as no deadlines for signatures had past, there would be nothing to stop you signing the document.

 

If that analogy is applied to the SPFL vote, if you submitted something that didn't meet the legal requirements for a valid vote, it would be as if you had not voted. As long as the deadline for voting hasn't passed (and it appears not to have done) then there wouldbe nothing to stop Dundee from submitting a valid vote before the deadline.

 

But as I say, I don't have enough information to say this is actually what has happened, merely that it isn't as black and white as some people are suggesting.


Legally speaking I’m sure they will be able to find a way of explaining it away and will have that covered already.

 

But it is so clearly corrupt. And also ridiculous when you consider what’s at stake for some clubs 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

The saddest part of this whole vote is that no one is surprised. Any other league would create so much seethe whereas fans of Scottish football are used to hopelessness from the beaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

If the last paragraph is true then the clubs should be saying give us the fookin money while the proposal is recast. Get the bribery away from this situation.

possibly one problem with this is rangers raised a proposal about giving clubs money without declaring the season but the spfl said their lawyers said it was unworkable or some other nonsense. so it might not work

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

The saddest part of this whole vote is that no one is surprised. Any other league would create so much seethe whereas fans of Scottish football are used to hopelessness from the beaks.

it is like battered wife syndrome, we knew what was going to happen and almost just accepted it was going to happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
Just now, milky_26 said:

possibly one problem with this is rangers raised a proposal about giving clubs money without declaring the season but the spfl said their lawyers said it was unworkable or some other nonsense. so it might not work

You don't need to be a mathematician to pay out 6th place money for teams guaranteed Top 6 and 12th place for the others. It is a sliding scale. Likewise, you know the minimum place a team will finish down the leagues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saint Jambo
3 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

If the last paragraph is true then the clubs should be saying give us the fookin money while the proposal is recast. Get the bribery away from this situation.

 

Yes. Hopefully Rangers will find a way of recasting their proposal to distribute funding that the SPFL exec can't reject and are forced to put to a vote. Although that vote might fail. Some teams that have a vested interest in ending the season as is (Celtic, St Mirren, Motherwell, Hamilton, Roos County) might vote against distribution to keep the pressure up on the lower leagues to force through this stitch up.

 

3 minutes ago, everton_jambo said:


Legally speaking I’m sure they will be able to find a way of explaining it away and will have that covered already.

 

But it is so clearly corrupt. And also ridiculous when you consider what’s at stake for some clubs 

 

Totally agree. But earlier in the thread some posters were very confidently telling us that Hearts would easily won a legal challenge against the result of the vote if Dundee voted in favour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
1 minute ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

Yes. Hopefully Rangers will find a way of recasting their proposal to distribute funding that the SPFL exec can't reject and are forced to put to a vote. Although that vote might fail. Some teams that have a vested interest in ending the season as is (Celtic, St Mirren, Motherwell, Hamilton, Roos County) might vote against distribution to keep the pressure up on the lower leagues to force through this stitch up.

 

Totally agree. But earlier in the thread some posters were very confidently telling us that Hearts would easily won a legal challenge against the result of the vote if Dundee voted in favour.

I think Scot Gardiner will be an interesting witness in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Dundee's vote changes I want Hearts to go ****ing nuts. 

 

Sue the SPFL. Sue Doncaster.. **** take his hoose. I want the lot. Specky shite haircut crooked prick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

You don't need to be a mathematician to pay out 6th place money for teams guaranteed Top 6 and 12th place for the others. It is a sliding scale. Likewise, you know the minimum place a team will finish down the leagues.

i posted earlier to just at least give every team the payment that the 12th placed team would get but according to the spfl that is unworkable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OTT said:

If Dundee's vote changes I want Hearts to go ****ing nuts. 

 

Sue the SPFL. Sue Doncaster.. **** take his hoose. I want the lot. Specky shite haircut crooked prick. 

i would hope it would bring down both doncaster and lawell making them unable to be on the board of any company for x years. it would be justice for the corruption they have led for feckin years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • jkbmod 9 changed the title to SPFL declare league (2019/20) due to Covid (Arbitration panel upholds SPFL decision )
  • davemclaren changed the title to SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...