SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Aussie Jambo]

46 minutes ago, indianajones said:

Shitebags needs to stop posting. 

Correct. Nae need. 

 

 

[colinmaroon]

1 hour ago, ramrod said:

Reading between the lines it looks like our case is pretty weak and we've little hope of a win . 

Best case senario looks to be it getting referred to arbitration by the SFA which is a slam dunk . 

 

 

I always prefer reading the actual lines.

 

Tomorrow is another day. 

 

[NANOJAMBO]

2 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

The judge appeared to give short shrift to this line of attack and immediately interjected to ask about the SPFL role in reconstruction discussions.

 

We need to remember that today’s hearing lasted 240 minutes and over 200 were spent attacking our case.  As far as I can see they didn’t land any knockout blows on us and we effectively have a clear run to come back tomorrow with the benefit of a little bit of hindsight now that DU/RR/CR and SPFL have made their submissions.  We now have 24 hours to counter their line of attack.

 

I think we need to be stronger in presenting our argument of unfair prejudice and provide clarification on what article 99 means.  I also have doubts about whether arguing that the wrong case was made in the Fulham case is wise.

 

The most important thing will be hammering home the message that this is a case based on company law and restraint of trade not a football dispute.  

Right then, I thought "this guy knows his stuff" and I think it took Boland (sp?) aback when he demonstrated he knew what had been going on. 

 

I'm looking forward to Thonson putting Hearts case tomorrow.  Lots more to come on that, I'm sure, that will take us out of the "football" realm and into the world of big business. 

[David McCaig]

1 minute ago, Rods said:

 

Hope so mate

 

I did listen to today and it maybe knocked my confidence on us getting anywhere.

I get that...but as I say it was basically 3.5 hours of opposing QCs saying we had no case.

[RobNox]

23 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

well he is a graduate of Glasgow and Strathclyde universities and became a lecturer before becoming a judge

 

Glasgow Uni campus isn't that far from Maryhill, perhaps he supported the Jags in his student days.

[NANOJAMBO]

1 minute ago, David McCaig said:

It did seem a strange line of argument though.  The only material effect it could possibly have would be to mind the judge to consider this a non-football dispute, which removes the threat of any subsequent sanctions.

Agreed. I wasn't sure of his point but I didn't think at the time it was meant as a threat (time will tell, clearly). 

[kingantti1874]

34 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

 

 

David M. Thomson Q.C.

 

Year of Call: 2004

Year of Silk: 2017

Axiom Advocates

[email protected]

0131 226 5071

View Stable Profile

David M. Thomson Q.C.

2675

Share this profile Print this profile

 

Qualifications

LL.B (Hons) University of Glasgow

Dip LP University of Glasgow

Special interests

Bankruptcy & Insolvency

Company and commercial

Land Law

Professional liability and regulation

Clerks

Stable telephone number

0131 260 5656

Lesley Flynn

Catriona Still

Veronica Darling

Cheryl Wilson

Colleen Adams

 

Edited July 1, 2020 by kingantti1874

[jambo_]

6 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

The judge appeared to give short shrift to this line of attack and immediately interjected to ask about the SPFL role in reconstruction discussions.

 

We need to remember that today’s hearing lasted 240 minutes and over 200 were spent attacking our case.  As far as I can see they didn’t land any knockout blows on us and we effectively have a clear run to come back tomorrow with the benefit of a little bit of hindsight now that DU/RR/CR and SPFL have made their submissions.  We now have 24 hours to counter their line of attack.

 

I think we need to be stronger in presenting our argument of unfair prejudice and provide clarification on what article 99 means.  I also have doubts about whether arguing that the wrong case was made in the Fulham case is wise.

 

The most important thing will be hammering home the message that this is a case based on company law and restraint of trade not a football dispute.  

 

my thoughts exactly 🙌

 

 

[Diadora Van Basten]

That Colin Moynihan QC is an arrogant sod. His “your oot the game” comment is disgusting to threaten a party in a court of law and totally unnecessary.

[HMFC01]

10 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

They definitely used the phrase for its business - I raised an eyebrow to this at the time.

 

The key thing is that David Thomson hasn’t started on our key contention that this is not a football dispute.  There were a few eyebrow raising statements by messrs Borland and Moynihan which will hopefully be called out by our QC tomorrow.

 

I agree there was a lot of garbage being put forth from the Borland QC that can be taken out if defended properly.  The only issue was the St. Johnstone 1965 bollox.  Moynihan seems content to be defended by the Borland QC although he chipped in to support it, along with some bullshit.

 

I am happy to wait for David Thomsons' responses or views on the matters  👍

[RobNox]

12 minutes ago, colinmaroon said:

 

Thats how I won!

 

Bet you've never finished a book in your life.

 

 

 

Don't spoil it for him, don't be giving any revelation of how it all ends!

[CJGJ]

1 minute ago, kingantti1874 said:

Is this our guy? I know one of the clerks

Then I think you should re establish your relationship.....and quickly 

[David McCaig]

1 minute ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Right then, I thought "this guy knows his stuff" and I think it took Boland (sp?) aback when he demonstrated he knew what had been going on. 

 

I'm looking forward to Thonson putting Hearts case tomorrow.  Lots more to come on that, I'm sure, that will take us out of the "football" realm and into the world of big business. 

I guess you don’t become a judge without being bloody smart and he clearly has a handle on the background to the case.

 

He seems to be fully cognisant of the SPFL running down the clock on this.  I thought David Thomson made a good point on the timing issues of going to arbitration, when have a path has already been cleared through the Court of Session.

[Koolkeith]

4 minutes ago, Rods said:

 

Hope so mate

 

I did listen today and it maybe knocked my confidence on us getting anywhere.

If you’ve been on jury duty or in court you’ll likely know that each argument can be compelling, but there’s two sides to be heard. If you only hear one, then you’re naturally going to feel a little bit deflated.

[David McCaig]

2 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Agreed. I wasn't sure of his point but I didn't think at the time it was meant as a threat (time will tell, clearly). 

 

I can only think he was trying to suggest that Hearts/Partick were reprehensible scoundrels taking unwarranted action that needed to be punished.

[NANOJAMBO]

Just now, David McCaig said:

I guess you don’t become a judge without being bloody smart and he clearly has a handle on the background to the case.

 

He seems to be fully cognisant of the SPFL running down the clock on this.  I thought David Thomson made a good point on the timing issues of going to arbitration, when have a path has already been cleared through the Court of Session.

I agree with all of this. 

[David McCaig]

3 minutes ago, HMFC01 said:

 

I agree there was a lot of garbage being put forth from the Borland QC that can be taken out if defended properly.  The only issue was the St. Johnstone 1965 bollox.  Moynihan seems content to be defended by the Borland QC although he chipped in to support it, along with some bullshit.

 

I am happy to wait for David Thomsons' responses or views on the matters  👍

I don’t think the St Johnstone stuff is bollox  the issue is to what extent it is superseded by the arbitration act of 2010.  Borland/Moynihan both leaning heavily on English precedent here.

[jambo_]

my favourite tweet of the day ....

 

Edited July 1, 2020 by jambo_

[David McCaig]

5 minutes ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

That Colin Moynihan QC is an arrogant sod. His “your oot the game” comment is disgusting to threaten a party in a court of law and totally unnecessary.

Rubbish sports minister as well.

 

What are your views on Gerry Moynihan QC 😎

[Johnny Sandiego]

29 minutes ago, Rods said:

I am just sceptical and even more these days. I really thought reconstruction would be forced through previously to this and after that I have just been accepting its an October start for us. I really hope we can get a large compensation claim but I feel that money wont be coming anytime soon.

 

@AllyjamboDerbyshire I totally appreciate what Budge has done for the club and feel away from the actual football side of things she is a big asset to have. She is however to trusting and that is what has happend with Doncaster and she has been to soft. She was to soft to sack Levien she was to soft to with her brother on the stand.

You must be very naive if you think Ann Budge is daft enough to trust Doncaster. She knew all along that reconstruction was a half hearted afterthought from the SPFL. 

 

Its nothing to do with being soft either. Hearts set out a clear process from the start and stated all along that they wanted to resolve the issue without going to court.

 

If we had gone down the legal route in March we would be accused of going in too quick anf not looking at any other options. 

 

Its all a game and has been since the first vote. To suggest that Ann Budge was led along is nonsense, she knows exactly whats been going on here since the start.

[JimmyCant]

1 minute ago, David McCaig said:

 

 

What are your views on Gerry Moynihan QC 😎

I imagine he is a Celtic fan but an internet trawl for 2 hours failed to find anything.

 

listening to proceedings today I thought he hid behind the DU/RR/CR position giving the impression it was us v them. It most certainly isn’t that and it’s clearly the case that all 3 of those clubs can be promoted irrespective of our own outcome and we wouldn’t bat an eye. Makes zero difference to our case.

[Whatsthefuture]

18 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

The judge appeared to give short shrift to this line of attack and immediately interjected to ask about the SPFL role in reconstruction discussions.

 

We need to remember that today’s hearing lasted 240 minutes and over 200 were spent attacking our case.  As far as I can see they didn’t land any knockout blows on us and we effectively have a clear run to come back tomorrow with the benefit of a little bit of hindsight now that DU/RR/CR and SPFL have made their submissions.  We now have 24 hours to counter their line of attack.

 

I think we need to be stronger in presenting our argument of unfair prejudice and provide clarification on what article 99 means.  I also have doubts about whether arguing that the wrong case was made in the Fulham case is wise.

 

The most important thing will be hammering home the message that this is a case based on company law and restraint of trade not a football dispute.  

Was it yourself David who highlighted the references to English case law

[Riccarton3]

22 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said:

Just the kind of arrogant Glasgow crap, that clearly demonstrates why Hearts would never be anything but pessimistic about trusting the weegie mafia, at the SFA, to give an honest assessment to any arbitration. It’s a nest of vipers.

A total give away. Giving the judge the low down on how both SPFL 

And SFA operate. 

 

Arbitration aye?

[Gmcjambo]

10 minutes ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

That Colin Moynihan QC is an arrogant sod. His “your oot the game” comment is disgusting to threaten a party in a court of law and totally unnecessary.

That's what I thought too.   'as we say in' Glasgow,  you're oot the game'.    Oh how we all laughed!   Perhaps trying to be lighthearted but came across as a bit of a fud.  

[Rods]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sandiego said:

You must be very naive if you think Ann Budge is daft enough to trust Doncaster. She knew all along that reconstruction was a half hearted afterthought from the SPFL. 

 

Its nothing to do with being soft either. Hearts set out a clear process from the start and stated all along that they wanted to resolve the issue without going to court.

 

If we had gone down the legal route in March we would be accused of going in too quick anf not looking at any other options. 

 

Its all a game and has been since the first vote. To suggest that Ann Budge was led along is nonsense, she knows exactly whats been going on here since the start.

 

Yet here we are looking to go to court and the SPFL/Dundee United are saying we have waited to long.

 

We should have came out fighting straight away and that would have polarised the reconstruction debate and we would have got what we wanted.

 

I hope I am wrong.

[Victorian]

Purely based on unguided perception and some beer,    I reckon we have not lost any ground today,    with a decent chance of clamping the SPFL's cock in a vice tomorrow.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

8 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

The judge appeared to give short shrift to this line of attack and immediately interjected to ask about the SPFL role in reconstruction discussions.

 

We need to remember that today’s hearing lasted 240 minutes and over 200 were spent attacking our case.  As far as I can see they didn’t land any knockout blows on us and we effectively have a clear run to come back tomorrow with the benefit of a little bit of hindsight now that DU/RR/CR and SPFL have made their submissions.  We now have 24 hours to counter their line of attack.

 

I think we need to be stronger in presenting our argument of unfair prejudice and provide clarification on what article 99 means.  I also have doubts about whether arguing that the wrong case was made in the Fulham case is wise.

 

The most important thing will be hammering home the message that this is a case based on company law and restraint of trade not a football dispute.  

I also think it would be worthwhile questioning why it should be that football requires to set out in its rules that a member club should not seek the protection of the court should it feel the need to do so, and also, if I am correct in this, why it should be that neither of the responders' counsels have given any other reason why it should not go to court other than citing the SPFL's rules. 

[RobNox]

8 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

I guess you don’t become a judge without being bloody smart and he clearly has a handle on the background to the case.

 

He seems to be fully cognisant of the SPFL running down the clock on this.  I thought David Thomson made a good point on the timing issues of going to arbitration, when have a path has already been cleared through the Court of Session.

 

Me too, I think he might push the timing issue further, as ultimately, if it goes to arbitration and agreement can't be reached, we could end up back in court anyway.

 

I can see why a judge might prefer the arbitration route to be pursued to avoid the case going to court if it can be resolved outside of court, but if we can convince him that the timing of going down that route could be detrimental to all concerned, that might help sway his decision.  

[kingantti1874]

8 minutes ago, Johnny Sandiego said:

You must be very naive if you think Ann Budge is daft enough to trust Doncaster. She knew all along that reconstruction was a half hearted afterthought from the SPFL. 

 

Its nothing to do with being soft either. Hearts set out a clear process from the start and stated all along that they wanted to resolve the issue without going to court.

 

If we had gone down the legal route in March we would be accused of going in too quick anf not looking at any other options. 

 

Its all a game and has been since the first vote. To suggest that Ann Budge was led along is nonsense, she knows exactly whats been going on here since the start.

correct, win or lose the club have dealt with this correctly at every step

[Riccarton3]

5 minutes ago, Gmcjambo said:

That's what I thought too.   'as we say in' Glasgow,  you're oot the game'.    Oh how we all laughed!   Perhaps trying to be lighthearted but came across as a bit of a fud.  

Still Game or chewin the fat Oh, the weegiie banter

Edited July 1, 2020 by Riccarton3

[Captain Canada]

21 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

I don't believe that was put up as a threat , merely pointing out possible punishments (up to £1M fine and/or expulsion IIRC). In any case, Hearts QC made the case that Hearts are not bound to go to arbitration because there is no arbitration clause in either the SPFL or SFA articles (we'll soon see who's right). 

 

Thanks for your reply. Maybe 'threaten" was the wrong word but I'm confused as to why it was brought up at all. The SPFL and SFA have a duty to treat all clubs fairly and imposing a fine or expulsion for questioning a flawed decision seems to go against that guiding principle. 

 

I also didn't know that we could just refuse arbitration but I don't know what that would mean for our case. 

[RobNox]

12 minutes ago, jambo_ said:

my favourite tweet of the day ....

 

A good point he makes, but I'm confused who this Bowlyn character is, or did he mean to say Borland?

[Tennant's 6's]

24 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

The judge appeared to give short shrift to this line of attack and immediately interjected to ask about the SPFL role in reconstruction discussions.

 

We need to remember that today’s hearing lasted 240 minutes and over 200 were spent attacking our case.  As far as I can see they didn’t land any knockout blows on us and we effectively have a clear run to come back tomorrow with the benefit of a little bit of hindsight now that DU/RR/CR and SPFL have made their submissions.  We now have 24 hours to counter their line of attack.

 

I think we need to be stronger in presenting our argument of unfair prejudice and provide clarification on what article 99 means.  I also have doubts about whether arguing that the wrong case was made in the Fulham case is wise.

 

The most important thing will be hammering home the message that this is a case based on company law and restraint of trade not a football dispute.  

Many thanks to you & others for the updates & concise breakdown of what happened. 

 

Here's hoping for a strong showing from our QC tomorrow 

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

23 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

I don't believe that was put up as a threat , merely pointing out possible punishments (up to £1M fine and/or expulsion IIRC). In any case, Hearts QC made the case that Hearts are not bound to go to arbitration because there is no arbitration clause in either the SPFL or SFA articles (we'll soon see who's right). 

It does seem a strange line to take, though, to say to the judge in the Court of Sessions that they want to go to arbitration under the auspices of a body that might be prepared to inflict a heavy penalty on the petitioners for taking the matter to the Court of Sessions.

[BelgeJambo]

8 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Purely based on unguided perception and some beer,    I reckon we have not lost any ground today,    with a decent chance of clamping the SPFL's cock in a vice tomorrow.

Post of the day 😃🇱🇻

[Spellczech]

So basically the Hearts fans' opinion of today: SFA Arbitration? LOL

[NANOJAMBO]

4 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

I also think it would be worthwhile questioning why it should be that football requires to set out in its rules that a member club should not seek the protection of the court should it feel the need to do so, and also, if I am correct in this, why it should be that neither of the responders' counsels have given any other reason why it should not go to court other than citing the SPFL's rules. 

Interesting that the Hearts QC said Hearts were not bound by this (no [incorporated ?] clause requiring Hearts to go to arbitration  and also claiming such a notion  goes against Scottish law. 

 

On the second point, I thought Moynihan worked manfully to try & convince the judge  it was all simply a "football" issue after Boylan/Boland had bored everyone to death with his long march through the rule book. 

 

Did/does anyone think it odd that the clubs have hired a QC at considerable costs to do the work the SPFL should be doing ? 

[The Old Tolbooth]

1 hour ago, Rods said:

I am with @ramrod I think we are knackered here and we should have been in court straight away.

 

It will be kicked back to the SFA tomorrow and we will be relagated then it will be down to compo. The SPFL played for time and Budge fell for it.

 

Blimey, on the anniversary of the battle of the Somme, and us fighting one of our biggest ever battles, you’re not exactly the type we need in the trenches! 

 

Our side is yet to be heard, and by all accords their side wasn’t all that great, I can tell you that reading it from a Dundee United perspective, they’re not exactly confident of winning this, which means we should be. 

[NANOJAMBO]

4 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

It does seem a strange line to take, though, to say to the judge in the Court of Sessions that they want to go to arbitration under the auspices of a body that might be prepared to inflict a heavy penalty on the petitioners for taking the matter to the Court of Sessions.

TBH, I'm going to let go of this point because I'm not at all sure what Moynuhan was up to but I did find it very strange at the time. It didn't seem like he was extending an olive branch, so to speak. 

[1971fozzy]

4 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

It does seem a strange line to take, though, to say to the judge in the Court of Sessions that they want to go to arbitration under the auspices of a body that might be prepared to inflict a heavy penalty on the petitioners for taking the matter to the Court of Sessions.

It was unprofessional and bizarre. I’d be furious if I was on the other side. 
smacked of billy big baws attitude. Hope it bites him in the arse

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

2 minutes ago, RobNox said:

A good point he makes, but I'm confused who this Bowlyn character is, or did he mean to say Borland?

 

And to the people who listened in, do any of you recall this exchange happening? Seems a pretty important moment in today's proceedings for no one to mention before now. Seems a clear indication that should the matter go to arbitration, but but fail to be resolved, we could win our right to return to the Premiership, but lose out because the league has started! Could he be setting up an argument for an interdict? Pretty poor response too, if this was all actually said.

[David McCaig]

2 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Interesting that the Hearts QC said Hearts were not bound by this (no [incorporated ?] clause requiring Hearts to go to arbitration  and also claiming such a notion  goes against Scottish law. 

 

On the second point, I thought Moynihan worked manfully to try & convince the judge  it was all simply a "football" issue after Boylan/Boland had bored everyone to death with his long march through the rule book. 

 

Did/does anyone think it odd that the clubs have hired a QC at considerable costs to do the work the SPFL should be doing ? 

I think that is a deliberate strategy to frame this a clubs v clubs battle and provide distance between the SPFL and the decisions taken.

 

It does seem odd that it is effectively 2 v 1 against Hearts.

[OTT]

1 hour ago, Allowayjambo1874 said:

Think the cost would be spread right through all the leagues, if we got awarded £8m I think that would be taken out of next season’s prize money and that would be adjusted accordingly. Your right though, all this is a huge gamble by the leagues clubs and for what end, to relegate big bad hearts?
 

I think the shit will hit the fan if it ends up in the CoS as it’s in the public domain and questions will need answered. So I’m my opinion if we do win and get it into civil court the SPFL will either settle out of court or restructure pdq. If it’s arbitration it’ll be lot lesser amount, done in slower time and everything remains private. 
 

Although I’m second guessing like 99% of people on here!

 

If a 7 figure settlement was spread evenly down the leagues that would arguably be worse. £8m across 40 (Stranraer aren't on the petition) is £200k each. Easily manageable for top league aye, but below? Utter carnage. Obviously thats worst case from the SPFL side, but nonetheless £4m will be £100k which is still game-changing for Leagues 1 & 2. Factor in the interest we're looking for (8% per petition) and the diminished incomes for the various clubs it could be really, really bad. 

 

I suppose if it was worked out along the lines of the TV deal, i.e top flight gets 80% of the TV deal so are liable for 80% of the compensation, but clubs like St Mirren or Hamilton wouldn't be happy. 

 

The best losing outcome for the SPFL is the judge to rule the vote out and force reconstruction. Even if it was reinstatement and a subsequent vote to bring back in Dundee Utd and ICT. The clubs do not have the financial health to withstand a seven figure settlement. Probably why compensation has never been discussed by the SPFL. 

 

I really hope Lord Clarke does the right thing tomorrow. No one can seriously say whats happened is okay. Its morally and ethically bankrupt. To rubber stamp this would sour football for me big time. If nothing else, we deserve a chance to argue our case publicly.

[Whatsthefuture]

10 minutes ago, Captain Canada said:

 

Thanks for your reply. Maybe 'threaten" was the wrong word but I'm confused as to why it was brought up at all. The SPFL and SFA have a duty to treat all clubs fairly and imposing a fine or expulsion for questioning a flawed decision seems to go against that guiding principle. 

 

I also didn't know that we could just refuse arbitration but I don't know what that would mean for our case. 

In thought it strange to bring that up as it could be interpreted as being threatening particularly if you add in the letter from the SFA

[Cobblers]

12 minutes ago, RobNox said:

 

Me too, I think he might push the timing issue further, as ultimately, if it goes to arbitration and agreement can't be reached, we could end up back in court anyway.

 

I can see why a judge might prefer the arbitration route to be pursued to avoid the case going to court if it can be resolved outside of court, but if we can convince him that the timing of going down that route could be detrimental to all concerned, that might help sway his decision.  

My understanding of arbitration is that it’s not about agreement being reached between the parties, that’s conciliation.  Arbitration is where both parties present their case and the the body hearing it (SFA in this case) then  make a decision which can be legally binding.  I’m not sure we could then go back to court.  Happy to be corrected.

[Riccarton3]

4 minutes ago, Captain Canada said:

 

Thanks for your reply. Maybe 'threaten" was the wrong word but I'm confused as to why it was brought up at all. The SPFL and SFA have a duty to treat all clubs fairly and imposing a fine or expulsion for questioning a flawed decision seems to go against that guiding principle. 

 

I also didn't know that we could just refuse arbitration but I don't know what that would mean for our case. 

Well, imagine the context was this lot, in his opinion, had broken rules, and he added in the punishments to give a sense that the clubs have been foolhardy given the potential consequences. So, their judgment can't be relied upon.

 

The skipping of arbitration, if ok, not seeking out SFA  well that would mean no ru!es were broken. 

 

Sorry, anybody know if the clubs were well within right to go straight to the CoS?

 

What ARE the facts about that?

[steve123]

4 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

 

And to the people who listened in, do any of you recall this exchange happening? Seems a pretty important moment in today's proceedings for no one to mention before now. Seems a clear indication that should the matter go to arbitration, but but fail to be resolved, we could win our right to return to the Premiership, but lose out because the league has started! Could he be setting up an argument for an interdict? Pretty poor response too, if this was all actually said.

Yea, was funnny to listen to actually.

[NANOJAMBO]

4 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

So basically the Hearts fans' opinion of today: SFA Arbitration? LOL

As I saw it the grounds for arbitration were made crystal clear :

The courts can't get the matter resolved in time for the new season start date 

 

OR

 

Hearts have to go to the SFA , it's in the rules 

 

OR 

 

Football people have the expertise to resolve the matter quickly (which I thought was a weird thing to say considering Moynihan had already submitted 25 pages of legal advice to steer the SPFL through the "end the season" fiasco, thus demonstrating that football people most certainly do NOT have the expertise claimed) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Future's Maroon]

4 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

 

And to the people who listened in, do any of you recall this exchange happening? Seems a pretty important moment in today's proceedings for no one to mention before now. Seems a clear indication that should the matter go to arbitration, but but fail to be resolved, we could win our right to return to the Premiership, but lose out because the league has started! Could he be setting up an argument for an interdict? Pretty poor response too, if this was all actually said.

I listened in to about 90% of it and did not hear that, but I was also working so may have missed it.

 

I have heard that this Joe Black talks out his arse though and not to be trusted.

[Riccarton3]

3 minutes ago, Cobblers said:

My understanding of arbitration is that it’s not about agreement being reached between the parties, that’s conciliation.  Arbitration is where both parties present their case and the the body hearing it (SFA in this case) then  make a decision which can be legally binding.  I’m not sure we could then go back to court.  Happy to be corrected.

But there was a quote above from the judge saying if Arb  can't bring a solution and it comes back to court,  Cobblers.....