SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Bull's-eye]

Without being in the room so to speak, you cant get a grip of how the Judge is thinking, quite rightly so. Court rooms are just as corrupt as the SPFL if truth be known. 

 

Personally im not bothered how this play's out because ive got experience in court cases and litigation and arguments on law are impossible to predict.

 

Hence...Im very proud of the way Hearts have gone about our business here, they never expected a battle and for the 1st time this season we've stepped up and sent an off the field message. Dont **** with us. 

 

We will come out of this immensely stronger on and off the field. 

 

[Pasquale for King]

2 hours ago, Rick Sanchez said:

 

👍

 

It would be interesting to know if it was the only one that made it to quarantine.

Some club called Heart of Midlothian had to resubmit their vote too 😜

[Cruyff]

23 minutes ago, RobNox said:

I think we've finished our arguments, so what will happen tomorrow is probably the DUFC et al QC will carry on boring the pants off everyone repeating the same argument that any coherent person could have put across in 30 minutes.  Then the SPFL QC might make another ill judged attempt at Glesgae patter, to which the Lord Clark responds 'aye, right'.

 

18 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

I think David Thomson still has to speak tomorrow with regard to our request for evidence.

What is the motioned that has been tabled David? 

15 minutes ago, RobNox said:

I'd go even further. If we are playing away to one of the clubs who were happy to shaft us, and Partick are playing at home that day, I'd go through to watch Partick.  I'd rather give them my money than some back stabbing *******s.

Great shout. 

[AlimOzturk]

Just now, Jambof3tornado said:

Its not up to the judge to select the panel or give direction on rules etc.

 

Cool.

 

Can see why we don't want it going that way then. 

[David McCaig]

Its just our request for evidence and documentation... on the proviso that the case stays at the COS.

[Bazzas right boot]

3 hours ago, Riccarton3 said:

Certainly not incompetence. These people do not do things through incompetence. You must at least be at this point by now.

 

The Judge hopefully sees it that way. 

I still think it is in the balance 

 

[south morocco]

1 minute ago, Bull's-eye said:

Without being in the room so to speak, you cant get a grip of how the Judge is thinking, quite rightly so. Court rooms are just as corrupt as the SPFL if truth be known. 

 

Personally im not bothered how this play's out because ive got experience in court cases and litigation and arguments on law are impossible to predict.

 

Hence...Im very proud of the way Hearts have gone about our business here, they never expected a battle and for the 1st time this season we've stepped up and sent an off the field message. Dont **** with us. 

 

We will come out of this immensely stronger on and off the field. 

 

It’s like finally standing up to the playground bullies and giving them a good hiding. Hope we do the same.

[Cruyff]

1 minute ago, David McCaig said:

Its just our request for evidence and documentation... on the proviso that the case stays at the COS.

Ok, cheers David. 

[Rick Sanchez]

2 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

Some club called Heart of Midlothian had to resubmit their vote too 😜

 

Really

 

Well erm...erm...they found ours why not theirs!? 😠 

[willie wallace]

6 minutes ago, Miko said:

I’d court or arbitration finds in favour of the SPFL then we don’t have a claim for compensation

Why are so many people on here talking about an either/or situation.

To hell with fighting to stay up.Lets take them for millions.

[Jammy T]

1 hour ago, Rogue Daddy said:

The fact that an initial ‘2hour’ hearing is now going into its third day, surely leans towards CoS?... you would have thought!

What it tells me is the Judge is taking it seriously because he thinks there is merit in the case and merit on the motion for it to be heard by court - oh and because Garry Borland speaks for so long.

That doesn’t mean we are winning part 1 for definite.

 

That having been said, having thought about it all and the commentary of discussions and submissions, if we don’t get it in court initially I am almost certain he will grant an interim interdict stopping the season commencing until the action is concluded to ensure expediency on the part of the SFA and with one eye on it focussing minds to settlement.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Jammy T

[RobNox]

6 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

Will we find out tomorrow if this is going to be heard in court, arbitration or dismissed

 

Can I ask why folk are so against arbitration considering it must be heard in front of a independent panel?

To your second point, it might be heard before an independent panel, but what would be the remit of that panel, and what would be their terms of reference? What decisions would be open to them?  All of this would probably be determined by the SPFL / SFA.

 

If it goes to arbitration, then it's a classic case of the governing bodies being allowed to mark their own homework.

[Pasquale for King]

1 minute ago, Rick Sanchez said:

 

Really

 

Well erm...erm...they found ours why not theirs!? 😠 

I think we resent it about 10pm when they told us they hadn’t received it, we were the odd one out when they said 10 voted for and 1 against finishing the leagues. As you say if they found theirs why not ours 🤷🏾‍♂️🤔. 

[Bull's-eye]

3 minutes ago, south morocco said:

It’s like finally standing up to the playground bullies and giving them a good hiding. Hope we do the same.

 

We are the club. 

 

The custodians of our club currently are standing up for every single ****ing one of us.

 

I wont be forgetting that in a hurry. 

[busby1985]

16 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

Will we find out tomorrow if this is going to be heard in court, arbitration or dismissed

 

Can I ask why folk are so against arbitration considering it must be heard in front of a independent panel?

Read the deolite or what ever they are called’s “independent” review into the Dundee vote. Arbitration will be nothing but one sided crap from a hand picked SFA panel. 

[King Of The Cat Cafe]

Pardon my ignorance: would arbitration be binding on both parties?

[south morroccan]

7 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

Its just our request for evidence and documentation... on the proviso that the case stays at the COS.

Is it?  Could we be asking Lord Clark to rule that the SPFL show that documentation and evidence to us even if he agrees that the SFA arbitrate?

[Jambo-Fox]

42 minutes ago, Sir Gio said:

Did our QC impress today?

Did what he was paid to do, nothing more nothing less!!!

[Fluorescent Adolescent]

11 minutes ago, Jammy T said:

What it tells me is the Judge is taking it seriously because he thinks there is merit in the case and merit on the motion for it to be heard by court - oh and because Garry Borland speaks for so long.

That doesn’t mean we are winning part 1 for definite.

 

That having been said, having thought about it all and the commentary of discussions and submissions, if we don’t get it in court initially I am almost certain he will grant an interim interdict stopping the season commencing until the action is concluded to ensure expediency on the part of the SFA and with one eye on it focussing minds to settlement.

Let’s say Lord Clarke refers this to SFA arbitration tomorrow. Can we still apply for an interim interdict to prevent the season being started?? 

 

 

Edited July 2, 2020 by Fluorescent Adolescent

[Riccarton3]

2 minutes ago, RobNox said:

To your second point, it might be heard before an independent panel, but what would be the remit of that panel, and what would be their terms of reference? What decisions would be open to them?  All of this would probably be determined by the SPFL / SFA.

 

If it goes to arbitration, then it's a classic case of the governing bodies being allowed to mark their own homework.

Aye it's like one outcome is almost a win in itself, bathed in light, even though we'd have won nothing at that point.The other is Hibs season ticket say between Aiden Smith and Paul Kane with no prospect of salvation. It shouldn't be but there's the spectrum 

[Gmcjambo]

5 minutes ago, south morroccan said:

Is it?  Could we be asking Lord Clark to rule that the SPFL show that documentation and evidence to us even if he agrees that the SFA arbitrate?

I would have thought either the Court take responsibility and deal with this,  or they don't?   Is it plausible to have the Court make some rulings for documentation if they are not assuming responsibility?  

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

Thanks for all the replies on QC.

 

Seems as if he is willing to hold their feet to the fire. 

 

Dundee vote may go down in legend 

[Jambo-Fox]

30 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

Will we find out tomorrow if this is going to be heard in court, arbitration or dismissed

 

Can I ask why folk are so against arbitration considering it must be heard in front of a independent panel?

I’m not an expert but my view would be;

 

1. It’s not appropriate because the ‘foundation’ of the arbitration would be based on ‘football matters’ (not company / business matters)

2. And if it goes to arbitration I’m sure the SPFL will argue (to the SFA) that it’s not appropriate for them (SFA) to deal with the matter and it should be referred back to and dealt with by the SPFL as appropriate! These SPFL / SFA leaders are slithering snakes!

Edited July 2, 2020 by Jambo-Fox

[1971fozzy]

31 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

Timescale. It effectively removes reinstatement as a remedy.  It also removes public accountability... and public interest may be a critical factor in the case staying at the COS.

I've said before that this is why it’s absolutely vital for us that this stays in the COS. There has to be public accountability and I’m hoping above all that Lord Clark sees this.  Arbitration will be behind closed doors and swept under the rug with a one paragraph statement on their verdict no doubt. 
 

[Gmcjambo]

14 minutes ago, RobNox said:

To your second point, it might be heard before an independent panel, but what would be the remit of that panel, and what would be their terms of reference? What decisions would be open to them?  All of this would probably be determined by the SPFL / SFA.

 

If it goes to arbitration, then it's a classic case of the governing bodies being allowed to mark their own homework.

I'm no expert by any means - but it felt particularly important today when the Judge put forward his view that if the SPFL were suggesting penalties such as expulsion from the SPFL then this would be a legal matter.   The defence  (can't remember if this was SPFL or DU) had nothing to say but to agree with the Judge at this point.       For me this means that there is a clear view that this should be addressed in the courts.      Arbitration is about finding a solution and that feels highly improbable.     The other aspect is time - court process is already underway whereas setting up a new process of arbitration will take longer and this point has been made by us.     I really don't know if some of the other points supersede these or what the Judge will think - but it seems he is at least interested in some points that are favourable to our argument.     Let's be honest - it will be a travesty of justice if the SPFL prevail and I hope we get some good news tomorrow.

[Miko]

27 minutes ago, willie wallace said:

Why are so many people on here talking about an either/or situation.

To hell with fighting to stay up.Lets take them for millions.

In my opinion the only way compensation comes about is via a settlement from the SPFL. 
 

if we are offered say 5 million out of court settlement to drop everything then we will accept.

 

Tomorrow is a huge day. Our case is not as water tight as some in here would have you to believe

 

 

 

[DETTY29]

45 minutes ago, dazajmbo said:

 

I think the SFA are the ones who decide who is on the panel? 

Sfa put up 50 people.

 

Each club picks one member, that the other needs to agree to.

 

Once they agree on 2, these 2 pick a chair.

[stuart500]

The 2010 Arbitration Act covers details of how these play out. The Act is mentioned in SFA article 99 so needs to be complied with.

 

Having had a brief look there are measures no doubt designed to make it as fair as possible e.g. arbitors must declare any vested interests. Its definitely not the guarantee of a level playing field but I felt slightly better after a brief look through.

 

We are actually trying to use a clause in the Act, 10 d (i) I think, which sets out exemptions to when arbitration can apply. We are saying we have the right to go straight to CoS because answers have already  been supplied to some of the points in the petition.

Clearly this is a point of law for the judge to decide.

[Dr Lager]

**** arbitration. From the people who brought us the "independent Deloitte investigation" into the dundee email

 

[jamborich]

3 hours ago, kila said:

 

Nap the server logs say something like

 

16:48:16 - Email with PDF attachment received from [email protected]

16:48:25 - Email marked as read, attachment downloaded to PC with IP 82.23.43.11

16:49:21 - Email marked as unread

16:49:26 - Email moved to folder 

 

[RobNox]

4 minutes ago, Gmcjambo said:

I'm no expert by any means - but it felt particularly important today when the Judge put forward his view that if the SPFL were suggesting penalties such as expulsion from the SPFL then this would be a legal matter.   The defence  (can't remember if this was SPFL or DU) had nothing to say but to agree with the Judge at this point.       For me this means that there is a clear view that this should be addressed in the courts.      Arbitration is about finding a solution and that feels highly improbable.     The other aspect is time - court process is already underway whereas setting up a new process of arbitration will take longer and this point has been made by us.     I really don't know if some of the other points supersede these or what the Judge will think - but it seems he is at least interested in some points that are favourable to our argument.     Let's be honest - it will be a travesty of justice if the SPFL prevail and I hope we get some good news tomorrow.

 

To your first point that I've highlighted, it was the DU QC who basically had no answer initially, then sort of agreed with the point, but didn't seem very convincing either way.

 

The second point I've highlighted is timing.  Our QC has made this point on several occasions, and the judge, in his questioning, also demonstrates he understands the importance of timing in this matter.

 

At the start of these proceedings, I was fairly confident we had a good chance of winning, but still felt things were in the balance.  After yesterday's proceedings. my confidence levels increased.  After today's proceedings, my confidence levels have increased again.  If I started thinking it was close to 50:50, I'm now thinking it's 70:30 in our favour.

[jamborich]

Is the Dundee vote our saviour, confused 

[Ethan Hunt]

1 hour ago, NANOJAMBO said:

That letter he sent to UEFA to start off the whole "end the season" debacle where he claimed most of the clubs wanted to end the season - let's see the science behind that claim. 

Initially he said “vast majority of clubs” then that changed to “a large number of clubs”. Let’s find out exactly how many, and who they were. 

[Gmcjambo]

2 minutes ago, RobNox said:

 

To your first point that I've highlighted, it was the DU QC who basically had no answer initially, then sort of agreed with the point, but didn't seem very convincing either way.

 

The second point I've highlighted is timing.  Our QC has made this point on several occasions, and the judge, in his questioning, also demonstrates he understands the importance of timing in this matter.

 

At the start of these proceedings, I was fairly confident we had a good chance of winning, but still felt things were in the balance.  After yesterday's proceedings. my confidence levels increased.  After today's proceedings, my confidence levels have increased again.  If I started thinking it was close to 50:50, I'm now thinking it's 70:30 in our favour.

Agree,   the judge is clearly considering the process and timing of each route and has asked several questions in this regard.   I'm optimistic but the various quoting of precedent and case law confuses and worries me.   Hopefully,  just one more sleep.    If this goes down court route my confidence levels soar 

[Jambo-Fox]

1 minute ago, jamborich said:

Is the Dundee vote our saviour, confused 

In my opinion ... In isolation probably not, however the events (phone calls etc) leading to the ‘change’ of vote will be of more significance. And if there were factual inaccuracies (lies) as to what happened to the 4:48pm vote it could very significant. 
However all of that is for the future if the matter progresses in the CoS and does not go to the SFA arbitration!

[willie wallace]

21 minutes ago, Miko said:

In my opinion the only way compensation comes about is via a settlement from the SPFL. 
 

if we are offered say 5 million out of court settlement to drop everything then we will accept.

 

Tomorrow is a huge day. Our case is not as water tight as some in here would have you to believe

 

 

 

We have had a lot of huge days recently.

Hope this a good one.

 

[Pasquale for King]

47 minutes ago, King Of The Cat Cafe said:

Pardon my ignorance: would arbitration be binding on both parties?

I think they’re saying it’s pointless as if it had went against us we would then have the option of going to court, and maybe returning if they say we should go down that route. Time is against us too.

[Cruyff]

2 minutes ago, jamborich said:

Is the Dundee vote our saviour, confused 

It's part of it. It's a bit more than just Dundee's vote. That alone doesn't make the case that it should be heard within the CoS rather than SFA Arbitration. 

[Ethan Hunt]

1 hour ago, RobNox said:

 

That's exactly what did for Nixon in the Watergate scandal.  All The President's Men is a great movie, even more so because it is based on real events.  If only we had journalists of even half that quality working in the MSSM today.

Tom English aside, there is no-one. If the truth be told even Tom English has not went for the jugular on certain matters when he could have. I’ll make allowances for him by acknowledging the BBC will probably curtail him from doing that. Maybe we’ll read all about it in a book one day.

[Fluorescent Adolescent]

24 minutes ago, Miko said:

Our case is not as water tight as some in here would have you to believe

 

 

 

Who has suggested our case is water tight?

 

Quote the posters to which you refer.

[Ethan Hunt]

1 hour ago, hughesie27 said:

Do we think this could help our case in any way?

 

https://www.tranmererovers.co.uk/news/2020/july/club-statement/#.Xv4eH5CP39Q.twitter

Interesting read, other than that, no.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

3 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

Tom English aside, there is no-one. If the truth be told even Tom English has not went for the jugular on certain matters when he could have. I’ll make allowances for him by acknowledging the BBC will probably curtail him from doing that. Maybe we’ll read all about it in a book one day.

In hindsight, it is laughable that Doncaster refused to take questions from Tom English when there is a possibility he will be under oath next week!

[RobNox]

2 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

Initially he said “vast majority of clubs” then that changed to “a large number of clubs”. Let’s find out exactly how many, and who they were. 

Given the way the vote was constructed, that the Premiership clubs had to vote in favour, the Championship clubs likewise then League 1 and 2 were lumped together, it's possible that every club in the premiership and Leagues 1 and 2 could have voted in favour, but if 3 Championship clubs voted against, it would fail.

 

You could rightly say that the vast majority of clubs or a large number of clubs had voted in favour, that doesn't mean the vote was passed.  It could have been 39-3 in favour of ending the leagues early, but if those 3 against the motion were Championship clubs, the motion would fail.

[Brave Hearts]

4 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Then the Deloitte report could be one of the documents we want to see. 

 

With the SPFL now admitting to the court that dundee vote arrived at 16:48 then either

 

the SPFL lied to Deloittes when providing their evidence to the investigation 

 

or

 

Deloittes knew this fact and did not report nor highlight this in their findings

 

By SPFL admitting this crucial fact now, this must call the credibility of Deloittes into question and also the ability of Deloittes to conduct an indepth investigation

 

 

[Footballfirst]

The Daily Record is reporting that the SPFL and the Scottish Government are on a collision course about fans attending matches. 

 

Perhaps the SPFL will take the SG to arbitration. It's a footballing matter after all. 

[RobNox]

5 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

Tom English aside, there is no-one. If the truth be told even Tom English has not went for the jugular on certain matters when he could have. I’ll make allowances for him by acknowledging the BBC will probably curtail him from doing that. Maybe we’ll read all about it in a book one day.

 

I would agree, Tom English is probably pushing things as far as he can within the constraints he operates under.  Jim Spence, another journalist with some integrity, pushed things too far and ended up losing his job at the BBC.

[Ethan Hunt]

14 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

In hindsight, it is laughable that Doncaster refused to take questions from Tom English when there is a possibility he will be under oath next week!

If anyone had the slightest doubt that the SPFL were at it then the circumstances around that ‘interview’ should have told them all they needed to know. Wasn’t prepared to answer any difficult questions because he simply didn’t want to, or have to. Hopefully that’s about to change.

[Ethan Hunt]

18 minutes ago, RobNox said:

Given the way the vote was constructed, that the Premiership clubs had to vote in favour, the Championship clubs likewise then League 1 and 2 were lumped together, it's possible that every club in the premiership and Leagues 1 and 2 could have voted in favour, but if 3 Championship clubs voted against, it would fail.

 

You could rightly say that the vast majority of clubs or a large number of clubs had voted in favour, that doesn't mean the vote was passed.  It could have been 39-3 in favour of ending the leagues early, but if those 3 against the motion were Championship clubs, the motion would fail.

I was referring to the letter to UEFA that was written six days before the vote to place. Lots of Chairmen have said they never contacted Doncaster, and he never contacted them to speak about the league being called. That being the case who did contact him? Or who did he contact? Why - if he did contact clubs - did he only contact some clubs? We know what the definition of a vast majority is, but what’s his idea of a large number? To all intents and purposes some clubs didn’t even know the league being called was up for discussion until hurried conference calls were made and briefing documents were sent out in double quick time. Worth remembering at this point that Doncaster sent those briefing notes out without them being seen or approved by other members of the SPFL board as per Rangers dossier. He took it off his own back.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

13 minutes ago, Barack said:

"Hello, First Minister? Yes, it's Neil Doncaster here....hello....hello, First Minister? You there...?"

 

 

Sit down, Neil. You ****ing goon.

Can Janey Godley do a mutant voice as well?

[RobNox]

4 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

If anyone had the slightest doubt that the SPFL were at it then the circumstances around that ‘interview’ should have told them all they needed to know. Wasn’t prepared to answer any difficult questions because he simply didn’t want to, or have to. Hopefully that’s about to change.

 

Exactly the reason why he will do anything possible to avoid answering questions in court.  It's one of the reasons why I believe that if Lord Clark decides in our favour, the SPFL will fold and seek to find a solution out of court, rather than risk having their dirty laundry aired in public.

 

The other reason they'll fold is when the other member clubs begin to understand the potential financial consequences to them of losing and paying us compensation.