Jump to content

SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )


Heres Rixxy

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, ramrod said:

Maybe the answer is to make it a tenner a year compulsory membership, with monies being donated to the FOH . That way any interlopers are funding the club , lol 

Not necessary. Superior intellect and hunting down the Hobos and exposing them with superior argument and debate.

A speedy return to the issues of this thread please.

Too many diversionary and unnecessary posts😀

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

45 minutes ago, martoon said:

We probably all have a story of first posting on JKB and being called a Hibby. 

 

Back in 2014 I suggested that Zal only became truly reliable "when he had Andy Webster alongside to guide him through life" and was called a 'Hobo'. 

 

I forget who it was, luckily for him. 😬

I got called a Hobo for asking if we can say Beniusis is shite yet, after the Barcelona friendly game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

It looks like @Jambo66 is indicating that in Scotland, legal precedent cannot be set by an Arbitration Panel. That being the case, your point around the vote in respect of Company law accept/reject yes/no does raise some serious Company Law questions that may require a legal precedent. Should the panel therefore conclude that is what required, CoS here we come.

Yeah, cheers to all. I've dropped out after all the fishing bollocks & other off-topic stuff. Will check in tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gordon Ramsay
2 minutes ago, Normthebarman said:

I got called a Hobo for asking if we can say Beniusis is shite yet, after the Barcelona friendly game.

 

I've been called one a few times for saying we were shite, when we were shite. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Normthebarman said:

I got called a Hobo for asking if we can say Beniusis is shite yet, after the Barcelona friendly game.

Actually that was probably fair imagine judging him on a game v Barca 😳

Link to comment
Share on other sites

weegie jambo

I love these Edinburgh v Glasgow rants from folk. I have lived through my teens in Auld Reekie and a good 40 years in Glasgow and the West. I can assure folk that Glasgow is a fine city and has some wonderful areas within the city boundaries. I can confirm that Shettleston is not one of them and Helensburgh is the town that time forgot (something live Peebles) full of neds and Navy! To be honest I wouldn't swap Hyndland for Morningside. And I worked 18 years in Maryhill..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

Aye, nae chance of that 😂😂

 

That's what I understood about your position. Somebody was going to lose to them one day. What a f**pping embarrassment it was going to be for one club - getting beaten by a bunch of fuds who had tried winning for over a century and couldn't quite manage it. What a mantle! It couldn't have happened to a more deserving cunch of bunts. 

 

 

On topic though:

I hope we win this and I hope Scottish football gets rehauled. 

 

 

Oh, and for the avoidance of any doubt:

 

Fakka-da-heebza!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

south morroccan
10 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

This is the bit that interests me.

 

Would they really,   would any sitting of arbitration,   proceed to impose rulings and / or remedies whilst not confident in the legal soundness of their ruling?    Are they expected to proceed regardless,   whilst beyond their legal expertise and without any reluctance to make legal errors,   which would then be for others to discover and challenge if they so choose?     Or is the emphasis placed on going as far as they are reasonably confident in their competence and preventing legal errors from taking place?

 

 

Like any court of first instance  the arbitration panel in the absence of precedent will make a decision on the facts and what they deem to be the law.  However unlike a court there is no right to appeal unless there is case law which the panel have wilfully ignored.

 

Our problem is  that the SPFL being so inept/devious/corrupt may have fallen upon a means to shaft shareholders that has not been condemned before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

I do wonder if the panel can, and will, seek help from Lord Clark over any points they might need help and advice over, or even if they reach a point where they are unsure how to proceed they could take his advice, or pass it to him to adjudicate on. Just musings but it does seem a possibility and cause of any delay, if there is a delay.

I think the whole point is that because the panel is presided over by someone with at least 10 years legal experience (probably a QC or retired judge), it does have the ability to make a legal decision.  I would be much more concerned if the other 2 panel members were accountants or architects or whatever, because they may find it more difficult to apply themselves to the questions in the appropriate way.

 

That is not to say that they couldn't, but it is the combination of training and experience in what are essentially legal issues that is important here.  FWIW, I think that all 3 panelists will be legally qualified.  I would say that if the SPFL has picked someone with no legal training as their arbiter, that would be embarassing in the extreme and a further indication of their inability to understand how serious this whole matter is for the future of Scottish football.

 

A majority decision will be sufficient here, so I think it is good for us that the chairman is definitely legally qualified and our pick is almost certainly legally qualifed.

 

I do think that if it was going to go back to the CoS, it would have happened on Monday or Tuesday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

weegie jambo
1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

Glasgow has been the victim of the class equivalent of white flight in American cities. The middle classes fled to places like Helensburgh and Shetttleston and resisted incorporation into the city of Glasgow and the risk of higher local taxes. Shipping out the poor to new towns also contributed to population decline in the city.  Whereas contrary to common misconception Edinburgh has remained relatively  class diverse and has  incorporated its expanding middle class within the city.

 

Off topic but it has been hundreds of pages since there was any post offering anything new on topic on this thread!

 

 

 

Shettleston, middle class! have you ever been there. It's a dump and Helensburgh is a law unto itself. I would say that inner city regeneration has kept many middle class folk within the city boundaries, not to mention traditional "good areas, West End, Shawlands, Eastwood and gentrification areas like Denniston and Finniston.  THese Glasgow's a dump posts get my goat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn
29 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

It looks like @Jambo66 is indicating that in Scotland, legal precedent cannot be set by an Arbitration Panel. That being the case, your point around the vote in respect of Company law accept/reject yes/no does raise some serious Company Law questions that may require a legal precedent. Should the panel therefore conclude that is what required, CoS here we come.


More guess work all round 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds reasonable to me.  A Judge/QC with at least 10yr experience.  A possible lawyer pick for us.  A local Greggs shopkeeper for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing I keep thinking back to is when LC asked our QC if the fact they had admitted when Dundee vote was received made any difference to the way our case would go ( he seemed quite interested in it) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Gordon Ramsay said:

 

I've been called one a few times for saying we were shite, when we were shite. 

I've no been called one yet thankfully!. .. us jags must be, on the sliding scale from Jambo to 'vermin', just on the right side of acceptable 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

Ffs. I tried. Done myself up like a kipper there. 

I’m Herring you buddy 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, steve123 said:

The thing I keep thinking back to is when LC asked our QC if the fact they had admitted when Dundee vote was received made any difference to the way our case would go ( he seemed quite interested in it) 

 

They didn't say if it was received in quarantine or normal circumstances.   Still in the dark.  Anyone got a clue if it was blocked there would be a delay of notification to the quarantine?  If yes, how long?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biffa Bacon
11 minutes ago, HMFC01 said:

That sounds reasonable to me.  A Judge/QC with at least 10yr experience.  A possible lawyer pick for us.  A local Greggs shopkeeper for them.

The picked representatives don't work for the side that pick them, they are neutral. Think of it like we pick a linesman and the spfl pick one too, the two linos then pick a ref. All officials are neutral to officiate the match.

Edited by Biffa Bacon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, HMFC01 said:

 

They didn't say if it was received in quarantine or normal circumstances.   Still in the dark.  Anyone got a clue if it was blocked there would be a delay of notification to the quarantine?  If yes, how long?  

They admitted they had received it at 4.48 or whatever the time was before 5 , as far as I understood the judge he was taking that as an admission vote was recieved.

Edited by steve123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

It's essentially notional.    If the SFA withheld or delayed permission and a club went ahead anyway,   the SFA could still attempt to sanction a club because the rule was still broken.    If the SFA withheld or delayed permission and a club desisted from taking legal action,   the SFA's rule is adhered to and the absence of legal action is the choice of the club.

 

The SFA cannot deny a club's legal right,   but it can probably argue that it's rule is separate from that.   If the SFA actually thought it could deny a club from it's legal right then the rule would be a simple and outright ban from taking any legal action,  in all circumstances.

 

Lord Clark's ruling that we had to go to arbitration as per the SFA/SPFL rules now renders the SFA rule about not going to court without SFA permission redundant. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Biffa Bacon said:

The picked representatives don't work for the side that pick them, they are neutral. Think of it like we pick a linesman and the spfl pick one too, the two linos then pick a ref. All officials are neutral to officiate the match.

 

SFA linesman and ref? :ermm:  You goofed that one :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mid Calder Jambo
3 minutes ago, Biffa Bacon said:

The picked representatives don't work for the side that pick them, they are neutral. Think of it like we pick a linesman and the spfl pick one too, the two linos then pick a ref. All officials are neutral to officiate the match.

Now there is a novel idea for Scottish Football going forward.  Neutrality ( the dictionary definition of which is "yer nae Celtic or yer nae Rangers"). A good idea but unlikely to happen in this religiously motivated cesspit they call Glasgow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, steve123 said:

They admitted they had received it at 4.48 or whatever the time was before 5 , as far as I understood the judge he was taking that as an admission vote was recieved.

 

You are correct the time was 16:48.  It was not inferred if it was from quarantine or normal inbox.  Half truths worry me more than the ones they hide :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, HMFC01 said:

 

You are correct the time was 16:48.  It was not inferred if it was from quarantine or normal inbox.  Half truths worry me more than the ones they hide :) 

I get ya I don't have a clue how this is going, I just don't think as cut and dry for them as some do !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Willie Hamilton genius
16 minutes ago, harrywragg said:

I've no been called one yet thankfully!. .. us jags must be, on the sliding scale from Jambo to 'vermin', just on the right side of acceptable 😉

Aye, definitely on the good side.

Must be tough being in a city with the twin evils.

Plus people calling you Patrick!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Willie Hamilton genius said:

Aye, definitely on the good side.

Must be tough being in a city with the twin evils.

Plus people calling you Patrick!

been called worse - put that down to spellcheckers btw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay
5 minutes ago, jonnothejambo said:

Well there we have it. The English Premiership finishes and now the play offs are underway. FA Cup Final and Playoff Finals to follow then a break before they start again in September. 

 

Therefore they will start the new season down south one month before we start our campaign. 

 

While all that has been going on we have had dodgy votes and phonecalls and club owners and others shafting other clubs all to satisfy their self interest. 

 

Plus giving Celtic their 8.79 in a row.

 

Tin pot leagues,  tin pot governance. 

 

An utter disgrace and the procrastination goes on. 

 

 

 

 

Yep. We pay a CEO 388,000pa plus bonuses to oversee all of the above.

John Cleess/Connie Booth/John Sullivan/Jim Perry/David Croft et al would struggle to equal this for comedy value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smoked-Glass
10 minutes ago, jonnothejambo said:

Well there we have it. The English Premiership finishes and now the play offs are underway. FA Cup Final and Playoff Finals to follow then a break before they start again in September. 

 

Therefore they will start the new season down south one month before we start our campaign. 

 

While all that has been going on we have had dodgy votes and phonecalls and club owners and others shafting other clubs all to satisfy their self interest. 

 

Plus giving Celtic their 8.79 in a row.

 

Tin pot leagues,  tin pot governance. 

 

An utter disgrace and the procrastination goes on. 

 

 

 

 

Good Post 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Smoked-Glass said:

Good Post 

I agree and wonder if everything else finishing is helping our case more than we could have ever dreamed at the start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, harrywragg said:

I've no been called one yet thankfully!. .. us jags must be, on the sliding scale from Jambo to 'vermin', just on the right side of acceptable 😉

You’re just one notch under a Jambo HW and on the right side of very acceptable 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Byyy The Light
24 minutes ago, jonnothejambo said:

Well there we have it. The English Premiership finishes and now the play offs are underway. FA Cup Final and Playoff Finals to follow then a break before they start again in September. 

 

Therefore they will start the new season down south one month before we start our campaign. 

 

While all that has been going on we have had dodgy votes and phonecalls and club owners and others shafting other clubs all to satisfy their self interest. 

 

Plus giving Celtic their 8.79 in a row.

 

Tin pot leagues,  tin pot governance. 

 

An utter disgrace and the procrastination goes on. 

 

 

 

 


Spot on Jonno 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, jonnothejambo said:

Well there we have it. The English Premiership finishes and now the play offs are underway. FA Cup Final and Playoff Finals to follow then a break before they start again in September. 

 

Therefore they will start the new season down south one month before we start our campaign. 

 

While all that has been going on we have had dodgy votes and phonecalls and club owners and others shafting other clubs all to satisfy their self interest. 

 

Plus giving Celtic their 8.79 in a row.

 

Tin pot leagues,  tin pot governance. 

 

An utter disgrace and the procrastination goes on. 

 

 

 

 

:spoton:

 

your first paragraph, they are finishing their leagues and cup competitions before starting their new season.

 

The one thing that they did do wrong was the way they stopped league 1 and 2 and relegated on ppg. something i am wondering is if there is going to be a legal challenge from teams like tranmere

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Benny Factor
51 minutes ago, weegie jambo said:

Shettleston, middle class! have you ever been there. It's a dump and Helensburgh is a law unto itself. I would say that inner city regeneration has kept many middle class folk within the city boundaries, not to mention traditional "good areas, West End, Shawlands, Eastwood and gentrification areas like Denniston and Finniston.  THese Glasgow's a dump posts get my goat.

A mate of mine's g/f had a flat above the Drum(not sure if it's still there). The one and only time I've seen a guy get an absolute pasting from their missus down on the street below. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

colinmaroon
49 minutes ago, harrywragg said:

I've no been called one yet thankfully!. .. us jags must be, on the sliding scale from Jambo to 'vermin', just on the right side of acceptable 😉

 

 

Apart from the Catenaccio era of Bertie Auld I have always had a soft spot for the Jags.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

It looks like @Jambo66 is indicating that in Scotland, legal precedent cannot be set by an Arbitration Panel. That being the case, your point around the vote in respect of Company law accept/reject yes/no does raise some serious Company Law questions that may require a legal precedent. Should the panel therefore conclude that is what required, CoS here we come.

 

McLaughlin twice yesterday said that he wouldn't rule out this going back to the CoS, he never expanded on his reasoning but was pretty forceful in making this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambof3tornado

Sky no issues with England delaying the start of next season.

 

Wonder if Doncaster even asked sky??

 

The mans a *****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

McLaughlin twice yesterday said that he wouldn't rule out this going back to the CoS, he never expanded on his reasoning but was pretty forceful in making this point.

Maybe the people on the panel are not qualified to rule on the Dundee vote. Maybe a judge needs to rule/create a precedent ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

Sky no issues with England delaying the start of next season.

 

Wonder if Doncaster even asked sky??

 

The mans a *****.

he can't even get a league sponsor so probably doesn't know how to contact them and just lets his master lawell do it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
9 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

McLaughlin twice yesterday said that he wouldn't rule out this going back to the CoS, he never expanded on his reasoning but was pretty forceful in making this point.

 

3 minutes ago, buzzbomb said:

Maybe the people on the panel are not qualified to rule on the Dundee vote. Maybe a judge needs to rule/create a precedent ?

 

That is a reasonable question, at least if no-one on the panel is of the standing of a judge.

 

If, for example, a "solicitor" on the panel ruled that the Dundee vote could be lawfully changed, in the absence of a weight of precedents, then such a ruling could possibly be challenged at the CoS on the basis of an "error of law".

 

If no panel member felt able to make such a call, and the decision was dependent on it,  then it would make sense to seek a legal "opinion from a serving judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jambo66 said:

FWIW, I think that all 3 panelists will be legally qualified.  I would say that if the SPFL has picked someone with no legal training as their arbiter, that would be embarassing in the extreme and a further indication of their inability to understand how serious this whole matter is for the future of Scottish football.

 

I agree with you, I have no doubt that Hearts and Partick will have selected a panellist with the requisite legal experience to understand the nuances of the law and be able to look at case law and apply that to the arguments being made by each side's QCs.

 

If the SPFL was stupid enough to appoint someone without the necessary legal qualifications, then it almost becomes a two person panel, as their pick would simply not have the ability to contribute in a meaningful way when it comes to matters of law.  We only need to win 2-1, as we did in the preliminary hearing.  And as I've mentioned several times before, we only need to win on the balance of probabilities, not beyond all reasonable doubt which would apply in a criminal case.

 

I'm generally a glass half full kind of guy, and while I have no better idea of how this will play out than anyone else on here, I am optimistic that we will get a favourable outcome of some kind.  Whether that is my preferred outcome of reinstatement, or for some reason our demotion is upheld and we get a sizeable compensation.

 

I don't know in what circumstances the latter outcome might be applied, I have surmised that maybe the panel could determine that while it was wrong to demote us, to reinstate us at this time would actually cause more inconvenience to other clubs, so to avoid unnecessary collateral damage, they compensate us rather than reinstate us.  It would be good to hear the opinions of some of the more legally knowledgeable people on here as to whether that would be a valid consideration for the panel.  The fact that we included compensation as an alternative remedy to reinstatement suggests we were at least aware that 'winning' the case didn't automatically lead to reinstatement.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, steve123 said:

They admitted they had received it at 4.48 or whatever the time was before 5 , as far as I understood the judge he was taking that as an admission vote was recieved.

It genuinely makes absolutely no difference whatsoever when, or even if, the SPFL received Dundee's vote.  In law, all that matters is that it was sent to the correct email address by Dundee.  If that happened, it is deemed to have been cast at the moment it was sent by Dundee.

 

It appears that everyone accepts that it was sent to the correct email address by Dundee before 5 pm and the vote was to reject the resolution.

 

The only issue for the arbitration panel is whether or not, as a matter of law, Dundee were able to revoke their rejection.  The view of our QC is that they were not.  The SPFL and the Calpol Three will presumably have argued that they could.  That is really all there is to it as far as the first part of our Petition is concerned.

 

If our QC's arguments prevail, we win.  What should happen after that is reinstatement.  I believe that is what our QC will have argued.  I imagine that the Calpol Trhee will argue that compensation should be paid instead.  Christ knows what the position of the SPFL will be in that scenario.  They caused this by their dishonesty, but they surely cannot be happy with compensation being awarded unless they can successfully argue that it should be a tiny amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

It genuinely makes absolutely no difference whatsoever when, or even if, the SPFL received Dundee's vote.  In law, all that matters is that it was sent to the correct email address by Dundee.  If that happened, it is deemed to have been cast at the moment it was sent by Dundee.

 

It appears that everyone accepts that it was sent to the correct email address by Dundee before 5 pm and the vote was to reject the resolution.

 

The only issue for the arbitration panel is whether or not, as a matter of law, Dundee were able to revoke their rejection.  The view of our QC is that they were not.  The SPFL and the Calpol Three will presumably have argued that they could.  That is really all there is to it as far as the first part of our Petition is concerned.

 

If our QC's arguments prevail, we win.  What should happen after that is reinstatement.  I believe that is what our QC will have argued.  I imagine that the Calpol Trhee will argue that compensation should be paid instead.  Christ knows what the position of the SPFL will be in that scenario.  They caused this by their dishonesty, but they surely cannot be happy with compensation being awarded unless they can successfully argue that it should be a tiny amount.

Cheers for that I have no idea how they pat compensation to an agreeable level

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, harrywragg said:

I've no been called one yet thankfully!. .. us jags must be, on the sliding scale from Jambo to 'vermin', just on the right side of acceptable 😉

 

You do yourself an injustice Harry.  The Jags are very much at the upper end of that scale.  I've always enjoyed an away day at Maryhill, very much the acceptable face of Glasgow football.  I'm sure if we end up in the same division again, which hopefully will be the premiership before long, then Maryhill will be rammed with Jambos, unlike a lot of other away grounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biffa Bacon
1 hour ago, Mid Calder Jambo said:

Now there is a novel idea for Scottish Football going forward.  Neutrality ( the dictionary definition of which is "yer nae Celtic or yer nae Rangers"). A good idea but unlikely to happen in this religiously motivated cesspit they call Glasgow.

It was a theoretical example to show how the selected panel member does not work for us, rather than a justification of the neutrality of SFA officials. That is a whole new topic 😲

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rogue Daddy
8 minutes ago, RobNox said:

 

I agree with you, I have no doubt that Hearts and Partick will have selected a panellist with the requisite legal experience to understand the nuances of the law and be able to look at case law and apply that to the arguments being made by each side's QCs.

 

If the SPFL was stupid enough to appoint someone without the necessary legal qualifications, then it almost becomes a two person panel, as their pick would simply not have the ability to contribute in a meaningful way when it comes to matters of law.  We only need to win 2-1, as we did in the preliminary hearing.  And as I've mentioned several times before, we only need to win on the balance of probabilities, not beyond all reasonable doubt which would apply in a criminal case.

 

I'm generally a glass half full kind of guy, and while I have no better idea of how this will play out than anyone else on here, I am optimistic that we will get a favourable outcome of some kind.  Whether that is my preferred outcome of reinstatement, or for some reason our demotion is upheld and we get a sizeable compensation.

 

I don't know in what circumstances the latter outcome might be applied, I have surmised that maybe the panel could determine that while it was wrong to demote us, to reinstate us at this time would actually cause more inconvenience to other clubs, so to avoid unnecessary collateral damage, they compensate us rather than reinstate us.  It would be good to hear the opinions of some of the more legally knowledgeable people on here as to whether that would be a valid consideration for the panel.  The fact that we included compensation as an alternative remedy to reinstatement suggests we were at least aware that 'winning' the case didn't automatically lead to reinstatement.  

If the SPFL have selected a non-professional (in the legal sense) as their arbiter pick, I would wager they would NOT be impartial. 
I’m pretty sure he would be an SPFL ‘sympathiser’... I wonder if they really are that stupid? If this is the case, I would certainly consider them to be clutching at straws. 
However, the fact the process has gone on this length of time, suggests otherwise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And he’s not praying!
25 minutes ago, jambopilms said:

I thought we were told many clubs would go to the wall. Whens that meant to be happening ?


Like many other companies across the land, when the furlough scheme ends the problems will begin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambof3tornado
21 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

 

That is a reasonable question, at least if no-one on the panel is of the standing of a judge.

 

If, for example, a "solicitor" on the panel ruled that the Dundee vote could be lawfully changed, in the absence of a weight of precedents, then such a ruling could possibly be challenged at the CoS on the basis of an "error of law".

 

If no panel member felt able to make such a call, and the decision was dependent on it,  then it would make sense to seek a legal "opinion from a serving judge.

Not only if no panel member could make such a call they'd need to agree on the call to proceed.

 

This is either going back to cos or is going to be an utter fudge of a stitch up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jonnothejambo said:

Well there we have it. The English Premiership finishes and now the play offs are underway. FA Cup Final and Playoff Finals to follow then a break before they start again in September. 

 

Therefore they will start the new season down south one month before we start our campaign. 

 

While all that has been going on we have had dodgy votes and phonecalls and club owners and others shafting other clubs all to satisfy their self interest. 

 

Plus giving Celtic their 8.79 in a row.

 

Tin pot leagues,  tin pot governance. 

 

An utter disgrace and the procrastination goes on. 

 

 

 

 


spot on.

 

i also think this was a perfect opportunity to trial out next season as an ‘almost’ summer league. This would reach tv audiences that would not normally bother 

 

edit - I know this would clash with the proposed euros, but to be fair how many players in the SPFL would actually be going to that

Edited by DarthVodka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walter Bishop
56 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

McLaughlin twice yesterday said that he wouldn't rule out this going back to the CoS, he never expanded on his reasoning but was pretty forceful in making this point.

I got the impression that Bian McLaughlin knew more than he was letting on for obvious reasons. He is very friendly with the Hearts board, Gary Locke and Jim Jefferies in particular. 

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...