SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[SUTOL]

16 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

They wouldn't have a choice. FF said that all 42 members hold an equal share of owning the SPFL and are all liable to any costs incurred. I'm surprised it's not as straight forward as an equal liability but I trust FF knows his stuff.

 

A £6million pay out would cost each of the 42 clubs £142k and would kill about half of the teams in Scotland.

 

I can't remember FF's post on the subject, but although all 42 clubs own an equal share in the company (SPFL) it doesn't stand to reason that they would be liable for paying a settlement. 

 

It would be like, you owning shares in British Telecom, or RBS and them losing a claim of some sort and them then asking you for money to help settle that debt. 

 

Surely the settlement would come from the SPFL income (TV money primarily) and their articles state they need to keep back from clubs enough to cover their bills and any future expected 'bills'. 

 

 

[Malinga the Swinga]

8 minutes ago, Gambo said:

Get the popcorn ready for the infighting.

Much as I. Would like that to happen, I can't see it. Not sure it can be forced through before all of this shit hits the fan. One thing clear though. We should never again reach out the hand of friendship to any of these ******* teams ever again.

 

Never forget just what a bunch of at worst lying ***** they are, while at best, they are cowardly *****. All in all, they are just *****.

[Jambo in Yorkshire]

Quite simple now.

 

We go to court if the SPFL don’t get reconstruction agreed.

 

Then we propose a vote of no confidence in Doncaster.

 

If we win the court case Doncaster has no chance.

 

 

[luckydug]

23 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

In LD’s case it was relatively minor stuff anyway, relating to improper paperwork for   a few mortgages. It’s was hardly drug Cartel money he was washing and it was dropped in any case. I have no issue with the man except that he needs to reign in some of the language 

You'd be advised to think before you post as well. 

[Scnorthedinburgh]

1 minute ago, NANOJAMBO said:

No need to "shut it down".

If Hearts have a case the courts can't condone the wrong doing. 

Delay & fix.

If it comes to that. 

It's not Hearts' fault this has dragged on so long. 

The delay would shut it down for maybe a season.

First wait for court date.

Result

Appeal to higher court and not waiting 

Result

Appeal

Etc depending on courts available to speak to.

You notice Sevco v HMRC didn't take months.

1 club v a larger organisation.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

3 hours ago, Stanley_ said:

I took a look at the top 20 leagues in Europe (Scotland is 14th by coefficient).

 

15/20 are resuming/have already resumed and will finish the season.  

 

France and Belgium finished early with relegation and this looks to have been successfully challenged.

 

Netherlands finished early with no champions or relegation.

 

Cyprus finished early with no relegation and are expanding their league to 14 teams.

 

Scotland is certainly the exception right now.

 

 

This is damning.

 

It's also what happens when you let one club play dictator. This has always been about Celtic's 9 in a row and their CL money. It's also why the SC will finish during a different season so Celtic can get their quadruple treble or whatever. I doubt any other country is finishing a cup competition during a completely different season, when one team may be in a different league or not even playing at all.

Edited June 14, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[SUTOL]

8 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Do they base it on where teams finished last season? They don't obviously know where everyone will finish next season and it will need to come out of next season's prize pot. Further complicated if some leagues don't even play.

 

That's an interesting question, and I have been wondering the answer myself. 

 

Maybe they just pay a flat fee to each club, based on the division they are in. 

[graygo]

2 minutes ago, SUTOL said:

 

I can't remember FF's post on the subject, but although all 42 clubs own an equal share in the company (SPFL) it doesn't stand to reason that they would be liable for paying a settlement. 

 

It would be like, you owning shares in British Telecom, or RBS and them losing a claim of some sort and them then asking you for money to help settle that debt. 

 

Surely the settlement would come from the SPFL income (TV money primarily) and their articles state they need to keep back from clubs enough to cover their bills and any future expected 'bills'. 

 

 

 

Correct, it also says "liabilities".

[Libertarian]

4 minutes ago, Saughton Jambo said:

I’ve always said the vote would fail and I’ve always said reconstruction will eventually happen.....and I’m still sticking to both these predictions. Remember there’s a strategy to both sides feeling each other out just now. It’s easy to read from recent reports in the media to what’s happened so far. What  ‘we’ don't know Is what’s currently going on behind the scenes, and that is the intriguing bit. 

As the end draws to a conclusion then it’s all still to play for IMO. 

I don't have any inside information but what you say is pretty much what I feel.  I can't believe that the SPFL and member clubs would be so stupid as to take their chances in court 

[Scnorthedinburgh]

2 minutes ago, SUTOL said:

 

I can't remember FF's post on the subject, but although all 42 clubs own an equal share in the company (SPFL) it doesn't stand to reason that they would be liable for paying a settlement. 

 

It would be like, you owning shares in British Telecom, or RBS and them losing a claim of some sort and them then asking you for money to help settle that debt. 

 

Surely the settlement would come from the SPFL income (TV money primarily) and their articles state they need to keep back from clubs enough to cover their bills and any future expected 'bills'. 

 

 

It would, but would drain their coffers. How do they then do prize money?

So in a way member clubs are paying.

[Jambo66]

6 minutes ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

As in another reply.

Thinking a court will shut down a buisness stream entirely until 2 parties have their day in court is far fetched.

 

Find one example and you may have a point. Google v EU no restriction on trade during the case.

 

Finding a case where interim interdict has been granted would be extremely easy. They are granted with considerable regularity. Finding one that has virtually the same facts as this would be next to impossible. Even if I could, you would no doubt argue til you are blue in the face why it is different from our situation.

I have never said that we would get an interim interdict, I simply pointed out that to say we have "no real possibility" of getting one is rubbish. Now, it may be your opinion and that is fine. It is not my opinion. Perhaps you might think about sounding less like you know something is a fact, when it patently is not.

[GorgieRules22]

The way the club has been treated since March by fellow clubs, ex professionals, the media and Neil Doncaster and co is absolutely disgusting. 
 

The time to fight back is now.

 

If the club come calling for support in legal fees to fight this we have to stand up and be counted again.

 

 

[hearts00]

I suspect what is going on behind the scenes is that Liewell and Dingcaster are doing the hard lobbying of clubs they know are refusing to vote for reconstruction.

 

After indicative vote fails tomorrow I suspect the even harder lobbying will start, with legal action front and centre. 
 

This of course is based on the assumption the SPFL board are firmly behind reconstruction and definitely don’t want to go to court. 

[Turkishcap]

Looking forward to a Monday, takes my mind off the fact its our cleaning day that I hate.

[rory78]

Clubs voted to end the season in that rushed nonsense back in April under the impression that the reason that was being done was that it didn't delay ANY league in Scotland starting in August - that guys is where we CAN'T lose the court case amongst most other things that are probable

[NANOJAMBO]

7 minutes ago, rory78 said:

Doesn't make a blind bit of difference everyone of them would be liable including Partick Stranraer Inverness Falkirk etc but id hope we would do a deal with them and reinburse them  - if it ****s Ross County Ayr United Elgin and the Wee Team from Leef im happy with that 👌

Imagine the in-fighting : Ross Co & Hibs landing every club with a massive bill for compo & legal costs. 

Clubs counter suing them both for damages. 

A man can dream. 

[DETTY29]

5 minutes ago, Jambo in Yorkshire said:

Quite simple now.

 

We go to court if the SPFL don’t get reconstruction agreed.

 

Then we propose a vote of no confidence in Doncaster.

 

If we win the court case Doncaster has no chance.

 

 

Doncaster is desperate to get this through.

 

Keep him in situ until the court - legal cases.

 

While a courtroom is more difficult to keep stoom, Doncaster leaving with a big golden handshake and confidentiality clause imo isnt in our best interests at this stage. 

[Scnorthedinburgh]

2 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

Finding a case where interim interdict has been granted would be extremely easy. They are granted with considerable regularity. Finding one that has virtually the same facts as this would be next to impossible. Even if I could, you would no doubt argue til you are blue in the face why it is different from our situation.

I have never said that we would get an interim interdict, I simply pointed out that to say we have "no real possibility" of getting one is rubbish. Now, it may be your opinion and that is fine. It is not my opinion. Perhaps you might think about sounding less like you know something is a fact, when it patently is not.

I think no real possibility is very reasonable, I didn't so absolutely no chance.

For a close case look no further than the SPL.

SEVCO saga, at no point did they go for an interdic when division 4 was on the way and they appealed to the heavens.

If it was an option those idiots would have went for shutting the league down to apply pressure.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

40 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

Your first sentence is sort of bollocks that various posters spout from time to time. In the first place, it's called an interdict. In the second place it may be granted or it may be refused. Both are very real possibilities.

If I was you I wouldn’t act like too much of a nob. Won’t be a good look if this doesn’t work out as you’re promising us it will

[Gmcjambo]

1 minute ago, hearts00 said:

I suspect what is going on behind the scenes is that Liewell and Dingcaster are doing the hard lobbying of clubs they know are refusing to vote for reconstruction.

 

After indicative vote fails tomorrow I suspect the even harder lobbying will start, with legal action front and centre. 
 

This of course is based on the assumption the SPFL board are firmly behind reconstruction and definitely don’t want to go to court. 

There's no way that a governing body ever wants to be taken to court by one or more of its members, surely.    It shows a failure in their leadership even if they win.  They are here to support clubs not fight with them, and certainly not to cause division and in fighting.    I reckon SPFL has to be hoping and praying for a non legal way out of this mess.   I also think Doncaster will be a 'dead man walkng' if this goes to court, win or lose.    Even with recon,  his coat is on a very shoogly peg! 

[NANOJAMBO]

3 minutes ago, rory78 said:

Clubs voted to end the season in that rushed nonsense back in April under the impression that the reason that was being done was that it didn't delay ANY league in Scotland starting in August - that guys is where we CAN'T lose the court case amongst most other things that are probable

Correct.

Hearts could NOT be relegated as a consequence of ending the season early - the SPFL Board either had to make that decision

(to "relegate" ) or get the clubs to do it. 

[b-reed]

3 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

Finding a case where interim interdict has been granted would be extremely easy. They are granted with considerable regularity. Finding one that has virtually the same facts as this would be next to impossible. Even if I could, you would no doubt argue til you are blue in the face why it is different from our situation.

I have never said that we would get an interim interdict, I simply pointed out that to say we have "no real possibility" of getting one is rubbish. Now, it may be your opinion and that is fine. It is not my opinion. Perhaps you might think about sounding less like you know something is a fact, when it patently is not.

 I agree with much of what you say but if we lodged papers tomorrow it could be weeks if not months before there heard in court... remember this is a civil court and there not at the moment sitting in any great number and already have a backlog of cases.... my worry is how long it would take to be heard in court.... I think that why the SPFL are stringing this Reconstruction along for as long as they can....

[Scnorthedinburgh]

4 minutes ago, rory78 said:

Clubs voted to end the season in that rushed nonsense back in April under the impression that the reason that was being done was that it didn't delay ANY league in Scotland starting in August - that guys is where we CAN'T lose the court case amongst most other things that are probable

Our best chance is bottom place in each league not being treated the same, regarding the penalty for being bottom.

Add to that the reason the SPFL say the lowest team can't go down is against the reason the other 3 are.

[Debut 4]

7 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

 

This is damning.

 

It's also what happens when you let one club play dictator. This has always been about Celtic's 9 in a row and their CL money. It's also why the SC will finish during a different season so Celtic can get their quadruple treble or whatever. I doubt any other country is finishing a cup competition during a completely different season, when one team may be in a different league or not even playing at all.

It is damning and makes us laughable.  It’s magnified how lazy, disinterested and incompetent the people are that run our game. Just want an easy life. Not proactive or got the constitution to be decision makers, let’s just pander to the one ugly and make life nice and easy for ourselves.

 

One thing we’re doing is making that ***t work for his money now. 

[Unknown user]

18 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Do they base it on where teams finished last season? They don't obviously know where everyone will finish next season and it will need to come out of next season's prize pot. Further complicated if some leagues don't even play.

 

8 minutes ago, SUTOL said:

 

That's an interesting question, and I have been wondering the answer myself. 

 

Maybe they just pay a flat fee to each club, based on the division they are in. 

 

No.

Payments are spread out over the season, IIRC everyone's first payment is the same, and at the end you'll get much more or less depending on where you finish. 

That's why we were due next to nothing after "finishing" 12th last season 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

15 minutes ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

The delay would shut it down for maybe a season.

First wait for court date.

Result

Appeal to higher court and not waiting 

Result

Appeal

Etc depending on courts available to speak to.

You notice Sevco v HMRC didn't take months.

1 club v a larger organisation.

 

If it's a choice between a 12 team league and no football or a 14 team league and football the SPFL and all the clubs WILL go for reconstruction. If they're as stupid as they seem to be it might go to court to make that happen but you can be sure they'll make reconstruction happen overnight when they absolutely have to. 

 

My guess is they want to make Hearts look as bad as possible by making reconstruction happen as a last resort because of our legal threats. We can then get the blame later when clubs protest about it or whatever. Mind you if it works and people like 14 teams, you can be sure we won't get any credit.

Edited June 14, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Jambof3tornado]

33 minutes ago, MattyK82 said:

Precisely. To dismiss the possibility of an interdict, following on from this nonsensical debacle is folly to say the least. I hope any writ is issued tomorrow without delay. It’s clear some chairmen are not going to see sense. But by legal action being formally instigated, it might help focus the minds those who perhaps doubt our threat is genuine.

Many of the chairmen lower down the leagues dont give a shit because they will mothball!!

[NANOJAMBO]

1 hour ago, Four faces said:

Dross county!!!!

Toss County. 

[Tom Hardy’s Dug]

31 minutes ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

Ok I used an English term.

Can you find 1 example of an entire buisness stream being stopped by a court as they looked at 1 party v the other?

Good luck in your search.

Virgin v BA over Heathrow didn't shut the airport until they decided if it was fair.

I’ve read in the papers I am sure of major projects being stopped due to an interdict or injunction at great cost to the other party.

 

I’m not sure but is the test the balance of convenience or something. The league start is ages away so I don’t know but couldn’t you just at this time interdict the fixtures being fixed and issued for example. That wouldn’t cost anyone anything.

[NANOJAMBO]

1 minute ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

If it's a choice between a 12 team league and no football or a 14 team league and football the SPFL and all the clubs WILL go for reconstruction. If they're stupid as they seem to be it might go to court to make that happen but you can be sure they'll make reconstruction happen overnight when they absolutely have to. 

Amen. 

[Scnorthedinburgh]

2 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

If it's a choice between a 12 team league and no football or a 14 team league and football the SPFL and all the clubs WILL go for reconstruction. If they're stupid as they seem to be it might go to court to make that happen but you can be sure they'll make reconstruction happen overnight when they absolutely have to. 

In any other country you would be correct.

[Rc55]

My paranoia  and  total distrust  of the authorities is such  that if we  are forced to play  in a 27 game Championship  I would  demand a public  drawing  of the fixtures  with Club reprsentatives and neutral observors  to  check  that  the draw  for  13or  14 home games is random . Once that is determined the same  scrutiny to  who is played twice at home and twice away 

[Scnorthedinburgh]

3 minutes ago, Tom Hardy’s Dug said:

I’ve read in the papers I am sure of major projects being stopped due to an interdict or injunction at great cost to the other party.

 

I’m not sure but is the test the balance of convenience or something. The league start is ages away so I don’t know but couldn’t you just at this time interdict the fixtures being fixed and issued for example. That wouldn’t cost anyone anything.

Any court case will be months at the very best case, and you have to factor in appeals

 

[Jambo66]

3 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

If I was you I wouldn’t act like too much of a nob. Won’t be a good look if this doesn’t work out as you’re promising us it will

Not intended. I just get pissed off when people make out things as facts when they are opinions. I try to make it clear that the things I post are my opinion. I also try to post how things work legally.

If we end up going to court we might get an interim interdict, we might not. I have never said we will. I have suggested that I think it is balanced which way that goes. We might win our case, we might not. I think we have a very good case. These are opinions and people are free to agree or disagree. However, if someone says something as if it is a fact, they need to expect that will be challenged.

I accept that on occasion I let my emotions get the better of me - the stakes here are incredibly high, not just for our club, but for Scottish football as a whole. I try not to, but like everyone on here, I care - probably too much.

[David McCaig]

Just now, Scnorthedinburgh said:

Any court case will be months at the very best case, and you have to factor in appeals

 

All the more reason for the SPFL Board not to let it go to court then.

[NANOJAMBO]

1 minute ago, Tom Hardy’s Dug said:

I’ve read in the papers I am sure of major projects being stopped due to an interdict or injunction at great cost to the other party.

 

I’m not sure but is the test the balance of convenience or something. The league start is ages away so I don’t know but couldn’t you just at this time interdict the fixtures being fixed and issued for example. That wouldn’t cost anyone anything.

Hearts either have a case for reinstatement or they don't (assuming that's what AB is arguing for).

If the courts agree there is a case to answer then there can only be one outcome pre trial(hearing, whatever) - suspend football until a judgement is handed down or an agreement is reached. 

If this is the way it's to be, you'd expect Hearts' will be arguing that the impact of any interdict (to suspend) isn't of Hearts making : AB has tried  (twice) to find a resolution while the SPFL Board deliberately put talks for recon at the end of their "to do" list and haven't exactly been championing the  cause of recon. 

[Scnorthedinburgh]

2 minutes ago, Rc55 said:

My paranoia  and  total distrust  of the authorities is such  that if we  are forced to play  in a 27 game Championship  I would  demand a public  drawing  of the fixtures  with Club reprsentatives and neutral observors  to  check  that  the draw  for  13or  14 home games is random . Once that is determined the same  scrutiny to  who is played twice at home and twice away 

You don't trust the people who have already indicated OF games will be late in the season so they get crowds for tv.

Of course it's random. 

[David McCaig]

3 minutes ago, Rc55 said:

My paranoia  and  total distrust  of the authorities is such  that if we  are forced to play  in a 27 game Championship  I would  demand a public  drawing  of the fixtures  with Club reprsentatives and neutral observors  to  check  that  the draw  for  13or  14 home games is random . Once that is determined the same  scrutiny to  who is played twice at home and twice away 

I would assume that Hearts pick up Dundee Uniteds fixtures and Raith replace Partick. This seasons fixture list is then reversed.

[Scnorthedinburgh]

1 minute ago, David McCaig said:

All the more reason for the SPFL Board not to let it go to court then.

You would think.

 

[ramrod]

6 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

Doncaster is desperate to get this through.

 

Keep him in situ until the court - legal cases.

 

While a courtroom is more difficult to keep stoom, Doncaster leaving with a big golden handshake and confidentiality clause imo isnt in our best interests at this stage. 

I don't think Doncaster is desperate to get this through . I think he's just covering his back and putting this all back on the member clubs if it goes to court . 

The facts are since the season has finished every single decision has gone against us inc today's Championship vote on the amount of games next season . 

I'm not buying this angle that Doncaster and the Spfl chairmen are sitting there dreading court action and somehow we are sitting holding all the aces . 

Weve been shafted at every turn and reconstruction looks just as much a forelorn hope as it did weeks ago . 

Imo the best we can now hope for is some form of compensation for being demoted. 

Its turning out to be another horror show for us fans regardless how some are spinning it . 

[highlandjambo3]

3 hours ago, Stanley_ said:

I took a look at the top 20 leagues in Europe (Scotland is 14th by coefficient).

 

15/20 are resuming/have already resumed and will finish the season.  

 

France and Belgium finished early with relegation and this looks to have been successfully challenged.

 

Netherlands finished early with no champions or relegation.

 

Cyprus finished early with no relegation and are expanding their league to 14 teams.

 

Scotland is certainly the exception right now.

So......20 leagues in Europe and 19 have no relegations (I know two did but was overruled in court) but Scotland relegated and our custodians think that’s ok......... piss take if ever there was one.

[NANOJAMBO]

10 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

 

No.

Payments are spread out over the season, IIRC everyone's first payment is the same, and at the end you'll get much more or less depending on where you finish. 

That's why we were due next to nothing after "finishing" 12th last season 

The initial payment is based on the lowest place in that particular division. Final payments are to recognise making up the difference based on actual placings. 

[S Form]

If the indicative vote is ‘no’ tomorrow is there any good reason why Ann Budge should not immediately launch legal action? There would seem to be no advantage in waiting for the result of any sham ‘formal’ vote. However, if we start legal proceedings and the formal vote goes ahead, the other clubs will then vote knowing that we don’t intend to meekly roll over.

[SMJ_1874]

14 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

Finding a case where interim interdict has been granted would be extremely easy. They are granted with considerable regularity. Finding one that has virtually the same facts as this would be next to impossible. Even if I could, you would no doubt argue til you are blue in the face why it is different from our situation.

I have never said that we would get an interim interdict, I simply pointed out that to say we have "no real possibility" of getting one is rubbish. Now, it may be your opinion and that is fine. It is not my opinion. Perhaps you might think about sounding less like you know something is a fact, when it patently is not.

Applying for an interdict and having it successfully granted are two separate entities altogether. Even if an interdict is granted then I can’t see any court stopping football in any way, in this country or in Europe. What it will do though is,  If the court deems there are sufficient grounds for our case and If sufficient grounds can be identified, then future monies from tv revenues can be ring fenced as rightly pointed out in LD’s statement last night.

 

I think I the phrase, ‘more than one way to skin a cat’ springs to mind. 

[Fluorescent Adolescent]

14 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

If I was you I wouldn’t act like too much of a nob. Won’t be a good look if this doesn’t work out as you’re promising us it will

How or where was he acting like a ‘nob’?

 

He’s promised nothing as far as I can see.

 

Tell you what isn’t a good look - you making shite up to have a pop at him.

[kingantti1874]

1 minute ago, S Form said:

If the indicative vote is ‘no’ tomorrow is there any good reason why Ann Budge should not immediately launch legal action? There would seem to be no advantage in waiting for the result of any sham ‘formal’ vote. However, if we start legal proceedings and the formal vote goes ahead, the other clubs will then vote knowing that we don’t intend to meekly roll over.

I think this is exactly what will happen, seems to me a few clubs think we are bluffing.. time to go all in.

[David McCaig]

Just now, Saughton Jambo said:

Applying for an interdict and having it successfully granted are two separate entities altogether. Even if an interdict is granted then I can’t see any court stopping football in any way, in this country or in Europe. What it will do though is,  If the court deems there are sufficient grounds for our case and If sufficient grounds can be identified, then future monies from tv revenues can be ring fenced as rightly pointed out in LD’s statement last night.

 

I think I the phrase, ‘more than one way to skin a cat’ springs to mind. 

Although the SPFLs articles of association require them to ring fence money for liabilities  anyway.

[Gmcjambo]

Just now, S Form said:

If the indicative vote is ‘no’ tomorrow is there any good reason why Ann Budge should not immediately launch legal action? There would seem to be no advantage in waiting for the result of any sham ‘formal’ vote. However, if we start legal proceedings and the formal vote goes ahead, the other clubs will then vote knowing that we don’t intend to meekly roll over.

Was thinking the same,   why can't they run parallel for a week or 2?   I'd imagine we can show intent formally at low cost and cease if and when (probably when) recon goes through. 

[jamboinglasgow]

25 minutes ago, Selkirkhmfc1874 said:

The indicative votes tomorrow certain not to be enough but Doncaster might play for more time and still call egm for beginning of next again week but be interesting to see this week if Mrs Budge and her legal team lose patience and just fire on putting maximum pressure on clubs before voting next week 

 

I think there are clubs who think she is bluffing so think they can get away with their actions without consequence. I would put in a legal challenge this week as you say to put maximum pressure on these clubs.

[kingantti1874]

Just now, Gmcjambo said:

Was thinking the same,   why can't they run parallel for a week or 2?   I'd imagine we can show intent formally at low cost and cease if and when (probably when) recon goes through. 

im 95% certain we will be playing in the champ