SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Scnorthedinburgh]

3 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

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. 

If that was the route taken. In an employment tribunal the company your claiming against would have to suspend all work you would/should be doing as case is heard.

Doesn't happen. If you win, they may order reinstatement and compo. If reinstatement isn't an option the compo takes that into account.

It's a sports league and a cuisines. To the court they are just companies, I honestly can't see any way they would shut the league until the case is over.

[J.T.F.Robertson]

6 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

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.

 

I like to think most of us understand that.

If I thought I had something worthwhile to contribute I'd be effin and ceeing all the way through my "discourse".

 

 

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Jambo66 said:

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.

Funny you say that, I was gobsmacked at your decent post yesterday about interdicts after you posted that Ross County and Hibs should defend the case, the SPFL won't, I needed to explain why they will. Then I realised you had experience in a specific case with certain similarities, but little knowledge of company structure and law (not a diss, who does outside that world? I had to look stuff up, what type of company the spfl is, what that means in terms of individual shareholders' liability etc)

 

Anyway, my point is you did it yourself. I do too, we all do sometimes. We haven't reached the stage yet where we have to put "IMO" at the end of every post. 

[Unknown user]

5 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

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. 

Cheers

[Scnorthedinburgh]

3 minutes ago, 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. 

Intent to serve papers is used all the time in business, wouldn't work, everyone involved has done or received that letter.

[south morocco]

Will we find out which clubs are blocking it tomorrow?

[SMJ_1874]

20 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

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.

I don’t think you need to apologise to anyone bud. Emotions are running at fever pitch just now and everyone and I mean everyone is getting edgy. Think there will be a sense of relief all round when this is over 

Edited June 14, 2020 by Saughton Jambo

[hibsarepants]

3 minutes ago, 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. 

The lawyers representing the club will be going for maximum leverage and that will include an interdict. The court will agree / not agree on the balance of convenience but the overturning decisions of the French & Belgian are quite a powerful argument to grant the interdict. If you don't stop the leagues starting we will suffer damages and not have the ability to redress our position as if the original event hadn't happened.  

[Gmcjambo]

2 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

im 95% certain we will be playing in the champ

My view is that the risk of legal action FAR outweighs implementing recon so when push comes to shove,   clubs will do what's right for them and make it happen.    I can't believe it's in anyone's interest to see this go to court.    

[PTBCAL]

8 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

im 95% certain we will be playing in the champ

100%

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, hughesie27 said:

Somebody fancy doing some math?

 

Footballfirst suggests that any compensation is paid for by the members. Presumably all 42 pay a share dispite 3 of those teams getting paid the money.

FF says the amount t payable is in relation to their %age of the prize mkney earned at the end of the season. So Prem clubs pay more than League 1 and 2 for example.

 

How much would the Prem teams be due  to pay each if we were to be awarded £6million across the 3 teams?

More than 80% of it. 

[Scnorthedinburgh]

6 minutes ago, J.T.F.Robertson said:

 

I like to think most of us understand that.

If I thought I had something worthwhile to contribute I'd be effin and ceeing all the way through my "discourse".

 

 

Got to love 66, refers to my post and says I stated as fact.

My sentence starts Chances of.

Not a statement of fact in any way.

Chances of his 50/50 view being correct is well 50/50.

[Unknown user]

Just now, Gmcjambo said:

My view is that the risk of legal action FAR outweighs implementing recon so when push comes to shove,   clubs will do what's right for them and make it happen.    I can't believe it's in anyone's interest to see this go to court.    

 

That's where I am too, if you take a step back the power behind the SPFL do not want a court case, that's the core of this. 

I can't see an interdict, a court won't want to put several companies in jeopardy at this time 

[John mcCartney]

25 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Toss County. 

Lost Bounty

[The Mercer Takeover]

When we press the nuclear button, we have to come out all guns blazing, but also be prepared for the SPFL to play dirty.

The very first thing we need to do, is for Budge to make it resolutely clear, that Hearts will not be taking ANY tickets for away league games next season, citing potential violence from our support or similar, no matter what league we are in. This would absolutely cripple Championship clubs hoping to benefiting out if us.

We have to become totally uncooperative on all footballing fronts, challenging and delaying everything that comes up.

As supporters we need to avoid last seasons SC semi, when it is played. The club can't refuse tickets for this but we can as supporters.

All clubs playing at Tynecastle will from now on be given only 100 tickets for their travelling support. This ties in with the rules of providing "a reasonable number". This includes Rangers, Celtic and Hibs. Bottom line is, we don't need their money.

Hickey must not be sold to Celtic under any circumstances.

Hearts must not loan players to clubs that have tried to screw us.

All attempts at board level friendships with Hibs must stop.

We need to make sure that if we are in the Championship, the Premiership can't just change the rules and prevent a team being promoted.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

22 minutes ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

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

 

 

In France and Belgium it all happened within a month.

[EIEIO]

1 hour ago, hughesie27 said:

Cheers. So the Premiership range is between 800k and about 250k?

As the initial TV money is paid out at the start of the season isn't it divided up evenly eg £5 million divided by 12? So in fact no vlub eould pay anything just not receive first instalment from SKY/ Spfl?

[Fluorescent Adolescent]

5 minutes ago, PTBCAL said:

100%

Quite a claim and one too early to make, imo.

 

If our first port of call is indeed the competitions and markets authority and they side with us, this has a bit to run.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Fluorescent Adolescent

[Newton51]

This week is going to be a rollercoaster by the sounds of it. More like a poker match and who is going to blink first. As a pessimist i don't have a good feeling about reconstruction but we need to at least fight our corner

[JimmyCant]

42 minutes ago, luckydug said:

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

Advice from the likes of you is read but ultimately it’s useless

[Scnorthedinburgh]

1 minute ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

In France and Belgium it all happened within a month.

Think I'm correct in saying in both cases the goverment took a side.

If you were lifted in London yesterday your not at your trial anytime soon.

[Gmcjambo]

4 minutes ago, John mcCartney said:

Lost Bounty

Lose, bound tae

[lost in space]

9 minutes ago, hibsarepants said:

The lawyers representing the club will be going for maximum leverage and that will include an interdict. The court will agree / not agree on the balance of convenience but the overturning decisions of the French & Belgian are quite a powerful argument to grant the interdict. If you don't stop the leagues starting we will suffer damages and not have the ability to redress our position as if the original event hadn't happened.  

I would love the idea of the interdict going ahead but surely if we do this and lose court case WE would then be liable for lost income from all of the other clubs who should be playing INCLUDING Euro football.

[Jambo66]

15 minutes ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

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.

Ok. I maybe went for you more than was reasonable - apologies.

My thinking on interim interdict in this case is primarily around the lawfulness of the first resolution. It seems to me that we could seek an interim order on the basis that not only was the resolution fundamentally unfair as a matter of competition law, not only did the SPFL board fail to provide sufficient information to the member clubs to allow them to come to a proper decision, not only was there no reason to tie the payment of prize money to calling the league, but crucially, the resolution was not passed at all.

That was the view of the opinion obtained by Partick Thistle and I think that has  considerable merit. If we are seeking an interim order on those grounds, I think we have a reasonable prospect of success. Do I think we would get it? I don't know, but there is case law supporting the view that the resolution was defeated.

Often, interim interdicts are granted without the defender being aware it is happening at all. I would be genuinely astonished if the SPFL has failed to lodge a caveat in this instance. That being the case, they will turn up to oppose the granting of the interim interdict. I am pretty certain they will try to argue that we do not have a prima facie case (at least to some extent). The court may take the view that the SPFL's chances on the resolution ground are next to nil. Where does that leave the balance of convenience?

I have been involved in a case where we were seeking an interim interdict where the judge remarked privately to our Counsel after it was all over, that he thought the other side were extremely dodgy. The order was granted. Completely different circumstances and the order wasn't opposed, but the point I am making is that I can see a situation where we may indeed obtain an interim interdict.

We may even argue that the glacial pace of movement by the SPFL to "try" and sort this mess (which is of its own making) means that we need to force their hand and the only means by which we can do that is interim interdict. I have no idea if that is a legitimate argument, but I am not advising the club.

One thing seems certain - the stakes will be ratcheted up this week and we may even find out if we will get or even seek an interim interdict.

[Mundaydog]

2 hours ago, jamboinglasgow said:

 

Completely agree. The championship clubs dont want reconstruction as they want us in the league so they can make money from away crowds, so each team will want its 2 home games against Hearts.

 

You are right about the semi and final, I the semi being in August and final in September.

 

But 4 months till Hearts play a league game is depressing, basically between the time of our last game and potential next (ignoring the Scottish cup potential fixtures) we are not even at the half way point.

You can see everything falling into place... cup semi & final before ‘championship’ up and running. Celtic will not have free midweeks by September/October if Champions league/UEFA cup is on. So they will want Scottish cup played asap.
Next thing will be championship clubs unable to afford additional testing for league cup games or ability to play those games BCD...

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, hughesie27 said:

Somebody fancy doing some math?

 

Footballfirst suggests that any compensation is paid for by the members. Presumably all 42 pay a share dispite 3 of those teams getting paid the money.

FF says the amount t payable is in relation to their %age of the prize mkney earned at the end of the season. So Prem clubs pay more than League 1 and 2 for example.

 

How much would the Prem teams be due  to pay each if we were to be awarded £6million across the 3 teams?

IIRC the league will receive 25m from Sky for the season

 

If you take 6m off that it's about a quarter of the total, so every team would lose about a quarter of what they expect from the season's money.

[Fxxx the SPFL]

2 minutes ago, EIEIO said:

As the initial TV money is paid out at the start of the season isn't it divided up evenly eg £5 million divided by 12? So in fact no vlub eould pay anything just not receive first instalment from SKY/ Spfl?

that's probably what Doncaster is holding onto get their money up front from sky then pass it onto the clubs so they will have money in the eventually they have to all pay into our compensation i could of course be talking bollocks

[Guest ToqueJambo]

1 minute ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

Think I'm correct in saying in both cases the goverment took a side.

If you were lifted in London yesterday your not at your trial anytime soon.

 

If you're right even more reason for the SPFL to do whatever they can to avoid court. Ourselves, Thistle and co have got nothing else to do until October at the earliest it seems. Thistle might have a whole year. The clock is ticking for the Premiership clubs though.

[Scnorthedinburgh]

Just now, Mundaydog said:

You can see everything falling into place... cup semi & final before ‘championship’ up and running. Celtic will not have free midweeks by September/October if Champions league/UEFA cup is on. So they will want Scottish cup played asap.
Next thing will be championship clubs unable to afford additional testing for league cup games or ability to play those games BCD...

Best thing we could do is withdraw from the cup.

Just state it's not relevant when the next season has started and squads and player registration dates have changed.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

Neil Lennon in the press saying he's sure the SPFL will arrange the fixtures so the OF play later in front of crowds. 

 

Game's not run for two clubs only though.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

1 minute ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

Best thing we could do is withdraw from the cup.

Just state it's not relevant when the next season has started and squads and player registration dates have changed.

 

Give Hibs a bye to the final? Aye ok then. We beat them with a team of teenagers when we were on our knees before, so we can do it again.

Edited June 14, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[gator]

15 minutes ago, Saughton Jambo said:

I don’t think you need to apologise to anyone bud. Emotions are running at fever pitch just now and everyone and I mean everyone is getting edgy. Think there will be a sense of relief all round when this is over 

Agree! Most on here are posting in good faith albeit emotionally influenced at times, this is quite a ride we're on with things changing by the hour at times, there's a ways to go, respect goes a long way in these discussions!

[Jambo66]

27 minutes ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

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

 

The other side of this of course, is whether or not any action raised by us is defended at all. If the indicative vote shows that there is a sizeable majority in favour of reconstruction, I am not sure the SPFL will oppose an action by us to reverse our expulsion. To do so would not appear to be acting in accordance with the views of the member clubs. Depending how our action is worded, the SPFL could simply indicate that they do not oppose our attempt at reinstatement.

It would then be for the clubs who take the other view to decide if they want to take us on. Or possibly to try and sue the SPFL themselves. (That would make for entertaining viewing)

[Guest ToqueJambo]

6 minutes ago, lost in space said:

I would love the idea of the interdict going ahead but surely if we do this and lose court case WE would then be liable for lost income from all of the other clubs who should be playing INCLUDING Euro football.

 

Aren't we currently in that situation facing a truncated late starting Championship because of them though? 

 

They could sue for that I suppose. Then we could counter-sue saying that situation only arose because of the way the SPFL handled our demotion. And round and round we go.

Edited June 14, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Glamorgan Jambo]

36 minutes ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

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.

As I see it there is simply no way Doncaster and Lawwell want to see the facts brought out in a court room. If the case gets called for whenever in the future there’s simply no way we’ll settle if the remedy we want isn’t available any more (reinstatement in the Premiership in time for the start and of the 20/21 season). So regardless of whether we get interdict or not they will want to settle before August 1st. The only way they’d win legally would be if the court threw the case out virtually  straight away which is incredibly unlikely.

[GorgieRules22]

17 minutes ago, PTBCAL said:

100%

No way you can be that certain.

[Scnorthedinburgh]

4 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

Ok. I maybe went for you more than was reasonable - apologies.

My thinking on interim interdict in this case is primarily around the lawfulness of the first resolution. It seems to me that we could seek an interim order on the basis that not only was the resolution fundamentally unfair as a matter of competition law, not only did the SPFL board fail to provide sufficient information to the member clubs to allow them to come to a proper decision, not only was there no reason to tie the payment of prize money to calling the league, but crucially, the resolution was not passed at all.

That was the view of the opinion obtained by Partick Thistle and I think that has  considerable merit. If we are seeking an interim order on those grounds, I think we have a reasonable prospect of success. Do I think we would get it? I don't know, but there is case law supporting the view that the resolution was defeated.

Often, interim interdicts are granted without the defender being aware it is happening at all. I would be genuinely astonished if the SPFL has failed to lodge a caveat in this instance. That being the case, they will turn up to oppose the granting of the interim interdict. I am pretty certain they will try to argue that we do not have a prima facie case (at least to some extent). The court may take the view that the SPFL's chances on the resolution ground are next to nil. Where does that leave the balance of convenience?

I have been involved in a case where we were seeking an interim interdict where the judge remarked privately to our Counsel after it was all over, that he thought the other side were extremely dodgy. The order was granted. Completely different circumstances and the order wasn't opposed, but the point I am making is that I can see a situation where we may indeed obtain an interim interdict.

We may even argue that the glacial pace of movement by the SPFL to "try" and sort this mess (which is of its own making) means that we need to force their hand and the only means by which we can do that is interim interdict. I have no idea if that is a legitimate argument, but I am not advising the club.

One thing seems certain - the stakes will be ratcheted up this week and we may even find out if we will get or even seek an interim interdict.

Look I agree with all that from the we could side.

What judge is going to potentialy put clubs out of buisness by granting the order knowing that could stop Scottish Football for an unknown period. Not many now, knew one well and he would have for Hearts but No longer with us.

Closest I can get is Monopolies Commision. When they step in the status quo stands until resolution.

But that is the only buisness case where I can see an entire business stream shut for company 1 v governing body.

[Malinga the Swinga]

1 minute ago, Glamorgan Jambo said:

As I see it there is simply no way Doncaster and Lawwell want to see the facts brought out in a court room. If the case gets called for whenever in the future there’s simply no way we’ll settle if the remedy we want isn’t available any more (reinstatement in the Premiership in time for the start and of the 20/21 season). So regardless of whether we get interdict or not they will want to settle before August 1st. The only way they’d win legally would be if the court threw the case out virtually  straight away which is incredibly unlikely.

Do not underestimate Lawell and Doncaster. I am sure Hearts and their legal team will not be doing this as you don't get to where they are without being slippery and extremely hard to pin down. They will have explanation for everything, they will twist every scenario to where they want it to go and will fight to the end as they are simply unaccustomed to losing.

[Maple Leaf]

57 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. 
 

Remember thIs was called early because  it suited one club and one club only.  They spfl had an agenda and forced this through. What they didn’t factor in was, the way it unfolded, the blatant lies that were told and the final flaw was, they thought the 3 most severely punished clubs would roll over and take it.

 

After the initial reconstruction plans were thrown out then you have to remember that a resolute AB said there would ultimately be court action. It was ND and the SPFL that approached Ann and asked her for further talks on reconstruction to see if a compromise could be reached. Why do you think that is if it was kicked into touch or at time round? 
 

As the end draws to a conclusion then it’s all still to play for IMO. Medicine is a dish best served cold 🍾

 

@Saughton Jambo Let me join the chorus of others to say thanks for the updates during this sorry saga.

 

And let's not forget, FTH, more than ever.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

8 minutes ago, Glamorgan Jambo said:

As I see it there is simply no way Doncaster and Lawwell want to see the facts brought out in a court room. If the case gets called for whenever in the future there’s simply no way we’ll settle if the remedy we want isn’t available any more (reinstatement in the Premiership in time for the start and of the 20/21 season). So regardless of whether we get interdict or not they will want to settle before August 1st. The only way they’d win legally would be if the court threw the case out virtually  straight away which is incredibly unlikely.

 

I think this is the way we're heading. They'll make us the bad guys by saying they HAD to do it because of the threat from Hearts. The media is already basically running with that narrative. Ross County and Hibs or whoever opposed reconstruction can tell their fans they had no choice... because Hearts... to try to avoid any backlash. The fact we were one of the victims in all this will be totally  lost in the rush to condemn us, as has happened already.

 

Folk say this is only happening because we're Hearts which is partly true. We're a heavyweight in relative terms in the league so if we're in a fight we're more than capable of landing some very solid punches and fighting our corner - more so than some other clubs might have been. In a way it's as unlucky for the SPFL that it was us at the bottom as it was for us. Hamilton, etc would have complained but may not have had the resources for a legal fight.

Edited June 14, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Jammy T]

Jambo66 is basically nailing it.

 

If an unlawful act is taking place or about to take place against a party that will cause injury or loss then an interim (temporary) interdict will generally be granted to “pause the clock” until the merits of the case are fought out in full.

 

There are a number of factors to this but you only at the first stage require to establish a prima facie case of an unlawful act. An act that, on the face of it, is unlawful and will cause injury to the other party if it continues.

 

The court will consider the negative outcome to the party against which the interdict is being sought. So, for example, had the season started we’d be up against it, but it hasn’t.
 

Tom Hardy said something the may have merit. Preparations for the league starting could potentially be interdicted, for example, issuing the fixture list; confirming the fixtures to Sky. But it’s hard to know as it is a unique case

 

Its a conundrum because the subject matter is not my speciality, however, if I was advising on this case I would be advising, for a number of reasons, that if the indicative vote fails tomorrow papers are lodged that afternoon or Tuesday.

 

As regards length of hearing you can get processed sped up - this would be a prime case for that.

 

As people have been moaning about me asking 😒 this is why I was keen to find out about Brodie’s as they are certainly busy on something at the moment - which would seem unusual in the present circumstances but I recall that Shepherd & Wedderburn had a Sports Law team I think  so it may be them. 
 

It’s odd, I am sure somebody on here would know who our lawyers are. I’m sure Brodie’s were when Romanov was around.

 

 

Edited June 14, 2020 by Jammy T

[highlandjambo3]

23 minutes ago, The Mercer Takeover said:

When we press the nuclear button, we have to come out all guns blazing, but also be prepared for the SPFL to play dirty.

The very first thing we need to do, is for Budge to make it resolutely clear, that Hearts will not be taking ANY tickets for away league games next season, citing potential violence from our support or similar, no matter what league we are in. This would absolutely cripple Championship clubs hoping to benefiting out if us.

We have to become totally uncooperative on all footballing fronts, challenging and delaying everything that comes up.

As supporters we need to avoid last seasons SC semi, when it is played. The club can't refuse tickets for this but we can as supporters.

All clubs playing at Tynecastle will from now on be given only 100 tickets for their travelling support. This ties in with the rules of providing "a reasonable number". This includes Rangers, Celtic and Hibs. Bottom line is, we don't need their money.

Hickey must not be sold to Celtic under any circumstances.

Hearts must not loan players to clubs that have tried to screw us.

All attempts at board level friendships with Hibs must stop.

We need to make sure that if we are in the Championship, the Premiership can't just change the rules and prevent a team being promoted.

Careful here.......Whilst I understand the pain we have endured and the kicking we have taken so far, our benefactors are backing us because they like the way we do business (please anyone don’t start ranting on about our performance on the field, there are numerous posts elsewhere to discuss this).

 

We start smashing clubs at every opportunity and it could look like we are just as petty as them.  JA had mentioned supporting ALL clubs through this crisis and, no matter what, as it currently stands we all know we have ABSOLUTELY tried to do our best for EVERYONE. 

 

Not going to away matches is the only direct action I will take and, others need to think outside the box before attempting to ramp this up with a revenge agenda.

 

ps. I’m not telling anyone what to do, just my opinion.

Edited June 14, 2020 by highlandjambo3

[Glamorgan Jambo]

1 minute ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Do not underestimate Lawell and Doncaster. I am sure Hearts and their legal team will not be doing this as you don't get to where they are without being slippery and extremely hard to pin down. They will have explanation for everything, they will twist every scenario to where they want it to go and will fight to the end as they are simply unaccustomed to losing.

I don’t underestimate either one of them far from it. I just see it as simply not in either of their interests for the facts of the process to come out publicly, under oath, in a court of law. The easiest (and it’s not easy) out for them is ‘robust discussions’ with a few other clubs.

[Jammy T]

One thing for sure is that is there NO WAY in hell any QC of any standing in Scotland will be providing formal advice we do not have a chance at all of succeeding. That equates to advice that the SPFL has 100% prospects of success.

 

Jambo66 - tell me how often that advice is given by lawyers or QCs?

 

This also suggests that not only is MacGregor a total tit but that he is lying as well.

[DETTY29]

7 minutes ago, Jammy T said:

Jambo66 is basically nailing it.

 

If an unlawful act is taking place or about to take place against a party that will cause injury or loss then an interim (temporary) interdict will generally be granted to “pause the clock” until the merits of the case are fought out in full.

 

There are a number of factors to this but you only at the first stage require to establish a prima facie case of an unlawful act. An act that, on the face of it, is unlawful and will cause injury to the other party if it continues.

 

The court will consider the negative outcome to the party against which the interdict is being sought. So, for example, had the season started we’d be up against it, but it hasn’t.
 

Tom Hardy said something the may have merit. Preparations for the league starting could potentially be interdicted,

for example, issuing the fixture list; confirming the fixtures to Sky.

 

Its a conundrum because the subject matter is not my speciality, however, if I was advising on this case I would be advising, for a number of reasons, that if the indicative vote fails tomorrow papers are lodged that afternoon or Tuesday.

 

As regards length of hearing you can get processed sped up - this would be a prime case for that.

 

As people have been moaning about me asking 😒 this is why I was keen to find out about Brodie’s as they are certainly busy on something at the moment - which would seem unusual in the present circumstances but I recall that Shepherd & Wedderburn had a Sports Law team I think  so it may be them. 
 

It’s odd, I am sure somebody on here would know who our lawyers are. I’m sure Brodie’s were when Romanov was around.

 

 

This is 2+2 stuff but for our business initiative centre (no doubt funded by JA) it is Brodies LLP who give advice to the potential start ups on a pro bono basis.  

Edited June 14, 2020 by DETTY29

[GinRummy]

@Saughton Jambo cheers for all the updates. 

[Scnorthedinburgh]

14 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Give Hibs a bye to the final? Aye ok then. We beat them with a team of teenagers when we were on our knees before, so we can do it again.

And that is the thinking from 40 other odd clubs fans that will see some vote no tomorrow and we go down, and Scottish football gets a hit.

I support Hearts as the saying goes FTH and what it may mean to them.

[martoon]

33 minutes ago, south morocco said:

Will we find out which clubs are blocking it tomorrow?

 

They'll probably be boasting of it. 

[SMJ_1874]

5 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

@Saughton Jambo Let me join the chorus of others to say thanks for the updates during this sorry saga.

 

And let's not forget, FTH, more than ever.

Many thanks ML. It’s good to keep the Jambo community informed and hopefully the correct result pans out in the end.
 

There’s no guarantees in anything though but I’ll keep posting what I have and when it becomes available. 

[J.T.F.Robertson]

10 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

@Saughton Jambo Let me join the chorus of others to say thanks for the updates during this sorry saga.

 

And let's not forget, FTH, more than ever.

 

I'm a shit singer but I'll join the chorus, anyways.