SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Threebs]

6 minutes ago, Jammy T said:

 

 

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.

 

 

The Registered Office of Heart of Midlothian plc is Collins House, Rutland Square ... the offices of DLA. 

[Scnorthedinburgh]

5 minutes ago, Jammy T said:

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.

Think your off the mark there.

[Jammy T]

Finally people need to consider the fact that it is nearly a 100% certainty that a court case once raise will not conclude.

 

This is why we should raise it tomorrow.

 

1. If the indicative vote fails that provides the foundation for interim interdict (as what will change in a week) so we get an Interim interdict or at least our claim in court - the bluff option is gone for our SPFL friends.

2. They have a week to sort their shit out before the actual vote.

3. it is a material change which may impact the vote next week or at the very least will allow the SPFL to call an emergency situation and take control.

 

There are other reasons we should start next week but not as important as the above.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

3 minutes ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

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.

 

No idea what you mean. Only Hearts, Thistle and Stranraer are at serious threat here from that vote to end the league and have relegation. None of the other clubs are. And none will be under threat because of reconstruction. If they vote no it's petty vindictive reasons. Turning up for a cup semi final even when on your knees - and having been disadvantaged by the actions of the other 3 teams left in the tournament including your direct competitor in the semi - is completely different to that. 

Edited June 14, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Stanley_]

45 minutes ago, highlandjambo3 said:

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.

There won't be 19 leagues with no relegation.  15/20 are playing out a full season and the vast majority of those will have relegation as normal.  Point being that only 5/20 cancelled the season before the end and Scotland looks set to be the only one of them to have any relegation.  If the SPFL had resumed and finished after 38 games then no-one would be objecting to us going down.

 

Every team relegated will have played a full set of fixtures apart from Hearts.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Stanley_

[Jambo66]

Just now, Jammy T said:

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.

I think you can probably guess that being told that you have zero chance of success is rare! However, being advised that you should not consider pursuing/defending an action because you have very little prospect of success comes to much the same thing.

The law, as in life, is not generally black and white, but series of shades of dirty grey.

Nowadays, it is very common in my experience when seeking Counsel's opinion to ask specifically what he or she thinks about the prospects of success. Court actions can be phenomenonally expensive and before embarking on one, it makes a huge amount of sense to carry out a bit of a risk assessment.

[Mundaydog]

4 minutes 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.

Would we be considered as bringing the game into disrepute if we did that? Is that even a thing?
 

If the championship does start on Oct17th how are they expecting Hearts to cram 27 league games, league cup games & scottish cup games in?

If there are no league 1 or 2? Does the League/Scottish cup start at the 3rd round?
Then if you factor in the Norwich situation, they can’t play next weekend as a player tested positive you could potentially have the same situation up here, games called off and then factor in the Scottish weather.... the whole situation is a farce.

[Malinga the Swinga]

2 minutes ago, Jammy T said:

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.

MacGregor is a bullying *****. If he pays QC, he will be paying to hear what he wants to hear. This is the way that he does current business and the way he expects to do it in future. He doesn't like being told he is wrong and he won't pay a QC to hear something he doesn't like.

 

Nothing much will happen tonight, but tomorrow is a different story. Expect twists and turns, then more of the same. While our board will be following legal advice, I just want to tear the place apart and burn the whole shitting place down. 

 

[Jammy T]

2 minutes ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

Think your off the mark there.

What about?

[Unknown user]

13 minutes ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

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.

This is key IMO 

[PTBCAL]

26 minutes ago, Fluorescent Adolescent said:

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.

I posted all this charade stuff on Friday morning and I was right.

 

As things stand we are seeking compensation. 

 

However if the league force through reconstruction then fair enough but don’t be waiting on that outcome.

[King Of The Cat Cafe]

9 minutes ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

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.

 

I don't know the answer to your question but here is another one: Is a judge allowed to take account of the effects of stopping an illegal action?

 

BTW: no such thing as a "Monopolies Commission" any more

 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

This is key IMO 

 

What judge would let the plaintiffs be denied the chance to operate their business without any chance of putting up a fight?

[Koolkeith]

1 hour ago, Selkirkhmfc1874 said:

Never any guarantees with legal action but the feeling with Mrs Budge and her legal team is they've got strong case 

Yeah. They’re not going through this blindly.

[Jammy T]

1 minute ago, Jambo66 said:

I think you can probably guess that being told that you have zero chance of success is rare! However, being advised that you should not consider pursuing/defending an action because you have very little prospect of success comes to much the same thing.

The law, as in life, is not generally black and white, but series of shades of dirty grey.

Nowadays, it is very common in my experience when seeking Counsel's opinion to ask specifically what he or she thinks about the prospects of success. Court actions can be phenomenonally expensive and before embarking on one, it makes a huge amount of sense to carry out a bit of a risk assessment.

But of course Ann has already confirmed we are going to court having consulted with our lawyers so we have not been told we have no chance.

 

Anyway my point was more aimed at MacGregor mouthing off that we had zero prospects of success So his QC told him. This is patently incorrect.

 

Partick and now us have advice that we have a case. That being the case opposition lawyers might say we will not definitely lose but that there is clear risk to the SPFL of losing.

[DETTY29]

4 minutes ago, Threebs said:

The Registered Office of Heart of Midlothian plc is Collins House, Rutland Square ... the offices of DLA. 

Add Billy Davies I think, was interviewed in Saltire Court home of Dundas and Wilson ( CMA), 

[Scnorthedinburgh]

2 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

No idea what you mean. Only Hearts, Thistle and Stranraer are at serious threat here from that vote. None of the other clubs are. And none will be under threat because of reconstruction. If they vote no it's petty vindictive reasons. Turning up for a cup semi final even when on your knees is completely different to that. 

Did you read what Budge put out? Collateral damage will be a fixed set of fixtures for all leagues.

Then clubs find they can't play behind closed doors and pay bills.

She offered those clubs a year out, mothballs limit costs.

If it's no tomorrow I think in two months you will see fixtures voided.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

1 minute ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

Did you read what Budge put out? Collateral damage will be a fixed set of fixtures for all leagues.

Then clubs find they can't play behind closed doors and pay bills.

She offered those clubs a year out, mothballs limit costs.

If it's no tomorrow I think in two months you will see fixtures voided.

 

What's that got to do with playing the semi final?

[b-reed]

13 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. 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.

 

 

 I think you cover that really well but the only point I would make is that yes normally you could speed up the process... that would be when all the courts are sitting but most are not sitting at the moment and wont be for some weeks yet... I do agree that papers should be served tomorrow or Tuesday and not wait till the next again vote...

[Malinga the Swinga]

2 minutes ago, PTBCAL said:

I posted all this charade stuff on Friday morning and I was right.

 

As things stand we are seeking compensation. 

 

However if the league force through reconstruction then fair enough but don’t be waiting on that outcome.

Is what you believe. Until Hearts come out and say this themselves', then you are simply guessing.

[Jammy T]

14 minutes ago, PTBCAL said:

I posted all this charade stuff on Friday morning and I was right.

 

As things stand we are seeking compensation. 

 

However if the league force through reconstruction then fair enough but don’t be waiting on that outcome.

I do doubt this PTBCAL as Ann has basically said we would be fighting expulsion.

 

But if a claim for compensation is made, which will make a number of clubs bust of it succeeds or even just defending it, what is their cheapest way out of it?

 

Agreeing to reconstruction to settle the case.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Jammy T

[Francis Albert]

4 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

I think you can probably guess that being told that you have zero chance of success is rare! However, being advised that you should not consider pursuing/defending an action because you have very little prospect of success comes to much the same thing.

The law, as in life, is not generally black and white, but series of shades of dirty grey.

Nowadays, it is very common in my experience when seeking Counsel's opinion to ask specifically what he or she thinks about the prospects of success. Court actions can be phenomenonally expensive and before embarking on one, it makes a huge amount of sense to carry out a bit of a risk assessment.

AS posted before QCs don't give objective "risk assessments". They are looking for work and will distort any assessment to increase the chances of earning real money as opposed to the chicken feed they get for an "opinion".

[Scnorthedinburgh]

2 minutes ago, King Of The Cat Cafe said:

 

I don't know the answer to your question but here is another one: Is a judge allowed to take account of the effects of stopping an illegal action?

 

BTW: no such thing as a "Monopolies Commission" any more

 

Showing my age and spelling issues.

They wouldn't be stopping an illegal action, they would let everything play on until a court found said illegal action had taken place.

[Biffa Bacon]

1 hour 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.

 

 

2 separate issues. I am not sure if reconstruction is something that the court will advise, damages may be the best option?

 

Doncaster has already had a 70% vote of confidence.

[Unknown user]

3 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

What judge would let the plaintiffs be denied the chance to operate their business without any chance of putting up a fight?

I think a better question is what judge is going to put hundreds of jobs at risk by stopping the league when compensation is a possibility. 

[JamboAl]

1 hour 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 

So why did you bring it up if it was minor?

Why does he need to REIN in some of his language?  What did he say that offended you?

[hibsarepants]

27 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.

On evidence before us - I doubt we will lose. If we did then we will have to pay some of the costs of the SPFL. We would not though be liable for anything else unless the Court decided our case was vexatious. We wouldn't get an interdict if it was considered in anyway  a "try on".  

[Jammy T]

21 minutes ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

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.

What judge is potentially going to put 3 clubs out of business if he thinks this has been done illegally?

[Irufushi]

2 hours ago, rory78 said:

Has anyone actually thought about what happens if we DON'T go to court??ie the seethe on here etc and amongst most Hearts fans - Anne has a habit recently of making bad decisions and if she thought clubs would go down the shitter were we to win a case would it be something she considers?? I personally hope ever club out to hurt us dies but maybe she's not as bitter as some of us 🤔

With what’s happened in Belgium and France I’m 100% sure we’ll be going to court. 

[Gmcjambo]

7 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

No idea what you mean. Only Hearts, Thistle and Stranraer are at serious threat here from that vote to end the league and have relegation. None of the other clubs are. And none will be under threat because of reconstruction. If they vote no it's petty vindictive reasons. Turning up for a cup semi final even when on your knees - and having been disadvantaged by the actions of the other 3 teams left in the tournament including your direct competitor in the semi - is completely different to that. 

 

There is a very real risk or threat facing clubs in the event of a no vote to reconstruction though.     A legal case could suspend the start of the campaign which would be very costly, create uncertainty when we all need certainty to budget and plan, and of course there is the risk of compensation being due if we win.        This is the part I don't get,  people are focused on the 3 relegated clubs and saying 'suck it up' and are behaving as if there themselves are not facing serious threats too if this is not resolved through recon.

 

[Scnorthedinburgh]

1 minute ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

What's that got to do with playing the semi final?

More to do with a fixation over how it affects our stand v hibs verses the big picture.

If we are in court against the SPFL bit stupid to accept that a squad not registered at the last SC cut off date with SFA can play in the 2020 semi, when the next season has started.

[JimmyCant]

1 minute ago, JamboAl said:

So why did you bring it up if it was minor?

Why does he need to REIN in some of his language?  What did he say that offended you?

I didn’t bring it up. Someone else did. Do keep up old fellah.

[Jambo66]

7 minutes ago, Jammy T said:

But of course Ann has already confirmed we are going to court having consulted with our lawyers so we have not been told we have no chance.

 

Anyway my point was more aimed at MacGregor mouthing off that we had zero prospects of success So his QC told him. This is patently incorrect.

 

Partick and now us have advice that we have a case. That being the case opposition lawyers might say we will not definitely lose but that there is clear risk to the SPFL of losing.

Very true.

[Jammy T]

10 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

AS posted before QCs don't give objective "risk assessments". They are looking for work and will distort any assessment to increase the chances of earning real money as opposed to the chicken feed they get for an "opinion".

 

If you work with good QCs you get exactly the sort of risk assessment you need to decide if you go to court (if you asked the question) otherwise any top firm would stop instructing them.
 

Top law firms will soon flush out a QC that fudges opinions just to get work in.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Jammy T

[Ethan Hunt]

2 hours ago, Saughton Jambo said:

Just tune in to JKB for all the latest exclusives! EEN are 15 hours behind with that ‘old news’

The news they didn’t even have the balls to publish the full version of as well.

[Francis Albert]

2 minutes ago, Jammy T said:

 

If you work with good QCs you get exactly the sort of risk assessment you need to decide if you go to court (if you asked the question) otherwise any top form would stop obstructing you.
 

Top law firms will soon flush out a QC that fudges opinions just to get work in.

Mmmm. Your opinion (and experience?) of the law and lawyers differs from mine.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Francis Albert

[Scnorthedinburgh]

2 minutes ago, Jammy T said:

What judge is potentially going to put 3 clubs out of business if he thinks this has been done illegally?

Not granting it wouldn't put clubs out of buisness, and compo in the case of a win would take that into consideration.

[GinRummy]

26 minutes 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 get what you’re saying but Doncaster has struggled to explain anything so far and only been asked cursory questions by a fairly friendly interviewer.  He dodges the real questions and was scared to let Tom English interview him. He won’t get to skirt around direct questions in court. 

Edited June 14, 2020 by GinRummy

[Rods]

There is also the factor can the SPFL risk us actually getting an interdict? We hold the aces the interdict is just one of them. It’s not like holding up the league affects us we won’t be playing until October. 

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, Rods said:

There is also the factor can the SPFL risk us actually getting an interdict? We hold the aces the interdict is just one of them. It’s not like holding up the league affects us we won’t be playing until October. 

This is true, the possibilities should frighten any chairman with a couple of braincells

[Scnorthedinburgh]

3 minutes ago, Rods said:

There is also the factor can the SPFL risk us actually getting an interdict? We hold the aces the interdict is just one of them. It’s not like holding up the league affects us we won’t be playing until October. 

They never blinked once over SEVCO re the courts.

[Jambo66]

8 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

AS posted before QCs don't give objective "risk assessments". They are looking for work and will distort any assessment to increase the chances of earning real money as opposed to the chicken feed they get for an "opinion".

I think that's quite a cynical view to be honest. I am sure that some do behave in that way, but I don't usually have a problem getting an objective view from Counsel about the prospects of success.

It is often the case that Counsel is being instructed to provide a second view on a matter anyway. The solicitors have often already provided an indication on prospects of success and cost exposure. Counsel's opinion is often sought to confirm or disagree. Been involved in that sort of thing many times.

[GinRummy]

1 minute ago, Rods said:

There is also the factor can the SPFL risk us actually getting an interdict? We hold the aces the interdict is just one of them. It’s not like holding up the league affects us we won’t be playing until October. 

They’ll have already put caveats in place in case an interdict is sought. That gives the spfl the chance to defend the interdict in a court hearing. I left a company knowing that they would seek an interdict to stop me trading in my new company and that’s the procedure. 

[Jammy T]

4 minutes ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

Not granting it wouldn't put clubs out of buisness, and compo in the case of a win would take that into consideration.

What if the clubs don’t have the money to pay the compo? 
 

You can win a case for money and not get a penny if your opponent is skint. If we go down a leave and lose £8m in the process and win a case and don’t get that money back I’m not sure even James Naderson would bail us out. We’d be as well starting again. Again.

[highlandjambo3]

19 minutes ago, Stanley_ said:

There won't be 19 leagues with no relegation.  15/20 are playing out a full season and the vast majority of those will have relegation as normal.  Point being that only 5/20 cancelled the season before the end and Scotland looks set to be the only one of them to have any relegation.  If the SPFL had resumed and finished after 38 games then no-one would be objecting to us going down.

 

Every team relegated will have played a full set of fixtures apart from Hearts.

Yes.... sorry correct, the 15 concluding the season will have relegations and rightly so as their season will be completed but, my point was it’s an absolute standout how our clowns have made a complete arse of it.

[Jambo66]

5 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Mmmm. Your opinion (and experience?) of the law and lawyers differs from mine.

I think you need to consider changing your lawyers then 🙂

[GorgieRules22]

Just now, Jammy T said:

What if the clubs don’t have the money to pay the compo? 
 

You can win a case for money and not get a penny if your opponent is skint. If we go down a leave and lose £8m in the process and win a case and don’t get that money back I’m not sure even James Naderson would bail us out. We’d be as well starting again. Again.

Money comes from the Sky deal 👍🏻

[Kirky Jambo]

1 minute ago, Jammy T said:

What if the clubs don’t have the money to pay the compo? 
 

You can win a case for money and not get a penny if your opponent is skint. If we go down a leave and lose £8m in the process and win a case and don’t get that money back I’m not sure even James Naderson would bail us out. We’d be as well starting again. Again.

Presumably we could take steps to liquidate each and every one of them 😁

[Francis Albert]

1 minute ago, Jambo66 said:

I think you need to consider changing your lawyers then 🙂

If Counsels opinions were as objective as suggested the courts would be a lot less busy.

[Jammy T]

6 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Mmmm. Your opinion (and experience?) of the law and lawyers differs from mine.

We instruct the best QCs in their field and,

as a firm, are only interested in clear focussed advice that gives clear guidance on both the law, strategy and prospects of success. 
 

We don’t work with QCs that don’t work that way. But that’s unusual because most QCs are very keen to work with us.