SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[hughesie27]

1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

Hearts won't be suing the clubs. They will be suing the Limited company commonly known as the SPFL.

 

That company generates its income mainly through sponsorship and TV deals.  That would be the source of any financial award granted in Hearts favour.

 

Each club only holds a single share in the SPFL with a nominal value of £1. That is the extent of their individual liability should the SPFL be unable to meet its liabilities. If that was the case, then the SPFL itself would become insolvent and, in all probability, a new football league would be formed to which the clubs would join. The new league would also have to seek recognition by the SFA and UEFA.  

🙏

[Guest ToqueJambo]

 

15 minutes ago, kila said:

How reported has this injustice been elsewhere in the footballing world? Especially now the results are in from the rest of Europe and it is only Scotland doing this.

 

Gary Lineker was what made the SFA cave with the James Keatings red card against Rangers colts where he was going to miss out on the final. This is even more of an injustice than his second yellow for 'diving' but not heard a peep.

 

Some external pressure over this injustice would be nice...

 

 

Plenty Hearts fans in the media. Almost all keeping quiet. I'm pretty sure Linekar would be up in arms if Leicester was relegated with 8 games to go and no other options being discussed.

Edited June 14, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Scnorthedinburgh]

6 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

They can’t afford to take the chance we’d win £8 million and they won’t take that chance. It’s a massive MASSIVE gamble on their part if they let this go to a hearing 

It's not chance, it's a members club. If two top flight say no, we are off down the rabbit hole.

Just look at posters on here, at this late stage are still thinking well what does that mean about us and Hibs.

[Jammy T]

5 minutes ago, kila said:

 

 

Reading that makes me wonder if this is being manufactured by Doncaster as his efforts have hinted he doesn't mind if it goes to court.

 

But of course Neil is a man of integrity and wouldn't ever consider doing such a thing to line his pockets even more. There are no conflicts of interest here.

 

Doncaster has also said they don’t have the money to fight a court case.

Lets just ignore that *****.

[Rods]

48 minutes ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

They never blinked once over SEVCO re the courts.

Did Rangers have any precedents, Competition law and trade restrictions law behind them? 
 

[Captain Canada]

Whatever the outcome, we need a new SPFL board and voting structure asap. 

 

Scottish football has a poor reputation on the field and has become farcical off the field too.

 

It's getting harder by the day to muster any enthusiasm for being part of this moronic shitshow. 

[JamboGraham]

1 minute ago, hughesie27 said:

Those clubs should be coming out in the papers and trying to convince other teams to back it then. I don't think a single team has.

 

To be honest I would rather they were doing the convincing  professionally and directly with each other rather than via the papers.

[Ribble]

12 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

I can't get my head round why we are having an indicative vote tomorrow then the real vote on Thursday. Its like Dundee lodging the vote then changing once they saw the green pound. 

Imagine doing that in a local election or a general election. Crazy stuff imo

notice required for egm vote without a prior indicative vote is 28 days, with an indicative vote the notice period is reduced to a few days..... I think

Edited June 14, 2020 by Ribble

[Scnorthedinburgh]

1 minute ago, Rods said:

Did Rangers have any precedents, Competition law and trade restrictions law behind them? 
 

They had one.

SPL was a members club. When set up each team got one membership, it transferred if you went down.

It's part of the reason why now it's the SPFL to close that.

And also why SEVCO played their first game of football in the SFA leagues at the same time as Rangers were full members of the SPL.

[NANOJAMBO]

16 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

There seems to be a view that our legal team could be Brodie’s? So what about the pedigree of Doncaster’s legal experts? 

 

Well as many of you will know, Doncaster is a trained Lawyer and he worked for the legal firm, Burges Salmon. At the end of last year, the SPFL appointed.........wait for it........Burges Salmon to its panel of legal advisers!

 

More comments on this appointment from Doncaster here  https://www.burges-salmon.com/news-and-insight/press-releases/burges-salmon-secures-spfl-panel-appointment/

 

So potentially, Doncaster could be joining forces with his former employer to defend his current employer against legal action from one of his current employers members.

 

I’m sure Neil will be relishing the prospect of working closely with some familiar faces. And when the SPFL lose their case, Neil has a ready made scapegoat!

Gerry Moynihan QC was responsible for the SPFL legal opinion.  According to Google, he's at another company. 

[JimmyCant]

10 minutes ago, luckydug said:

Dunno what you are getting your knickers in a twist about. 

LD is a Hearts fan if he wants to fire

e mails off to the press he is perfectly entitled to. 

Dont think he has actually libelled anyone has he ? 

Knickers perfectly straight here. I’d rather he left statements like that to the club that’s all

[gator]

2 minutes ago, Captain Canada said:

Whatever the outcome, we need a new SPFL board and voting structure asap. 

 

Scottish football has a poor reputation on the field and has become farcical off the field too.

 

It's getting harder by the day to muster any enthusiasm for being part of this moronic shitshow. 

Hence why many of us want this going to court, when the SPFL come to their senses and vote for reconstruction, which I believe they eventually will, they will be presenting the image that they saved Hearts and we owe a sense of gratitude to them and life in Scottish football will remain the same, possibly worse, court proceeding IMHO are the only chance of real change!

[David McCaig]

1 hour ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

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.

We have already lost 5 or 6 home games as a result of this.  That is £2m of revenue alone.

[Captain Canada]

Just now, gator said:

Hence why many of us want this going to court, when the SPFL come to their senses and vote for reconstruction, which I believe they eventually will, they will be presenting the image that they saved Hearts and we owe a sense of gratitude to them and life in Scottish football will remain the same, possibly worse, court proceeding IMHO are the only chance of real change!

 

Agreed. This can't be allowed to be rectified and then everything just goes back to how it was. 

[Beast Boy]

14 minutes ago, chrisyboy7 said:

This is unfair on the clubs that will vote for reconstruction 

Tough ****ing titties. They need to start having some robust conversations with their peers then.

[Don Dan]

4 minutes ago, Ribble said:

notice required for egm vote without a prior indicative vote is 28 days, with an indicative vote the notice period is reduced to a few days..... I think

 

Still a bit iffy, could allow for lobbying and bribery and corruption. Not that that would happen in theScottish football. 😉

[JimmyCant]

23 minutes ago, everton_jambo said:

So does that mean if the money isn’t there, we can’t enforce it as a debt? 
 

I was looking at it as Hearts suing all 42 clubs, and if they can’t come up with the cash between them, there surely must be some further recourse?

Probably the court would ring fence the Tv money due in August. We might well ask for that right from Day1. It would certainly focus the minds at the SPFL

[Kirky Jambo]

21 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

There seems to be a view that our legal team could be Brodie’s? So what about the pedigree of Doncaster’s legal experts? 

 

Well as many of you will know, Doncaster is a trained Lawyer and he worked for the legal firm, Burges Salmon. At the end of last year, the SPFL appointed.........wait for it........Burges Salmon to its panel of legal advisers!

 

More comments on this appointment from Doncaster here  https://www.burges-salmon.com/news-and-insight/press-releases/burges-salmon-secures-spfl-panel-appointment/

 

So potentially, Doncaster could be joining forces with his former employer to defend his current employer against legal action from one of his current employers members.

 

I’m sure Neil will be relishing the prospect of working closely with some familiar faces. And when the SPFL lose their case, Neil has a ready made scapegoat!

I don’t believe Brodies are acting for us. 
 

Didn’t know Doncaster was at Burges Salmon but could be coincidence as the corporate guy mentioned in that article only joined them last year and I think took the SPFL with him.

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

19 minutes ago, Class of 75 said:

Apologies mate. Like everyone else has said on here, sounds like they are indeed stalling for time. 

No need to apologise it's as clear as mud. 

 

Regardless of tomorrow I'd be tempted to get the papers in just to keep them honest 

[kingantti1874]

It’s the money we have to go after, we won’t win if we try and delay the season. 
 

and hopefully the legal action will be a joint one with support from thistle, Stranraer, Falkirk STV even if we are footing the bill

Edited June 14, 2020 by kingantti1874

[gnasher75]

A couple of random thoughts...

 

Looking forward to our lawyer beginning his questioning of Neil Doncaster with the words "I am very sorry that Richard Gordon wasn't free to conduct this interrogation".

 

Can the court case be televised? If so are we selling the rights to Sky or will season ticket holders get to watch for free?

[Kirky Jambo]

17 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Hearts won't be suing the clubs. They will be suing the Limited company commonly known as the SPFL.

 

That company generates its income mainly through sponsorship and TV deals.  That would be the source of any financial award granted in Hearts favour.

 

Each club only holds a single share in the SPFL with a nominal value of £1. That is the extent of their individual liability should the SPFL be unable to meet its liabilities. If that was the case, then the SPFL itself would become insolvent and, in all probability, a new football league would be formed to which the clubs would join. The new league would also have to seek recognition by the SFA and UEFA.  

Interesting - technically not good for us, but potentially a helluva leverage

[Ethan Hunt]

3 hours 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 

Is that your thoughts or is it from your source?  We all know it is going to get messy one way our another but I was hoping there might be something a bit more concrete by the way of info.

[Worthing Jambo]

Surely any compensation would have to come out of the first tranche of Sky money?

Whether the premier league starts or not would therefore be irrelevant.

That money would have to be ring fenced for compo.

That would hit some of these clubs really hard, surely?😁

[EIEIO]

4 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

It’s the money we have to go after, we won’t win if we try and delay the season. 
 

and hopefully the legal action will be a joint one with support from thistle, Stranraer, Falkirk STV even if we are footing the bill

Why  can't we go after both?

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

17 minutes ago, Captain Canada said:

Whatever the outcome, we need a new SPFL board and voting structure asap. 

 

Scottish football has a poor reputation on the field and has become farcical off the field too.

 

It's getting harder by the day to muster any enthusiasm for being part of this moronic shitshow. 

Indeed we are part of it. English voting system seems to be similar proportions to our lower League's. 

 

Just seems fundamentally flawed that clubs would vote for anything that has negative impact on members 

[Footballfirst]

1 minute ago, everton_jambo said:

Interesting - technically not good for us, but potentially a helluva leverage

 

That is the norm for limited companies with shareholders, otherwise, if shareholders were wholly liable to meet the liabilities of a company, you would have seen examples such as the PPI scandal, with the Banks asking its shareholders to pay the compensation, which would neither be fair nor practical.  

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

 

That is the norm for limited companies with shareholders, otherwise, if shareholders were wholly liable to meet the liabilities of a company, you would have seen examples such as the PPI scandal, with the Banks asking its shareholders to pay the compensation, which would neither be fair nor practical.  

Any deals with partners.  

 

Are they dissolved?

[Footballfirst]

This should be the section of the Companies Act that applies in respect of unfair prejudice by the other SPFL shareholders against Hearts, Partick and Stranraer.

 

994Petition by company member

(1)A member of a company may apply to the court by petition for an order under this Part on the ground—

(a)that the company's affairs are being or have been conducted in a manner that is unfairly prejudicial to the interests of members generally or of some part of its members (including at least himself), or

(b)that an actual or proposed act or omission of the company (including an act or omission on its behalf) is or would be so prejudicial.

[kila]

9 minutes ago, gnasher75 said:

A couple of random thoughts...

 

Looking forward to our lawyer beginning his questioning of Neil Doncaster with the words "I am very sorry that Richard Gordon wasn't free to conduct this interrogation".

 

Can the court case be televised? If so are we selling the rights to Sky or will season ticket holders get to watch for free?

 

 🤣

 

Doncaster telling Sky "I'm afraid the league start is postponed for the moment because of legal action but we're willing to give you the TV rights of the court"

 

[henryheart]

10 minutes ago, JamboGraham said:

 

To be honest I would rather they were doing the convincing  professionally and directly with each other rather than via the papers.

 

I agree, and to a large extent that is what we have been doing most recently. While well intended, I'm not at all convinced that Leslie Deans press release will help at all; it may indeed do quite the opposite given who we are dealing with as the last thing they will accept is being told of the consequences - all they want to know is what the benefits are and if only they got down from their hobby-horses they would maybe see them.

 

Based on all I am reading, I have finally come round to the conclusion that the commencement of legal action will be the only way to force the issue, but what is our end game - is it compensation or is it reinstatement, because I'm not sure that it can be both?  I personally want reinstatement because there is no certainty that we will gain immediate promotion.

[Hungry hippo]

1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

This should be the section of the Companies Act that applies in respect of unfair prejudice by the other SPFL shareholders against Hearts, Partick and Stranraer.

 

994Petition by company member

(1)A member of a company may apply to the court by petition for an order under this Part on the ground—

(a)that the company's affairs are being or have been conducted in a manner that is unfairly prejudicial to the interests of members generally or of some part of its members (including at least himself), or

(b)that an actual or proposed act or omission of the company (including an act or omission on its behalf) is or would be so prejudicial.

 

We must genuinely have have a strong case.

[PhoenixHearts]

8 hours ago, husref musemic said:

Using England as a yardstick is a really poor one - the regular cop out. All the administrations in the UK should be ashamed of themselves. Compare with Denmark for example.

 

Uuuhhhh... I was replying to a poster who was specifically pitting England against Scotland....

[Footballfirst]

1 minute ago, Sir Gio said:

Any deals with partners.  

 

Are they dissolved?

 

Most "partners" operate under the structure of an LLP "Limited Liability Partnership". The clue is in the name and it also protects one partner for liability incurred by the misconduct or negligence of another partner.

[Jambo66]

22 minutes ago, gator said:

So I take it you believe obviously AB will have been well advised on our chances of obtaining a positive result if this is taken before the courts? I don't think I have read or heard her actually say anything other than she has consulted Counsel, things are very fluid in this situation, I believe the case builds in our favour by the day, I still don't think this goes to court!

I am sure she will have. It makes no business sense whatsoever to go to court without having had some advice about the prospects for success.

I was pretty close to certain this wasn't going to court until the last day or two. My main reasoning being that I couldn't think of a single reason why the member clubs would fail to vote for reconstruction. I still can't.

It appears that they may be enough clubs out there to stop reconstruction at the moment, so I am coming round to the view that a court action will be raised. If that does happen, I think it will be a matter of days afterwards that the matter is settled and reconstruction agreed.

I still have no idea why the owners of Hibs and Ross County think that their continued opposition can benefit them in any way. Roy McGregor will never see Ross County play at Tynecastle again. Can you imagine the level of abuse he will receive if he shows his face there? (Not condoning that, just saying something that seems pretty obvious). The risk of trouble between the less desirable elements of our own fans and Hibs fans will also increase - if it hasn't already. And at the end of the day, I still think the most likely outcome of all of this is reconstruction anyway.

These 2 clubs are managing to do even more damage to Scottish football than the SPFL board. That is some achievement.

[Jambo66]

29 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Gerry Moynihan QC was responsible for the SPFL legal opinion.  According to Google, he's at another company. 

He's a QC and not employed by a firm of solicitors. I think he is part of Axiom Advocates which is a "stable" of advocates who get together to pool fixed costs such as admin etc.

He will have been instructed to give an opinion by the firm of solicitors acting for the SPFL.

[Scnorthedinburgh]

17 minutes ago, gnasher75 said:

A couple of random thoughts...

 

Looking forward to our lawyer beginning his questioning of Neil Doncaster with the words "I am very sorry that Richard Gordon wasn't free to conduct this interrogation".

 

Can the court case be televised? If so are we selling the rights to Sky or will season ticket holders get to watch for free?

Start with.

So the play offs could not happen to decide potential relegation and promotion  as all games scheduled for the season had not been played.

Doncaster, that is correct.

And relegation from the same leagues was changed to be on average points per game as all the fixtures had not been played.

Doncaster, that is correct

Hearts win.

[Biffa Bacon]

53 minutes ago, everton_jambo said:

So does that mean if the money isn’t there, we can’t enforce it as a debt? 
 

I was looking at it as Hearts suing all 42 clubs, and if they can’t come up with the cash between them, there surely must be some further recourse?

What would happen if you or I was in court for a minor offence, if we were fined we would have to pay it. Maybe not on day 1, but it has to be settled.

[SUTOL]

6 minutes ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

Start with.

So the play offs could not happen to decide potential relegation and promotion  as all games scheduled for the season had not been played.

Doncaster, that is correct.

And relegation from the same leagues was changed to be on average points per game as all the fixtures had not been played.

Doncaster, that is correct

Hearts win.

 

Or start with:

 

Did Dundee vote for or against? 

 

Do your articles allow members to change their vote after it has been cast? 

[Scnorthedinburgh]

Just now, Biffa Bacon said:

What would happen if you or I was in court for a minor offence, if we were fined we would have to pay it. Maybe not on day 1, but it has to be settled.

Fiver a week. They just go on your ability to pay.

[Scnorthedinburgh]

Just now, SUTOL said:

 

Or start with:

 

Did Dundee vote for or against? 

 

Do your articles allow members to change their vote after it has been cast? 

Seriously?

Read my post again.

Dundee are irrelevant.

You can't keep teams potentially up or no promotion on the grounds that all fixtures not played.

When 3 teams are relegated as all games were not played. Both sets could have made the playoffs.

But one set cancelled, other set relegated.

Hearts win.

[Scnorthedinburgh]

4 minutes ago, SUTOL said:

 

Or start with:

 

Did Dundee vote for or against? 

 

Do your articles allow members to change their vote after it has been cast? 

 

[queensferryjambo]

17 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

I still have no idea why the owners of Hibs and Ross County think that their continued opposition can benefit them in any way.

 

 

Possibly because they foolishly think that by cutting the throats of their local rivals they will become more successful?

 

If we have seen anything whether it be Hearts, Hibs, Inverness or Ross County get one over on each other the success is very temporary and the fans aren't going to flock to watch their rivals.

 

To sum up it is because they are both spiteful ***** and are pandering to their spiteful fans.

[NANOJAMBO]

26 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

This should be the section of the Companies Act that applies in respect of unfair prejudice by the other SPFL shareholders against Hearts, Partick and Stranraer.

 

994Petition by company member

(1)A member of a company may apply to the court by petition for an order under this Part on the ground—

(a)that the company's affairs are being or have been conducted in a manner that is unfairly prejudicial to the interests of members generally or of some part of its members (including at least himself), or

(b)that an actual or proposed act or omission of the company (including an act or omission on its behalf) is or would be so prejudicial.

Bump. 

[Scnorthedinburgh]

Sorry forgot to say the articles do.  Some qualifiers but yes they could and did.

[Biffa Bacon]

54 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

I can't get my head round why we are having an indicative vote tomorrow then the real vote on Thursday. Its like Dundee lodging the vote then changing once they saw the green pound. 

Imagine doing that in a local election or a general election. Crazy stuff imo

Kherdine explained on the radio earlier, Chic Young kept repeating the same question even when he had the answer. From what I could gather, a vote is needed via an EGM. To call an EGM, 28 days notice must be given. The indicative also has some clause to hold an EGM within 7 days, so if it is worth voting on (after gauging the indicative position) it would be formally voted at EGM next Monday 22nd June. 

[gnasher75]

Can we call Susie Dent as a witness to give a definition and explain the origins of the word "cockwomble"? Not essential to our case perhaps but useful background information.

[Selkirkhmfc1874]

36 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

Is that your thoughts or is it from your source?  We all know it is going to get messy one way our another but I was hoping there might be something a bit more concrete by the way of info.

Only ever posted what been told in this thread buddy and things have been changing on a daily basis over the last few weeks but crunch time coming now 

[Fire_At_The_Disco]

1 minute ago, gnasher75 said:

Can we call Susie Dent as a witness to give a definition and explain the origins of the word "cockwomble"? Not essential to our case perhaps but useful background information.

 

[NANOJAMBO]

16 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

He's a QC and not employed by a firm of solicitors. I think he is part of Axiom Advocates which is a "stable" of advocates who get together to pool fixed costs such as admin etc.

He will have been instructed to give an opinion by the firm of solicitors acting for the SPFL.

I'm going to log off now because you are really getting on my tits today and not for the first time. 

 

I know full well he's at Axiom - because I Googled it - and please don't pretend you knew he was there. 

 

I know full well he's a QC - I said so and I spent half a day reading his legal opinion to the SPFL. 

 

If you can't add value please just ignore my posts. You are a tedious bore as evidenced by you last sentence above.