Jamboelite Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, blairdin said: Question for any of the guys with a bit of legal experience. In a situation like this, if the SPFL offer us and Partick an out of court financial settlement this week, are they essentially admitting liability if we say no thank you, not enough, and head to court? No it is very common to say that they will seek to pay a settlement but that by doing so it doesnt admit liability just that they seek to finalise the matter and not contest further. It means they dont compromise their position by offering. Edited June 17, 2020 by Jamboelite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruyff Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 10 minutes ago, Jamboelite said: No we didnt thats been brought up before, we didnt vote on anything regarding ending the season the board already had that power and all they agreed to do was consult the teams. You dont believe we would agree to end the season and weaken our legal position when we had lawyers giving us advice? Did we though? We weakened our own position by allowing clubs to receive payments and allowing the spfl to play us with a sham reconstruction to boost their legal position. Pointless now but I feel we've undermined our own argument somewhat. We better feckin win or it'll be our boards heads on the chopping board so to speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kila Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 6 minutes ago, Cruyff said: We could have gone to court much sooner than we have done. The threat of an interdict back in April or May would've made less of an impact. The closer we tick towards that August start date with everything at stake for the SPFL the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruyff Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said: You keep saying that. What's your point ? What do you think the point is sherlock? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henryheart Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 14 minutes ago, south morroccan said: Sharper legal minds may look at what the SPFL lawyer has written and decide that it doesn't mean what he thought it meant. That's the legal game. Indeed. It is what is says rather than what you think it says or intend it to say that matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ToqueJambo Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 10 minutes ago, Victorian said: It would be quite funny if Hibs have to tell their fans that they've been forced to change their minds to a yes due to Hearts being too strong. A microcosm of the whole Hearts owning Hibs odyssey. I think it's a given we'll come out of this stringer than Hibs. It's usually the way. Probably win the cup too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Section Q Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 18 minutes ago, CornhillHearts said: Due to the current financial uncertainty related to the SPFL finances and liabilities, our Chief Executive and I have put a hold on certain aspects of the club’s development plans while we evaluate what we can practically afford to do, that won’t put the long term viability of the club at risk but believe me, the future of the club has to be our priority at the moment. Someone else who just saw the headlines.....! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruyff Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 Just now, kila said: The threat of an interdict back in April or May would've made less of an impact. The closer we tick towards that August start date with everything at stake for the SPFL the better. We could have stopped payments to clubs and attempted to overturn the resolution at that time. I do agree however that getting apn interdict now to stop the season would cause much more chaos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brunoatemyhamster Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 So if the board is only there to carry out the wishes of the clubs( Doncasters catchphrase) , who proposed the original ending of the season vote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 So Kheredine has apologised on Twitter to Dunfermline. It appears that it was Dundee who didn't vote Yes, although he had listed them as having done so. Is that the Dundee who changed their vote in order to promote reconstruction? Even deeper into the rabbit hole we go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NANOJAMBO Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 1 minute ago, Cruyff said: What do you think the point is sherlock? You just parrot " we could have done it sooner". So what , Sherlock ? What's your point ? To gain what ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Section Q Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 Billy Brown's statement.......well said.....! https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/5709130/hearts-hibs-billy-brown-scottish-football-disgusted/ "I thought the clubs would have pulled together and looked after each other. “Instead, it seems to have been every man for themself, and I’m a bit disgusted to be honest. “This could only happen in Scotland. Other countries wouldn’t have let it get this far. “Scottish clubs in general haven’t come out from this well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccarton3 Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 7 minutes ago, Section Q said: Someone else who just saw the headlines.....! This is the knock on effect of this madness. Duty of care and al! that . All for 8.75 titles. Brother Walfrid will be proud. Walk by. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Section Q Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 6 minutes ago, redjambo said: Hopefully we as fans will help out ICT. They've been on "our side" from the start, and were initially the most vociferous in challenging the procedure of the "ending the season early" vote. 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 1 minute ago, brunoatemyhamster said: So if the board is only there to carry out the wishes of the clubs( Doncasters catchphrase) , who proposed the original ending of the season vote? Exactly. The clubs were given one option, with 2 days to decide and the prospect of no money otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 (edited) So Dundee that voted Yes to get Reconstruction to save the demoted clubs, voted No to Reconstruction. Edited June 17, 2020 by Mikey1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruyff Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said: You just parrot " we could have done it sooner". So what , Sherlock ? What's your point ? To gain what ? That is the point you Dolly Dimpleton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1971fozzy Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 And to think all they had to do was play out the season. But no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 Why the feck are Dundee not wanting an extended top league and a near free run at it next season.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Hearts Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 17 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said: Relegation was not a consequence of ending the season. People need to get their heads around this. The reason why the Board wanted to get the clubs to "relegate" Hearts was , if they didn't do it, they would HAVE to have some form of recon because Dundee Utd were getting promoted. Correct, to give septic 9iar they needed to give dundee hobos league title and promotion. Without reconstruction they then needed to get rid of us. it all leads back to the original frigged vote in the nature of its change of rules without full details and options given plus the shenanigans on how it was conducted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomaso Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 1 minute ago, redjambo said: So Kheredine has apologised on Twitter to Dunfermline. It appears that it was Dundee who didn't vote Yes, although he had listed them as having done so. Is that the Dundee who changed their vote in order to promote reconstruction? Even deeper into the rabbit hole we go. Dundee voted NO to reconstruction!! 😳So it begs the question what were they promised to change their original vote from NO to YES!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 9 minutes ago, blairdin said: Question for any of the guys with a bit of legal experience. In a situation like this, if the SPFL offer us and Partick an out of court financial settlement this week, are they essentially admitting liability if we say no thank you, not enough, and head to court? It depends on the conditions. You can make an offer "without prejudice", effectively saying that this doesn't admit liability but we will pay money to make it go away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brunoatemyhamster Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said: Exactly. The clubs were given one option, with 2 days to decide and the prospect of no money otherwise. Which stunk at the start, and became even more stinky every time we had to wait weeks at a time for our proposal to get anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambogemz Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 2 hours ago, GinRummy said: If we went bust a week before them they’d be over the moon. 😂😂😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ToqueJambo Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 4 minutes ago, Barack said: Like a really shit Watership Down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ToqueJambo Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Barack said: Like a really shit Watership Down. Budge should quote this at the next meeting. “A rabbit has two ears; a rabbit has two eyes, two nostrils. Our two warrens ought to be like that. They ought to be together—not fighting.” Edited June 17, 2020 by ToqueJambo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 Just now, Cruyff said: That is the point you Dolly Dimpleton I was of this view too re going to court earlier but given we have demonstrably tried all routes to avoid harm to other clubs, we have reduced the scope of counter arguments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kila Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 Just now, Cruyff said: We could have stopped payments to clubs and attempted to overturn the resolution at that time. I do agree however that getting apn interdict now to stop the season would cause much more chaos. While I want to **** up Scottish football, I don't think stopping the payments for clubs at a time of crisis would be viewed in our favour. Budge has been amicable here and showed ways for Scottish football to minimise the impact of CV19. It isn't a case of running straight to court screaming they did something nasty to us. We've given them plenty time to consider and understand, and proposals that are in the best interests of Scottish football at this time. The SPFL has to defend all that and explain why they are happy to shaft Hearts and Partick Thistle like this, so called members they are meant to have a duty of care for. With a reduced Championship now confirmed, that's even more in our favour. Going to court early would've meant that was only a possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HMFC01 Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 4 hours ago, Jambo66 said: If court actions were decided purely on the basis of honourable behaviour, there would be not a shadow of a doubt that we would win. Throughout this process, Ann Budge has done absolutely everything possible to avoid rancour, to avoid a court action and to avoid damaging Scottish football and it's senior clubs. Once again, in raising the court action in this way, she has provided Scottish football with a route out of this unholy mess - a mess which is entirely of its own making. I have not a shadow of doubt that our club and Ann Budge have acted with honesty, integrity and genuine care towards the rest of Scottish football. The SPFL and the majority of its members have not. The SPFL is in the last chance saloon. Do they have the wit or the intelligence to sort this out? The clock is ticking. You know what, I don't think they care enough. There is a majority of complete nutballs wanting to destroy the competition based on dastardly, deviously foul means. I don't hold much faith from their part. I am certain from our part there has been much more honorable intentions offered, it's evidently clear. Alas, time has about ran out on the options for amicable means. There is only 1 person left with an opportunity to revive the competition with a moral decision and I am not sure that's legally possible without a vote. Cant it be done by the board or the court, I have no idea. 1 week to wait, will maybe even hear some snippets from the dark side before we get there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RENE Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 Wonder if some of the clubs thought they'd be clever and abstained not realising that it counted as a no vote... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merrymac Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said: So Dundee that voted Yes to get Reconstruction to save the demoted clubs, voted No to Reconstruction. Its the classic "double bluff" or is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ToqueJambo Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said: So Dundee that voted Yes to get Reconstruction to save the demoted clubs, voted No to Reconstruction. Yes. I mean no. I mean yes. Peter, Peter... ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David McCaig Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 1 minute ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said: I was of this view too re going to court earlier but given we have demonstrably tried all routes to avoid harm to other clubs, we have reduced the scope of counter arguments. My thoughts as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 1 minute ago, RENE said: Wonder if some of the clubs thought they'd be clever and abstained not realising that it counted as a no vote... One thing coming out of all this is that it is plain as day that clubs are generally run by feckwits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kila Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 Kheredine maybe playing a blinder here by forcing clubs to come out and say how they voted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lfhearts Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 17 minutes ago, Cruyff said: We could have gone to court much sooner than we have done. Your like a stuck record, just let the experts get on with it, we exhausted every avenue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merrymac Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 1 minute ago, ToqueJambo said: Yes. I mean no. I mean yes. Peter, Peter... ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drumelzier Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 Just now, kila said: Kheredine maybe playing a blinder here by forcing clubs to come out and say how they voted Dundee were certainly happy to go along with what he said in his tweet last night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooperstar Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 48 minutes ago, Cruyff said: We should have begun legal action day 1 after the resolution. Then we would have lost the threat of delaying the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruyff Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 Just now, Geoff Kilpatrick said: I was of this view too re going to court earlier but given we have demonstrably tried all routes to avoid harm to other clubs, we have reduced the scope of counter arguments. It has also strengthen the SPFL's hand Geoff. They can argue that they allowed the opportunity for reconstruction but members voted against it. We went along with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 (edited) There is a reason why we are getting a rough and unfair treatment from Doncaster and that reason is they have never forgotten the fact in the way we saved our club, a way that shamed one of the arse cheeks big time. We rallied around in those days and we are doing it again in the rise of contributions to the FOH and they hate it, they fecking despise it. They want clubs outside the ugly sisters to be reliant on their shity hand outs. They see us as a threat and are desperate. What other league in europe would treat their 3rd biggest club in such a way??? Oh and FTH.. And remember the sun set on the old shed and old main stand and like phoenix's they rose again. HHGH 1874. Edited June 17, 2020 by maroonlegions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilmuir Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 6 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said: So Dundee that voted Yes to get Reconstruction to save the demoted clubs, voted No to Reconstruction. I’d believe anything at this point. Absolute madness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, kila said: Kheredine maybe playing a blinder here by forcing clubs to come out and say how they voted Only if he's not just being a clueless guesser and he's meaning for it to happen. I'm going with the former tbh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, kila said: Kheredine maybe playing a blinder here by forcing clubs to come out and say how they voted I hope so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zico Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 I can understand why people wanted action early - the anger at the injustice is understandable. But it was apparent that we were giving the corrupt 34 clubs as many chances to undo their expulsion as possible. They haven’t taken that chance so they’ll either be forced to do so or they’ll pay us a ****ing fortune. **** them all (including Dunfermline, who can ram their crocodile tears up their shitebox). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruyff Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 1 minute ago, Sooperstar said: Then we would have lost the threat of delaying the season. We could have forced reconstruction through as well. We might not win now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 The court will not take an adverse view of us attempting to facilitate a solution in order to prevent the matter having to be brought before the court. It will take the opposite view. Chill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozzyonthefence Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 10 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said: So Dundee that voted Yes to get Reconstruction to save the demoted clubs, voted No to Reconstruction. Presumably out of spite towards ICT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 7 minutes ago, kila said: While I want to **** up Scottish football, I don't think stopping the payments for clubs at a time of crisis would be viewed in our favour. Budge has been amicable here and showed ways for Scottish football to minimise the impact of CV19. It isn't a case of running straight to court screaming they did something nasty to us. We've given them plenty time to consider and understand, and proposals that are in the best interests of Scottish football at this time. The SPFL has to defend all that and explain why they are happy to shaft Hearts and Partick Thistle like this, so called members they are meant to have a duty of care for. With a reduced Championship now confirmed, that's even more in our favour. Going to court early would've meant that was only a possibility. The SPFL can't let that happen. It would be a disaster for clubs. To be fair to the SFA they have prepared things with the Close Brothers loans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 Just now, Fozzyonthefence said: Presumably out of spite towards ICT. Yes, good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.