SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[RobNox]

1 hour ago, Sir Gio said:

Fortunately we are not going after the SFA.

 

FIFA don't give a shit about the SPFL 

 

A very valid point Sir.  I don't know about you, but from where I'm sitting, it seems like we have had a very well thought out strategy on how we would deal with events in the best interests of HMFC as they unfolded, whereas the SPFL hasn't a clue and is trying to keep a large number of clubs with differing agendas on board, hence the variety of proposals and votes / soundings that have taken place.

 

It highlights a major flaw in Scottish Footballing governance.  If Doncaster is CEO of the SPFL on c £400k per annum, then should he not be taking major decisions?  If he turns around when things are getting tricky and says the SPFL board only does what the clubs want, then why do we need to be paying him a massive salary?  I'd do an admin job gathering opinions from clubs and making decisions on their behalf for a mere £100k per annum.  

[Victorian]

6 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

Because we had the opportunity to begin legal action and serve them papers before reconstruction talks.

 

Instead we decided not to at that time and took part in reconstruction, which was a pipedream but they at least afforded the opportunity.

 

Our Chair was even the one driving it and the members didn't agree.

 

In essence we had a choice to take part in reconstruction talks over legal action over the sham resolution. That was when we had a strong hand. 

 

This is more of a desperate last gasp effort that we absolutely must win. 

 

You're still missing the point.    Engaging in good faith in trying to get football to settle it's own dispute without the need to drag it through the courts is not any sort of concession of the right to ask the court to settle the matter.     The court is the arbiter of last resort.     Not a weapon to be weilded at a whim.

 

 

Edited June 17, 2020 by Victorian

[JamboAl1965]

This nonsense about democratic votes is a complete red herring I think.

 

It dosen't matter if the decision was democratic vote and all done good and proper as Les Gray says, surely the bottom line is members failed in their duty of care to each other and have caused disproportionate harm to some members that could have been avoidable, the fact there is a "no harm for anyone option" is damming. I think the clubs approach to this point has always been to evidence they have sough a no harm solution. I think the target rich comment in the original statement is a reference to the amount of information that there is a deliberate and malicious element,

 

If the rules don't stop this type of behaviour then as an extreme example , 41 clubs could hold proper and correct votes and just democratically vote another club out. democratic and proper don't override duty of care repsonsibilities.

[kila]

4 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

The point being that if a judge was awarding compensation he / she would be agreeing that the relegation was flawed / unfair. 

 

Because the vote result put a huge amount of financial burden onto Hearts and Partick Thistle with members choosing to save themselves. Members are supposed to have a duty of care to one another.

 

The vote being flawed would imply the process, so if we're at the compensation stage then it means the Dundee vote passed the screening test (that's what I meant about the vote being sound).

 

[NANOJAMBO]

4 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

There was.an Opportunity to set a narrative in support of recon right at the start that they had no intention of ta king. Never even tested the water with say resolution 1. Then they could have had res 2 with no recon if 1 failed.

 

 

 

 

Totally agree with this - there was no need to let it collapse in the way they did. The Board now simply want to blame the clubs , but the Board never intended to take the lead , give direction or create a climate for recon  to avoid this mess. There was never any intention to seriously consider recon (instead of "relegation"). 

 

 

 

 

[south morroccan]

2 minutes ago, RobNox said:

 

A very valid point Sir.  I don't know about you, but from where I'm sitting, it seems like we have had a very well thought out strategy on how we would deal with events in the best interests of HMFC as they unfolded, whereas the SPFL hasn't a clue and is trying to keep a large number of clubs with differing agendas on board, hence the variety of proposals and votes / soundings that have taken place.

 

It highlights a major flaw in Scottish Footballing governance.  If Doncaster is CEO of the SPFL on c £400k per annum, then should he not be taking major decisions?  If he turns around when things are getting tricky and says the SPFL board only does what the clubs want, then why do we need to be paying him a massive salary?  I'd do an admin job gathering opinions from clubs and making decisions on their behalf for a mere £100k per annum.  

I'll do it for £75 k.

[redjambo]

21 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

Haven’t looked at his twitter, do we have a definitive list now?

 

For what it's worth, here's my current list (votes for reconstruction):

 

Prem (3) - Hamilton, probably Livingston, and one of Celtic, Motherwell, Rangers

Cham (5) - Arbroath, Dunfermline, Hearts, ICT, Morton

L1 (4) - Falkirk, Forfar, Partick, Peterhead

L2 (4) - Edinburgh City, Stranraer, probably Brechin and Queen's Park (with substitutes Annan and Stirling for these two)

 

[Bull's-eye]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

You're still missing the point.    Engaging in good faith in trying to get football to settle it's own dispute without the need to drag it through the courts is not any sort of concession of the right to ask the court to settle the matter.     The court is the arbiter of last resort.     Not a weapin to be weilded at a whim.

 

 

 

He's not going to get it.

 

Doubt he's been to court as many times as you and doesnt really know the ropes.

[Sooperstar]

9 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

Because we had the opportunity to begin legal action and serve them papers before reconstruction talks.

 

Instead we decided not to at that time and took part in reconstruction, which was a pipedream but they at least afforded the opportunity.

 

Our Chair was even the one driving it and the members didn't agree.

 

In essence we had a choice to take part in reconstruction talks over legal action over the sham resolution. That was when we had a strong hand. 

 

This is more of a desperate last gasp effort that we absolutely must win. 

The general consensus is that by allowing reconstruction to be seen to fail we have evidenced that as a club we have tried to do everything we can to avoid legal action. That's a pretty sensible conclusion to draw as far as I'm concerned. The SPFL cannot now turn around in court and say that they would have looked at reconstruction but that we did not allow any time for this to happen.

[Victorian]

Just now, Bull's-eye said:

 

He's not going to get it.

 

Doubt he's been to court as many times as you and doesnt really know the ropes.

 

 

 

 

[Cruyff]

25 minutes ago, Bull's-eye said:

 

Court should never be used as a threat and only used as a last resort. That's the point of the entire system. That's what a Judge will look for immediately. 

 

A judge will give you nothing if they feel they've been used as a bargaining tool. 

 

The way Heart's have dealt with this wrong has been impeccable.

I hope you are right. 👍 

17 minutes ago, kila said:

 

 

 

Because there is a huge change of circumstances to the league we are being parachuted into, a double whammy. Clubs are voting to put a huge amount of financial burden onto Hearts (and Partick Thistle) when the alternative was a little bit from everyone to prop up to 14-10-10-10.

 

Of course other clubs in those leagues have their fate sealed regardless, perhaps why they didn't care so much about their vote or Hearts. But they had an opportunity to minimise the costs/effects for the worst hit clubs from the vote and chose not to. So much for the SPFL's principles.

 

Why would there not be a case for compensation to be heard?

 

Taking part in the votes imo muddies the waters. 

 

We can argue that demotion to ourselves, Partick, Stranraer, has shown negligence in members duty of care towards other clubs. 

 

But... Members also had talks, allowed votes to take place on reconstruction and a reduced season. So members could argue they did all they could to show a duty of care to the 'majority' of other members within the framework and that compensating clubs that lost out would cause  more harm to the majority of member clubs. 

[Cruyff]

8 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

You're still missing the point.    Engaging in good faith in trying to get football to settle it's own dispute without the need to drag it through the courts is not any sort of concession of the right to ask the court to settle the matter.     The court is the arbiter of last resort.     Not a weapon to be weilded at a whim.

 

 

Fair enough. 

3 minutes ago, Bull's-eye said:

 

He's not going to get it.

 

Doubt he's been to court as many times as you and doesnt really know the ropes.

You're right. I've never been to court. 👍 

[kila]

4 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

Taking part in the votes imo muddies the waters. 

 

We can argue that demotion to ourselves, Partick, Stranraer, has shown negligence in members duty of care towards other clubs. 

 

But... Members also had talks, allowed votes to take place on reconstruction and a reduced season. So members could argue they did all they could to show a duty of care to the 'majority' of other members within the framework and that compensating clubs that lost out would cause  more harm to the majority of member clubs. 

 

Her words in this article before the April Resolution vote don't muddy the water to me:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52220309

 

Hearts will not be voting in favour of the SFPL's proposals to end the season, with chairman Ann Budge saying it is "a time for pragmatism, not rules".

 

"I firmly believe we must try to find a solution which ensures that no club should be penalised as a consequence of these exceptional circumstances.

 

"This is an emergency situation, and needs actions befitting an emergency situation," she added. "Decisions taken to see us through this emergency do not have to be cast in stone.

 

"We need to look at the restructuring option with belief that it will help and not with negativity."

 

Edited June 17, 2020 by kila

[Cruyff]

4 minutes ago, Sooperstar said:

The general consensus is that by allowing reconstruction to be seen to fail we have evidenced that as a club we have tried to do everything we can to avoid legal action. That's a pretty sensible conclusion to draw as far as I'm concerned. The SPFL cannot now turn around in court and say that they would have looked at reconstruction but that we did not allow any time for this to happen.

Fair points. 👍 

[soonbe110]

8 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

For what it's worth, here's my current list (votes for reconstruction):

 

Prem (3) - Hamilton, probably Livingston, and one of Celtic, Motherwell, Rangers

Cham (5) - Arbroath, Dunfermline, Hearts, ICT, Morton

L1 (4) - Falkirk, Forfar, Partick, Peterhead

L2 (4) - Edinburgh City, Stranraer, probably Brechin and Queen's Park (with substitutes Annan and Stirling for these two)

 

East Fife voted yes

[wavydavy]

7 hours ago, will-i-am-a-jambo said:

 

Nicely put!

 

👍

[redjambo]

Just now, soonbe110 said:

East Fife voted yes

 

Can you provide a link?

[Footballfirst]

19 minutes ago, Oneneilberry said:

Thanks

re. My original post do you think it’s possible some clubs didn’t vote as the resolution already passed therefore rendering their votes in the no camp?

possibly explaining why so many seemed to be against it 

I think 40 or 41 clubs cast votes in the original Good Friday Disagreement resolution. (i think the actual numbers may be in one of the subsequent documents)

 

I don't know how many clubs actually voted in the recent indicative vote on 14-10-10-10..

[harrywragg]

I think we'll both get nothing from the court(s) but interested to see how it pans out - £8m to you and £2m to us seems fantasy figures but it's the old adage... ask for twice the amount you need & if you get half its a win. 

[soonbe110]

Just now, redjambo said:

 

Can you provide a link?

They voted with us at every previous vote so don’t think they would have changed their mind on Monday. 

[22games nro]

8 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

For what it's worth, here's my current list (votes for reconstruction):

 

Prem (3) - Hamilton, probably Livingston, and one of Celtic, Motherwell, Rangers

Cham (5) - Arbroath, Dunfermline, Hearts, ICT, Morton

L1 (4) - Falkirk, Forfar, Partick, Peterhead

L2 (4) - Edinburgh City, Stranraer, probably Brechin and Queen's Park (with substitutes Annan and Stirling for these two)

 

they don’t fool me, if Dunfermline  voted for reconstruction then it was because they knew it was never passing but wanted to somehow try to redeem themselves in hearts fans eyes. 
 

 

[Cruyff]

Just now, kila said:

 

Her words in this article before the April Resolution vote don't muddy the water to me:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52220309

 

Hearts will not be voting in favour of the SFPL's proposals to end the season, with chairman Ann Budge saying it is "a time for pragmatism, not rules".

 

"This is an emergency situation, and needs actions befitting an emergency situation," she added. "Decisions taken to see us through this emergency do not have to be cast in stone.

 

"We need to look at the restructuring option with belief that it will help and not with negativity."

 

Yes but your point is that we are demoted to a 27 game season and therefore we would be due compensation. I agree we should but I'm playing devils advocate here, we voted on that and the majority decided on a reduced season. 

 

It's not cut and dry for us that we will win this thing. I hope we do and preferably we get full compensation so we kill as many clubs as possible. 

[Gmcjambo]

1 minute ago, harrywragg said:

I think we'll both get nothing from the court(s) but interested to see how it pans out - £8m to you and £2m to us seems fantasy figures but it's the old adage... ask for twice the amount you need & if you get half its a win. 

The claim will be based on their estimated losses and the clubs will need to substantiate it.  It won't be plucked out of thin air.   

[redjambo]

Just now, soonbe110 said:

They voted with us at every previous vote so don’t think they would have changed their mind on Monday. 

 

I would have strongly thought so too and initially had them down as yes. However, if Kheredine's only error is to mistake Dundee for Dunfermline, then his claim that the vote in L1 was 4-6 would preclude East Fife from having voted yes given that Falkirk, Forfar, Partick and Peterhead in that league all claim to have voted yes.

[kila]

Just now, Cruyff said:

Yes but your point is that we are demoted to a 27 game season and therefore we would be due compensation. I agree we should but I'm playing devils advocate here, we voted on that and the majority decided on a reduced season. 

 

It's not cut and dry for us that we will win this thing. I hope we do and preferably we get full compensation so we kill as many clubs as possible. 

 

A majority vote doesn't mean they can have their way without financial repercussions from it.

 

[Riccarton3]

10 minutes ago, JamboAl1965 said:

This nonsense about democratic votes is a complete red herring I think.

 

It dosen't matter if the decision was democratic vote and all done good and proper as Les Gray says, surely the bottom line is members failed in their duty of care to each other and have caused disproportionate harm to some members that could have been avoidable, the fact there is a "no harm for anyone option" is damming. I think the clubs approach to this point has always been to evidence they have sough a no harm solution. I think the target rich comment in the original statement is a reference to the amount of information that there is a deliberate and malicious element,

 

If the rules don't stop this type of behaviour then as an extreme example , 41 clubs could hold proper and correct votes and just democratically vote another club out. democratic and proper don't override duty of care repsonsibilities.

Spot on. Gray is interested in the flawed process only. It's the clubs. One option and .Some glib condescending garbage about oh it's unfair. Maybe, Les, the governance needs looked at. YOu as a board are there, along with all members, to provide a duty of care. Disingenuous, conniving rat. Sorry.

[Doc Rob]

2 minutes ago, harrywragg said:

I think we'll both get nothing from the court(s) but interested to see how it pans out - £8m to you and £2m to us seems fantasy figures but it's the old adage... ask for twice the amount you need & if you get half its a win. 

I think we have a pretty strong case. Both clubs (and Stranraer) stand to be severely damaged by the decision to demote us without our having a chance to avoid it. Similar court cases have succeeded in France and Belgium. If the SPFL think there is any chance at all that we could be granted the interdict to stop the SPL from starting, they will look to make a deal.

[gnasher75]

Only 16 votes in favour. Lots of "abstentions".

 

Slightly surprised Doncaster hasn't announced that he has just found a whole pile of Yes votes in his spam folder.

[harrywragg]

4 minutes ago, Gmcjambo said:

The claim will be based on their estimated losses and the clubs will need to substantiate it.  It won't be plucked out of thin air.   

 

It was 3m a couple of months ago, growing to 4m then a combined 6m for both of us - now it's 10m - I agree that figures will have to be justified but the spiralling figure just announced is a serious WTAF especially at our end 

[Ethan Hunt]

Can’t say I am comfortable with this statement. It’s maybe me but it seems to be directed at Hearts fans and states that a “number of things have happened today that are extremely regrettable.” I don’t think he’d choose those words about simple social media pish. 

 

 

[harrywragg]

3 minutes ago, Doc Rob said:

I think we have a pretty strong case. Both clubs (and Stranraer) stand to be severely damaged by the decision to demote us without our having a chance to avoid it. Similar court cases have succeeded in France and Belgium. If the SPFL think there is any chance at all that we could be granted the interdict to stop the SPL from starting, they will look to make a deal.

 

I don't doubt it and if it extends past the start if the season to prevent a ball bring kicked all the better - especially when you hear chairmen like the idiot at Ross Co talking about taking your medicine - his shower were in free fall last ten games 

[assessor]

2 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

Can’t say I am comfortable with this statement. It’s maybe me but it seems to be directed at Hearts fans and states that a “number of things have happened today that are extremely regrettable.” I don’t think he’d choose those words about simple social media pish. 

 

 

Crawling to us, please come to our ground please, please, please

[Cruyff]

2 minutes ago, kila said:

 

A majority vote doesn't mean they can have their way without financial repercussions from it.

 

It's the same for everyone though isn't it?

 

We're only the worst affected because we're a bigger operation than everyone else and can't afford to lose out on 4-5 home games like Ayr Utd can but that parts not really their problem. 

 

If demotion is found to be lawful then i can't see how we still win compensation for it. 

 

I think if we win the interdict and stop the Premier league from starting, they won't have an option but to force through reconstruction anyway before it even gets to court proper. 

[Malinga the Swinga]

2 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

Can’t say I am comfortable with this statement. It’s maybe me but it seems to be directed at Hearts fans and states that a “number of things have happened today that are extremely regrettable.” I don’t think he’d choose those words about simple social media pish. 

 

 

Sorry Ross. Had you voted against original resolution, it would have failed. You stated you were happy with company you were in and now you are facing Hearts supporter boycott, you have shit yourself because you counted on our cash, my cash.

 

Well **** you Ross, not one ****ing pound, not one ****ing penny. I hope your club dies.

[rory78]

1 hour ago, heatonjambo said:

It’s a lovely little place./

 

also the closest town to Contelmaison, so could be a good all round trip. 

As long as its not near Dijon 😳

[Boof]

Is that McArthur guy a board member of either SPFL or SFA?

 

Was he a bit of a loudmouth earlier in the process?

[Malinga the Swinga]

6 minutes ago, harrywragg said:

 

It was 3m a couple of months ago, growing to 4m then a combined 6m for both of us - now it's 10m - I agree that figures will have to be justified but the spiralling figure just announced is a serious WTAF especially at our end 

May be high, but what a ****ing ride it is going to be. Most exciting close season for years.

[Cruyff]

1 minute ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Sorry Ross. Had you voted against original resolution, it would have failed. You stated you were happy with company you were in and now you are facing Hearts supporter boycott, you have shit yourself because you counted on our cash, my cash.

 

Well **** you Ross, not one ****ing pound, not one ****ing penny. I hope your club dies.

basically, yep. That's what it is. 

[whodanny]

6 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

Can’t say I am comfortable with this statement. It’s maybe me but it seems to be directed at Hearts fans and states that a “number of things have happened today that are extremely regrettable.” I don’t think he’d choose those words about simple social media pish. 

 

 

He's clearly been reading this thread.😊

[Ethan Hunt]

2 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Sorry Ross. Had you voted against original resolution, it would have failed. You stated you were happy with company you were in and now you are facing Hearts supporter boycott, you have shit yourself because you counted on our cash, my cash.

 

Well **** you Ross, not one ****ing pound, not one ****ing penny. I hope your club dies.

I think you might be missing the point. The “number of things that happened today that are extreme regrettable” part suggests to me that someone might have done something more than just spouting pish on social media. 

[RobNox]

1 hour ago, JamboAl1965 said:

we keep hearing its a members organisations any that any action is in effect an action against the members, so in that case am I correct to assume the SPFL will prepare a document now for the members (including ourselves and Partick as members)  outlining their case, their confidence in winning and the risk if they lose and it will be the members who decide wether to fold and accept reconstruction or hold, go to court as accept the financial risk that will be paid for by each member should they lose.

 

can someone confirm or set me stratight

 

I can't confirm or set you straight Al, but this is the major point that convinces me this won't even get to court.

 

If I'm the Chairman or owner of a club, right now, I want to know what the potential financial  implications are if Hearts win their case and how confident the SPFL is that Hearts won't win.  The bigger the financial implications are, the more confidence I want that I won't be facing those implications.

 

I might have voted against reconstruction because I thought that was potentially more financial beneficial for my club, but I might now think that those perceived benefits are outweighed by the potential financial impacts on my club if the SPFL loses the case brought by Hearts.  I might now decide that I'd like to recast my vote, I'm not prepared to take the gamble of sticking to my guns now that I understand the potential financial implications of ending on the losing side.

[DETTY29]

1 minute ago, Boof said:

Is that McArthur guy a board member of either SPFL or SFA?

 

Was he a bit of a loudmouth earlier in the process?

He was accused of bullying other chairmen but he said he was er, aggressive in his communications as a Dunfermline not SPFL board member.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

3 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Sorry Ross. Had you voted against original resolution, it would have failed. You stated you were happy with company you were in and now you are facing Hearts supporter boycott, you have shit yourself because you counted on our cash, my cash.

 

Well **** you Ross, not one ****ing pound, not one ****ing penny. I hope your club dies.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, Ethan Hunt said:

I think you might be missing the point. The “number of things that happened today that are extreme regrettable” part suggests to me that someone might have done something more than just spouting pish on social media. 

Maybe so. I still agree with what Malinga said though.

[JimmyCant]

1 hour ago, Cruyff said:

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. 

This could be a large part of why there is no mention of reconstruction in our petition. I think that’s really significant. It means our case focuses on the flawed resolution, rather than the futile attempts to fix it after the event. Asking for reduction of the resolution to exclude promotion/relegation is genius IMO. All we have to satisfy the judge of now is that it should never have been part of the resolution. It was a ******* resolution and produced a ******* result. The sham reconstruction attempts are now barely relevant.

[Rick Sanchez]

5 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Sorry Ross. Had you voted against original resolution, it would have failed. You stated you were happy with company you were in and now you are facing Hearts supporter boycott, you have shit yourself because you counted on our cash, my cash.

 

Well **** you Ross, not one ****ing pound, not one ****ing penny. I hope your club dies.

 

I like the cut of the jib.

 

 

[TheBigO]

8 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

Can’t say I am comfortable with this statement. It’s maybe me but it seems to be directed at Hearts fans and states that a “number of things have happened today that are extremely regrettable.” I don’t think he’d choose those words about simple social media pish. 

 

 

Now, is he robustly saying this with his Dunfermline hat on or his SPFL board one?

 

He has two hats, you know, Rossy Two-Hats.

[Jambo66]

14 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

Yes but your point is that we are demoted to a 27 game season and therefore we would be due compensation. I agree we should but I'm playing devils advocate here, we voted on that and the majority decided on a reduced season. 

 

It's not cut and dry for us that we will win this thing. I hope we do and preferably we get full compensation so we kill as many clubs as possible. 

If we lose our action, we would look a bit bloody stupid if we hadn't voted on the 27 game championship - especially if our vote swung the matter one way or the other.

Apart from that, there has only been one other vote - the resolution.

The so called "indicative vote" wasn't really a vote. It was designed to see if there was any possibility that a formal vote on reconstruction would pass. For that to happen, it didn't make a huge difference we voted on the basis of being a championship side or a premiership side. It was never about getting 11-1, 75% etc on Monday. It was about seeing if we might get there in a real vote.

[Brave Hearts]

8 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

Can’t say I am comfortable with this statement. It’s maybe me but it seems to be directed at Hearts fans and states that a “number of things have happened today that are extremely regrettable.” I don’t think he’d choose those words about simple social media pish. 

 

 

 

so who is McArthur speaking on behalf of in this statement ........

 

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, JimmyCant said:

This could be a large part of why there is no mention of reconstruction in our petition. I think that’s really significant. It means our case focuses on the flawed resolution, rather than the futile attempts to fix it after the event. Asking for reduction of the resolution to exclude promotion/relegation is genius IMO. All we have to satisfy the judge of now is that it should never have been part of the resolution. It was a ******* resolution and produced a ******* result. The sham reconstruction attempts are now barely relevant.

^^

Gets it