SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[NANOJAMBO]

3 minutes ago, Heartsmad1874 said:

They have a gripe/reason to be aggrieved. They will likely argue that they budgeted for higher leagues after being announced as promoted but they made these investment decisions in full knowledge of a possible legal challenge from us and Partick.

😀

[Newton51]

 

[Heartsmad1874]

Concerned about Keef. Theres no exclusive in his comic about SFA sanctioning or threatening to expel Scumdee Utd, Raith or Cove.

[Riccarton3]

11 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Nous regretons riens! 

I got a Higher as well . Just going back to that Sun article. They use the word gripe. We have a gripe. 

[RobNox]

3 minutes ago, CavySlaveJambo said:

Does any body else feel that after this season there needs to be a force majeure/exceptional circumstances rules put in place with the SPFL and SFA.  To prevent something like this happening again. 
 

One that does not use PPG but revolves back to the last full set of games that had been completed.  

 

Perhaps just put an independent Board in place, with the authority to make decisions without prejudicing certain clubs.  Can you really trust a governance process that involves representatives of certain clubs sitting on the Board?  You then get all sorts of shite like the Chairman of club X who sits on the SPFL Board was talking in his capacity as chairman of club X, not as a SPFL Board member.

 

There are a lot of large companies who have suspended paying dividends to their shareholders as a result of the pandemic, or have reduced the amount of the dividend they are prepared to pay.  That makes sense, as the long term interest of all shareholders is that the business survives, so missing out on a couple of dividend payments is better than losing all your capital.  What the SPFL has done is the equivalent to a company saying we can't afford to pay the full dividend, but instead of reducing it for everybody, we're going to withhold the dividend from a minority of shareholders and pay the rest in full, and we'll ask the shareholders to vote on this.  

 

 

[milky_26]

Just now, Riccarton3 said:

I got a Higher as well . Just going back to that Sun article. They use the word gripe. We have a gripe. 

typo, we have a grip of their baws and a tight one at that

[Walter Bishop]

Not been able to get on today due to work, Anyone able to quickly summarise what appears to be good news looking at the last couple of pages?

Edited June 19, 2020 by Walter Bishop

[Footballfirst]

Here is what the SPFL's QC opinion said about legal action prior to the Good Friday vote.

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

4 minutes ago, Walter Bishop said:

Not been able to get on today due to work, Anyone able to quickly summarise what appears to be good news looking at the last couple of pages?

Dundee United, Raith and Cove have realised the implications of us winning. They are planning their own legal action. Meaning the penny has finally dropped that we were not bullshitting and we have a strong case.

 

Edit: Our petition is also publically viewable and is really well constructed. Les Gray has been our friend but not intentionally!

Edited June 19, 2020 by Geoff Kilpatrick

[Fozzyonthefence]

4 minutes ago, Heartsmad1874 said:

Concerned about Keef. Theres no exclusive in his comic about SFA sanctioning or threatening to expel Scumdee Utd, Raith or Cove.

Perhaps saving a big one for over the weekend - FIFA / UEFA watching and ready to get involved maybe? 

[NANOJAMBO]

3 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

I got a Higher as well . Just going back to that Sun article. They use the word gripe. We have a gripe. 

Gripe - complain about something in a persistent, irritating way.

 

*** king gripe !!!!

[Riccarton3]

10 minutes ago, Newton51 said:

 

Got Bill Nighy on the case. High profile.

[Walter Bishop]

2 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Dundee United, Raith and Cove have realised the implications of us winning. They are planning their own legal action. Meaning the penny has finally dropped that we were not bullshitting and we have a strong case 

Cheers, I heard something earlier about their statement. We shouldnt punish them but they are ok to punish us?

[RobNox]

13 minutes ago, Barack said:

"ELEVEN!"

 

I'm sorry, I didn't understand that.  Could you repeat please?

 

'FREEDOM!'

[Section Q]

13 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

And they can gripe at us all they like. However, taking action against us for taking legal action is not a case! They need to pursue the SPFL too.

This.

And the result of no leadership decisions two months ago by the SPFL.

[Fozzyonthefence]

3 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Here is what the SPFL's QC opinion said about legal action prior to the Good Friday vote.

 

The SPFL’s whole defence is summarised in that last sentence.  That’s why we hear the “81%” trotted out again and again and it’s down to whether a judge accepts that defence or not.  

[Durham Jambo]

6 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Here is what the SPFL's QC opinion said about legal action prior to the Good Friday vote.

 

So essentially we know we’re going to do in one or more clubs but if the majority vote to stitch them up we’ll be fine. 

[kila]

7 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Here is what the SPFL's QC opinion said about legal action prior to the Good Friday vote.

 

 

Wonder what their QC's are saying now  Or if they mentioned compensation in any of their pieces. Maybe they never thought about a truncated Championship while the Premiership is a full season.

 

 

Edited June 19, 2020 by kila

[jock _turd]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

Similarly on the Dundee vote, they might argue that "no" votes can be reversed, so they were entitled to enter into discussions with Nelms.

 

I don't think they can do this. They were asked to vote yes or no by the board of the SPFL. This vote was akin to a show of hands at a meeting to decide a point. I don't think that in a vote such as this upon finding out the result of a vote the voters can change their vote and thus change the result. In a normal situation they would on be asked to vote for the resolution... for what ever reason the SPFL asked for a yes/no response to the question... a game changer! I could of course be wrong and of course that would mean the QC's are wrong too... I hope to F they are not 

[HMFC01]

2 hours ago, Rick Sanchez said:

It begs the question...why didn't The Rangers pursue this? Did they even find it?

 

They got told to "cool it" by Donny of caster.  I'd like to see that get affronted to the Hearts/Partick duo right now.  Go on you arrogant prick, try it.  No leverage this time?  Oh well.

[bawheed]

7 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Here is what the SPFL's QC opinion said about legal action prior to the Good Friday vote.

 

 

[Midloth_Iain]

6 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Here is what the SPFL's QC opinion said about legal action prior to the Good Friday vote.

 

 

In layman's terms please FF ?  🤔

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

2 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

The SPFL’s whole defence is summarised in that last sentence.  That’s why we hear the “81%” trotted out again and again and it’s down to whether a judge accepts that defence or not.  

Indeed and the advice is in direct contradiction of the "doing no harm" to fellow members of the organisation.

[Rods]

I have completely missed what Les Grey has said in our favour? 

[NANOJAMBO]

6 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Here is what the SPFL's QC opinion said about legal action prior to the Good Friday vote.

 

The last sentence makes it sound like there was/is no way out when everyone knows the whole farce could have been avoided by having (temporary) reconstruction. The winners win (and get promoted) and no one loses. 

 

If you've got the whole document could you put up the section that mentions how to deal with reconstruction ?

 

Thanks. 

[Bazzas right boot]

The only defence seems that "the majority voted for it". 

 

Nd couldn't say that enough during his interviews. 

 

Now, does the duty of care to others and not doing harm Hold sway over that. 

 

 

 

Edited June 19, 2020 by Smith's right boot

[Gambo]

So let me get this straight, Dundee Utd, Raith and Cove think the SPFL vote that they voted for was flawed and will not stand up in a court of law, that they feel the need to counter claim?

[NANOJAMBO]

3 minutes ago, bawheed said:

 

Take a bow.  Or a knee. 

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

22 minutes ago, Barack said:

"ELEVEN!"

Boom boom 

 

[Cruyff]

8 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Here is what the SPFL's QC opinion said about legal action prior to the Good Friday vote.

 

So the QC did warn them of litigation but said that if it was done democratically it is unlikely the courts would interfere....... Then they ****ed up the vote leaving themselves open to a barrage of litigation. 

 

Thanks to Eric Drysdale for confirming Dundee's no vote was sent and Rangers dossier on coercion and bullying, it looks like the SPFL have found themselves in a very sticky patch. 

 

[neilnunb]

19 minutes ago, Heartsmad1874 said:

Concerned about Keef. Theres no exclusive in his comic about SFA sanctioning or threatening to expel Scumdee Utd, Raith or Cove.

 

 

They're certainly late putting stuff up tonight. Must be bashing away furiously on their keyboards. We must have them rattled. 😀

[NANOJAMBO]

3 minutes ago, Rods said:

I have completely missed what Les Grey has said in our favour? 

"Hearts & Partick have been treated unfairly". Yes. He said that. 

 

And Hearts legal team have quoted him (again) in the legal papers "we have our legal opinion" and are using that to strengthen the point that the SPFL can't complain about having to respond within the 7 day deadline. 

[WorldChampions1902]

12 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Here is what the SPFL's QC opinion said about legal action prior to the Good Friday vote.

 

So, this document now confirms that a potential claimant is perfectly at liberty to challenge this in court! Can somebody send this to the SFA and instruct them to wind their necks in?

 

The relevant wording in the final paragraph is, “ Invoking Article 64.1 at least gives the comfort of a Democratic mandate and if the outcome is challenged, then the ultimate decision will rest with the courts.

[neilnunb]

Spoke too soon..

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sfa-contact-hearts-partick-thistle-22222264

[Heartsmad1874]

5 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

The last sentence makes it sound like there was/is no way out when everyone knows the whole farce could have been avoided by having (temporary) reconstruction. The winners win (and get promoted) and no one loses. 

 

If you've got the whole document could you put up the section that mentions how to deal with reconstruction ?

 

Thanks. 

From what i can remember there was no option of further reconstruction, it mentioned that we tried several times to avoid litigation but all we are looking for is to be part of the status quo 12-10-10-10 or compensation. It would be up to Dundee Utd, Raith and Cove to pursue further reconstruction if we are reinstated

[Homme]

17 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Dundee United, Raith and Cove have realised the implications of us winning. They are planning their own legal action. Meaning the penny has finally dropped that we were not bullshitting and we have a strong case.

 

Edit: Our petition is also publically viewable and is really well constructed. Les Gray has been our friend but not intentionally!

 

I love the sound of this Les Grey thing. 

 

What's he done / said? 

[Kidd’s Boots]

23 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Here is what the SPFL's QC opinion said about legal action prior to the Good Friday vote.

 

Thanks for posting. I am stunned that the SPFL Board has made this decision based on comfort of democracy, and the possible consolation that courts may not interfere. I have been unsure about Les Grays' part in all this. He sings from the company hymn sheet when required, but his mask slipped a few times publicly, I now see why. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by Kidd’s Boots
Typo

[Riccarton3]

.

Edited June 19, 2020 by Riccarton3

[Homme]

The compliance officer? 

 

A bit out your depth love. Stick to trial by sportscene.

Edited June 19, 2020 by Homme

[kila]

Enough members voted to shaft just three members, by changing the rules mid season to allow relegation and promotion without all 38 fixtures being played. Oh and this vote was tied to a financial payout that could've been paid anyway (loans). Plus a vote was received but 'lost' and an official no as per SPFL rules was allowed to be recast as a yes.

 

There is plenty to explore. Hopefully it isn't dismissed and we're onto the compensation stage instead, because getting all this aired in a court would be excellent.

 

 

[Footballfirst]

2 minutes ago, Ruud Krol said:

 

In layman's terms please FF ?  🤔

 

The SPFL were aware of the possibility of a legal challenge.  The QC highlights the s994 "unfairly pejudiced" claim, which Hearts and Partick have used.  They have also shown a couple of lines of defence to an aggrieved party, 1) courts don't like to interfere in internal company matters and 2) that the "democratic" votes could sway a judge into a view that minority shareholders were just stirring it.  

 

What the opinion doesn't cover is the extent of the unfairness that resulted.  In the previous PT case mentioned from 2004, was PT directly disadvantaged by ICT playing half the season at Pitoddrie? I don't really think so. I don't believe the circumstances are comparable. 

 

[Jambo66]

44 minutes ago, RobNox said:

 

I doubt it, but I'm no legal expert.  The case seems to point to areas where either the SPFL has acted outwith their own articles of association, and done so on an arbitrary basis, or have been misleading in the information or guidance provided to member clubs to reach a decision.  This isn't a case about which clubs have been treated worse, it's whether the SPFL acted properly in conducting their duties.  

This sums up my view neatly.

[NANOJAMBO]

2 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

So the QC did warn them of litigation but said that if it was done democratically it is unlikely the courts would interfere....... Then they ****ed up the vote leaving themselves open to a barrage of litigation. 

 

Thanks to Eric Drysdale for confirming Dundee's no vote was sent and Rangers dossier on coercion and bullying, it looks like the SPFL have found themselves in a very sticky patch. 

 

The QC thought it Unlikely the courts would get involved - at all.

But then the QC never anticipated Doncaster & the Board getting called out as a bunch of liars who knowingly misled the members over the resolution. 

Then the  outcome & handling of that resolution. 

And then they applied an "arbitrary & unfair" method of closing the season - they never anticipated Partrick going to court (the current L1 farce) nor two clubs raising the fact that Brechin got off scot free & the play offs were binned. 

 

Superb stuff. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

5 minutes ago, Homme said:

 

I love the sound of this Les Grey thing. 

 

What's he done / said? 

It's in our legal papers. He's quoted as saying we've been treated unfairly and the SPFL have taken legal advice, meaning the 7 day response was amenable.

[Anything2]

If that's the advice that the SPFL received, why have they gone down the road that they have? They said the ONE consolation is that the court won't lightly intervene, to me that sounds like "I wouldn't do that if I were you" type advice. It's almost an admittance of guilt, they have decided to shaft certain clubs, and have asked their lawyers if they would get away with it and the response is probably not but if you're lucky the judge might have a tee off time in the diary for that afternoon and not fancy getting into it. 

[NANOJAMBO]

6 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

So, this document now confirms that a potential claimant is perfectly at liberty to challenge this in court! Can somebody send this to the SFA and instruct them to wind their necks in?

 

The relevant wording in the final paragraph is, “ Invoking Article 64.1 at least gives the comfort of a Democratic mandate and if the outcome is challenged, then the ultimate decision will rest with the courts.

I have been saying this for weeks. I read the whole 24 pages - the SPFL knew all the legal risks and their strategy was planned around risk aversion , not doing the right thing for all clubs. They simply wanted to minimise the chances of losing in court . The SFA will not be doing anything except asking Doncaster WTF he's doing. 

[Riccarton3]

8 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

So, this document now confirms that a potential claimant is perfectly at liberty to challenge this in court! Can somebody send this to the SFA and instruct them to wind their necks in?

 

The relevant wording in the final paragraph is, “ Invoking Article 64.1 at least gives the comfort of a Democratic mandate and if the outcome is challenged, then the ultimate decision will rest with the courts.

So they went out of their way to find a solution which damaged clubs unnecessai!y because they had an agenda over and above dealing with a crisis

[Kiwidoug]

1 hour ago, RobNox said:

 

The other aspect Doug is, did the SPFL spell things out clearly enough when seeking opinions?

 

We can already see that part of our legal claim revolves around the SPFL failing to inform clubs properly before the original vote to end the season early.  Whether that was an oversight, or a deliberate attempt to mislead clubs is neither here nor there, they did not fulfil their responsibility to member clubs.

 

So when they sought out member clubs' opinions on the proposal to restructure the leagues, did the SPFL make it clear to clubs that the likelihood of rejecting this plan would be legal action, as we had continually said we would revert to as a last resort?  Did they quantify the potential financial impact to member clubs if we were to take legal action and succeed?

 

Or did they discount the possibility of us taking legal action, perhaps thinking we were bluffing and couldn't afford to go down this route even if we wanted to?  Well, they would only have to look at the fact that our benefactor had given the SPFL over £3m to help during the crisis, no conditions attached to that donation, but you'd have to be a moron to think a die hard Hearts fan would hand £3m to the SPFL but not then fund a legal case to save us from being shafted unfairly.  I believe that part of the reasoning behind making that donation was to send a message, basically if you think we don't have the financial resources to stand up for ourselves, then think again.

 

The bottom line is, we are in a situation that could easily have been avoided at little or no cost to any club, and our benefactor has donated money to the SPFL that would more than make up for any club's losses.  

 

 

I agree with all of that.  I'm just speculating that the gist of their case will be that they did what their members wanted.  Everything you state will queer their pitch no end.

 

In fairness, if we appointed Celtic supporting QCs, that would level the playing field and would put them on familiar ground.

 

Looking forward to next week.  The wee ron and the spfl on the back foot sagas continue.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, Riccarton3 said:

So they went out of their way to find a solution which damaged clubs unnecessai!y because they had an agenda over and above dealing with a crisis

Correct. Make sure Septic get 9IAR and maintain their Champions League spot.

[Anything2]

12 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

So the QC did warn them of litigation but said that if it was done democratically it is unlikely the courts would interfere....... Then they ****ed up the vote leaving themselves open to a barrage of litigation. 

 

Thanks to Eric Drysdale for confirming Dundee's no vote was sent and Rangers dossier on coercion and bullying, it looks like the SPFL have found themselves in a very sticky patch. 

 

It doesn't read to me like the courts are unlikely to interfere, just that the won't do it without due cause so you might get lucky on the day. Surely they aren't going to risk the future of the game on that advice?