SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[pettigrewsstylist]

25 minutes ago, gnasher75 said:

 

Thanks for posting this. Brilliant to read through the actual legal arguments even if some of it is quite heavy going.

 

A few comments/questions.

 

First, I think we have a very strong case. The Dundee vote change is probably our best argument. As far as I can see, legally the decision to end the season and to relegate clubs was never actually made because the resolution was not passed by the required majority. If that is the case, everything is up for grabs!

 

Second, I am surprised that we aren't challenging the declaration of champions in each of the leagues. We are arguing that is was wrong to change the rules to end the season before the completion of the requisite number of games so logically there can be no champions. If there are champions, it is hard to argue against promotion. It is a curious concession and I wonder what the reason is for it.

 

Third, the Les Gray (Hamilton, SPFL Board member) quotes are used in two different places which suggests the legal team see them as dynamite:

 

 It would recognise that the arbitrary nature of the petitioners’ relegation was, as Leslie Gray stated on 15 June

2020, “unfair”.

 

In particular, on 15 June 2020, Leslie Gray confirmed that the Written Resolution was “unfair”, that “Hearts will do what they have to do” but that the Company had “got our QC advice”. As Members the other respondents are entitled to see that advice.

 

Fourth, I was surprised to see this paragraph included:

 

(iii) to make an order interdicting the Company, its Directors, and anyone acting upon their behalf from implementing the terms of the

Written Resolution insofar as it introduced rules C7A.5, C53.11 and C53.12 to the Rules (providing for promotion and relegation of

Clubs); and for such an order ad interim;

 

Presumably there was a section in a cover note saying that we are not yet seeking this interim interdict?

 

And finally, I reckon there is a typo here! Pretty sure Queen of the South are in position 21:

 

38. That the Written Resolution purports to relegate the second petitioner to

League 1. The unfairness visited upon the second petitioner is particularly

egregious. It is 0.037 points per game worse off than the team in League

position 22, Queen of the South FC (“QotS”). 

 

That's my homework done!

 

Ref your first para. The decision was most definitely made.....just not voted through..   at the first attempt.

[DETTY29]

So the SFA have waded through their articles and instead of a disrepute charge have asked us to explaining our actions first.

[RENE]

4 minutes ago, DC_92 said:

 

I agree with this. I think it sets out a convincing argument as to why the outcome was unfair, but I'm not convinced it shows it to be unlawful.

 

The main points seem to be that:

1) The board falsely claimed that they couldn't provide loans.

2) The Dundee vote should have stood.

3) It is unfair to change the rules to relegate us.

 

Admittedly I only read through it once so I could have missed something, but I found point 1) to be a bit of a stretch. The Motherwell example given seems to be an advance rather than a loan (i.e. Motherwell were due the money anyway, they were just given it earlier than scheduled). That's different to a loan, because there was never any chance that they would have to pay the money back. Authorising an advance for one club hardly constitutes a precedent for authorising 42 loans at a time when there is a decent chance that some of those clubs may not to pay the money back. Maybe the SPFL could have taken the money out of their prize money for the following season but, as you say, they might be able to show they explored options like this and they justifiably found them to be less workable than the proposed solution.

 

For the Dundee vote, it seems to focus on the fact a no vote was cast, rather than explaining why that vote could not be withdrawn and a different vote submitted. The SPFL can point to their articles that show this is only the case for yes votes. Unfair, but I'd be surprised if we get far with that.

 

Point 3) seems to be our best shout, but again I think the SPFL can claim that denying teams promotion is not fair either (especially when those teams were almost certain to finish first) and that, of all the unfair options, this one was endorsed by a large majority of their members. They can also say that they facilitated reconstruction discussions to try to remedy the unfairness but no format had sufficient support among the members.

 

Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic, but I'm  cautious about our chances after reading that. A very different situation, but the mood on here reminds me of the reaction to Budge's reconstruction proposal a few weeks ago.

 

Still, maybe it'll provide the necessary incentive for others to reconsider their position on reconstruction.

Re- Dundee vote

  The point is if Dundee's vote was counted then result would have been known and they wouldn't have changed their mind.  They only changed it to get some influence.

[OTT]

Just now, DETTY29 said:

So the SFA have waded through their articles and instead of a disrepute charge have asked us to explaining our actions first.

 

Considering Doncaster also sits on the SFA board, is it not fair to knock back their approach on the advice of solicitors?

 

Some shithousing would be lovely. 

[Spellczech]

4 minutes ago, DC_92 said:

 

I agree with this. I think it sets out a convincing argument as to why the outcome was unfair, but I'm not convinced it shows it to be unlawful.

 

The main points seem to be that:

1) The board falsely claimed that they couldn't provide loans.

2) The Dundee vote should have stood.

3) It is unfair to change the rules to relegate us.

 

Admittedly I only read through it once so I could have missed something, but I found point 1) to be a bit of a stretch. The Motherwell example given seems to be an advance rather than a loan (i.e. Motherwell were due the money anyway, they were just given it earlier than scheduled). That's different to a loan, because there was never any chance that they would have to pay the money back. Authorising an advance for one club hardly constitutes a precedent for authorising 42 loans at a time when there is a decent chance that some of those clubs may not to pay the money back. Maybe the SPFL could have taken the money out of their prize money for the following season but, as you say, they might be able to show they explored options like this and they justifiably found them to be less workable than the proposed solution.

 

For the Dundee vote, it seems to focus on the fact a no vote was cast, rather than explaining why that vote could not be withdrawn and a different vote submitted. The SPFL can point to their articles that show this is only the case for yes votes. Unfair, but I'd be surprised if we get far with that.

 

Point 3) seems to be our best shout, but again I think the SPFL can claim that denying teams promotion is not fair either (especially when those teams were almost certain to finish first) and that, of all the unfair options, this one was endorsed by a large majority of their members. They can also say that they facilitated reconstruction discussions to try to remedy the unfairness but no format had sufficient support among the members.

 

Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic, but I'm  cautious about our chances after reading that. A very different situation, but the mood on here reminds me of the reaction to Budge's reconstruction proposal a few weeks ago.

 

Still, maybe it'll provide the necessary incentive for others to reconsider their position on reconstruction.

How does an advance differ from a loan in either case? Was the money repayable in either instance - 2016 & 2020? If the payments were loans or advances doesn't really matter as they were money fronted before the end of a season, whatever the nature of the payment...The key point is how and when the payments were made ie there was no requirement for the season to be declared over.

[Heartsmad1874]

38 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Fair comment , we don't all want to be here all night.

 

But I've been saying for weeks : recon is/was the solution, recon is/was recognised as not being achievable.

The lawyers knew the challenges/impossibility of recon : if you read the legal opinion , they never suggest in any way that recon can be the panacea. Even the SPFL lawyers recognised the "impossible situation" of getting recon done. 

Yet they still commissioned a panel of 15 clubs to draft a proposal together which effectively the Premiership booted it out before even discussing it rendering the whole thing a wild goose chase. As at that point the SPFL feared for the new Sky deal but i doubt ever picked up the phone to Sky during these times.

 

As Donald Park said in a Q&A “They were always going to fail. It was a distraction that was used to encourage support but would have failed regardless. Clubs should have been told of the challenges reconstruction faced . We keep hearing the SPFL is the clubs, why the obsession with keeping information from them? Rangers were and remain open to discussions about reconstruction and acknowledge the growing mood for change across Scottish football“.

[Thomaso]

23 minutes ago, busby1985 said:

Genuine question. Why are Celtic fans so involved in this? Everyone of my Celtic friends, sadly I have some, are taking our stance as if it’s us vs them. Almost like they know Lawwell pressured Dundee to change their vote. Strange. 

It’s simply because we are the “mini Hun”

[kila]

20 minutes ago, DC_92 said:

1) to be a bit of a stretch. The Motherwell example given seems to be an advance rather than a loan (i.e. Motherwell were due the money anyway, they were just given it earlier than scheduled). That's different to a loan, because there was never any chance that they would have to pay the money back. Authorising an advance for one club hardly constitutes a precedent for authorising 42 loans at a time when there is a decent chance that some of those clubs may not to pay the money back. Maybe the SPFL could have taken the money out of their prize money for the following season but, as you say, they might be able to show they explored options like this and they justifiably found them to be less workable than the proposed solution.

 

 

Most of the prize money had already been paid out and in the top flight at least for 12th to 6th places, according to Doncaster on Sportsound. Though it was confusing when he said that, and may have actually meant in the top flight everyone has been paid at least the amount for finishing last. Then the amount due in the lower leagues would've been tiny surely?

 

There's no reason why advances/loans/whatever-you-wanna-call-it couldn't be done.

 

Edited June 19, 2020 by kila

[NANOJAMBO]

3 minutes ago, Heartsmad1874 said:

Yet they still commissioned a panel of 15 clubs to draft a proposal together which effectively the Premiership booted it out before even discussing it rendering the whole thing a wild goose chase. As at that point the SPFL feared for the new Sky deal but i doubt ever picked up the phone to Sky during these times.

 

As Donald Park said in a Q&A “They were always going to fail. It was a distraction that was used to encourage support but would have failed regardless. Clubs should have been told of the challenges reconstruction faced . We keep hearing the SPFL is the clubs, why the obsession with keeping information from them? Rangers were and remain open to discussions about reconstruction and acknowledge the growing mood for change across Scottish football“.

Doesn't make sense.

There was no barrier from Sky re the new TV deal (apparently) so it was up to the clubs to find a solution. But the clubs didn't want to. 

[Thomaso]

11 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

So the SFA have waded through their articles and instead of a disrepute charge have asked us to explaining our actions first.

The SFA must know their articles surely, and the fact is we HAVE lodged a legal claim without reference to them.

So the question is - why have they not issued a charge of non-compliance already?

[Fozzyonthefence]

22 minutes ago, DC_92 said:

 an advance for one club hardly constitutes a precedent for authorising 42 loans at a time when there is a decent chance that some of those clubs may not to pay the money back. 

It wouldn’t be 42 loans though, it would be 42 advances.  The money was due to the clubs so wouldn’t have to be paid back. 

[Fozzyonthefence]

5 minutes ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said:

The SFA must know their articles surely, and the fact is we HAVE lodged a legal claim without reference to them.

So the question is - why have they not issued a charge of non-compliance already?

Because the Compliance Officer has asked us and Partick to offer an explanation of our actions first. 

[jack D and coke]

3 hours ago, David Black said:

Mmmmm ?

You can’t or being facetious?

[Cruyff]

Dundee Hibs are toiling

 

[Fozzyonthefence]

18 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

How does an advance differ from a loan in either case? Was the money repayable in either instance - 2016 & 2020? If the payments were loans or advances doesn't really matter as they were money fronted before the end of a season, whatever the nature of the payment...The key point is how and when the payments were made ie there was no requirement for the season to be declared over.

It does matter - loans need to be repaid, advances of your own money don’t. Big difference. I would imagine our legal team would find it much easier to argue that advances were much more doable than loans which ms have required to have individual loan agreements with repayment agreements, interest, etc.

[Thomaso]

4 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

Because the Compliance Officer has asked us and Partick to offer an explanation of our actions first. 

I think their request will be passed directly to our legal team for a response...

[RobNox]

35 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

None of us are lawyers but I find it strange that in 24 pages of legal opinion, the SPFL briefs never said "look guys, if you don't want to end up in court , sit around a table and proactively talk about recon because everything else carries risk and nothing is guaranteed". 

What it comes down to (for me) is the clubs didn't give a  f *** about Hearts , they never even thought about Partick or Falkirk and they NEVER thought they'd be in court. 

The clubs would literally risk mutual destruction than concede anything to Hearts. The lawyers knew it , months ago. 

 

I'm of the same opinion.  How much guidance did the SPFL give to member clubs over the potential fallout of us taking legal action, which we said all along we would do if all other avenues to a fair outcome were closed. Did they properly explain the potential consequences, so that clubs could weigh up the pros and cons properly?  I don't think they did.

 

Did the SPFL think we were bluffing, well guess what, we weren't  Did they think we were unlikely to win our case, well they at least should have put this to the clubs.  How confident were they that we wouldn't win?  Were the clubs willing to take the risk?  

[iainmac]

4 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

Because the Compliance Officer has asked us and Partick to offer an explanation of our actions first. 

 

But conveniently not Dundee Utd, Raith Rovers or Cove Rangers who are presumably also taking action against the SPFL? 

[GMEdinburgh]

57 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Fair comment , we don't all want to be here all night.

 

But I've been saying for weeks : recon is/was the solution, recon is/was recognised as not being achievable.

The lawyers knew the challenges/impossibility of recon : if you read the legal opinion , they never suggest in any way that recon can be the panacea. Even the SPFL lawyers recognised the "impossible situation" of getting recon done. 

Is that not something else against the SPFL if they knew before recon was not an option why set up a group and votes etc,, another charade or fabrication to be seen looking to be doing something regarding the situation, if so this is pretty disgusting from a so called professional organisation. 

[Fozzyonthefence]

Just now, iainmac said:

 

But conveniently not Dundee Utd, Raith Rovers or Cove Rangers who are presumably also taking action against the SPFL? 

They haven’t done anything yet, only taken legal advice apparently. 
 

Why would they take action against the SPFL? They had legal papers served on them by Hearts and Partick, not the SPFL. That doesn’t make any sense. 

[RobNox]

2 minutes ago, GMEdinburgh said:

Is that not something else against the SPFL if they knew before recon was not an option why set up a group and votes etc,, another charade or fabrication to be seen looking to be doing something regarding the situation, if so this is pretty disgusting from a so called professional organisation. 

 

It amuses me that you used the terms SPFL and professional organisation in the same sentence.

[Footballfirst]

Hearts and Partick should just respond to the SFA by saying that the matters they are inquiring about are part of a live court action, therefore we are unable to provide you with a response at this time. 

[Jambo-Fox]

I’ve just read the entire Petition, actually relatively easy to read and very interesting!

 

I’m convinced it’s a winner but .... I’ve not seen the alternative argument. I guess it’s going to be close, won’t be ‘more than 1 goal in it’!

 

One thing is certain Les Gray is going to be the ‘super sub’ and his appearance could determine the outcome! However I’m sure ‘super sub’ Gray, his teammates and his manager will do everything in their powers to stop him entering the field of play!

 

It’s going to be interesting!

[Heartsmad1874]

1 minute ago, iainmac said:

 

But conveniently not Dundee Utd, Raith Rovers or Cove Rangers who are presumably also taking action against the SPFL? 

They can get as much legal advice as they want. If our reinstatement is successful due to a dodgy vote that never passed, these ***** are effectively as they were. I doubt a judge is going to award them something they haven’t earned.

 

I’d like to see us reinstated to a 12 and these ***** who were dead set against 14-10-10-10 all of a sudden pushing it  

[RobNox]

Just now, Footballfirst said:

Hearts and Partick should just respond to the SFA by saying that the matters they are inquiring about are part of a live court action, therefore we are unable to provide you with a response at this time. 

 

I agree, send them the papers, let them work it out for themselves, if they are even capable of doing so.

[Fozzyonthefence]

4 minutes ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said:

I think their request will be passed directly to our legal team for a response...

And if our legal team weren’t expecting this then we’ve employed the worst legal team in Scotland. Hopefully they have a strong counter argument ready.  
 

I mentioned before though, I’m curious why the SFA are so keen to take action against us and Partick but not against Rangers when they took them to court.  Have they changed their Articles?

[Jambo-Fox]

6 minutes ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said:

I think their request will be passed directly to our legal team for a response...

Which should be, “sorry we are busy with other matters at present” and “we will get back to you when we can”

[Heartsmad1874]

4 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

They haven’t done anything yet, only taken legal advice apparently. 
 

Why would they take action against the SPFL? They had legal papers served on them by Hearts and Partick, not the SPFL. That doesn’t make any sense. 

They have no case against either the SPFL or Hearts/Partick, yet anyway. 

[RobNox]

2 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

I’ve just read the entire Petition, actually relatively easy to read and very interesting!

 

I’m convinced it’s a winner but .... I’ve not seen the alternative argument. I guess it’s going to be close, won’t be ‘more than 1 goal in it’!

 

One thing is certain Les Gray is going to be the ‘super sub’ and his appearance could determine the outcome! However I’m sure ‘super sub’ Gray, his teammates and his manager will do everything in their powers to stop him entering the field of play!

 

It’s going to be interesting!

 

I agree, I said earlier, any competent body who were fully aware that legal action might be forthcoming would make it clear to their Board members that they should keep quiet on the subject, else they might prejudice their position.  Then again, we all know that Scottish football is governed by incompetents.

[NANOJAMBO]

4 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Hearts and Partick should just respond to the SFA by saying that the matters they are inquiring about are part of a live court action, therefore we are unable to provide you with a response at this time. 

Or,  "give Neil a call "! 

If this shit is in any way true it's a farce. 

[Francis Albert]

11 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Hearts and Partick should just respond to the SFA by saying that the matters they are inquiring about are part of a live court action, therefore we are unable to provide you with a response at this time. 

Quite.

[hughesie27]

5 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

I said at the time Les Gray should have kept quiet. 

 

Or that he is helping us. 

Sorry bud. Can you clarify?

[NANOJAMBO]

13 minutes ago, GMEdinburgh said:

Is that not something else against the SPFL if they knew before recon was not an option why set up a group and votes etc,, another charade or fabrication to be seen looking to be doing something regarding the situation, if so this is pretty disgusting from a so called professional organisation. 

It won't form any part of the legal brief so we'll never know.

But you'd think a company's  board of directors would warn its shareholders about  any course of action they were thinking about that might lead to legal action - and possible financial destruction. 

Instead Doncaster says it's about what the clubs want, and so long as it's legally done , even if it leads to mutual destruction, then that's fine by him. 

[GMEdinburgh]

16 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

It does matter - loans need to be repaid, advances of your own money don’t. Big difference. I would imagine our legal team would find it much easier to argue that advances were much more doable than loans which ms have required to have individual loan agreements with repayment agreements, interest, etc.

Was there not a 6k figured paid back in the SPFL books that was highlighted? I appreciate Motherwell monies was for 150k but thought there was a 6k discrepancy.

Doncaster explained the difference between a loan and advance where a loan has to be paid back but an advance doesn't plus a loan would be tax free but the advance isn't. This was on one of the interviews on the BBC. 

[NANOJAMBO]

Just now, hughesie27 said:

Sorry bud. Can you clarify?

Les couldn't keep his trap shut and the Hearts QC has used his comments in the legal submission. 

"Hearts & Partick have been treated unfairly". 

And more. 

[Jammy T]

4 hours ago, Victorian said:

I think today the prospects of reconstruction went from about 20% up to about 50%.     I think the notional chances of a success of some kind from the petition (if heard and concluded) up from 70% to 90%.     But the scenario of playing in the Championship + millions in compensation down from 40% to 10%

 

I'm not laying odds though 

 

 

Agree entirely.

 

The Petition is as you would hope/expect:

well written, concise and contains the right balance of law and “prejudicial” comments  to creat a strong initial impression.

 

The strong points:

 

1. The Dundee vote counts as soon as sent

2. Effectively misrepresentation by the Board

3. Breach of duty of care to members

4. The fact the there were alternatives To the ‘take it or leave it’ option

5. Referenced to ‘good faith’ - clever but not expanded upon yet as that will be a point of evidence eg “take their medicine” and all other loudmouth chairmen calling us out in bad faith

6. A Board member admitting The decision was unfair

7. The Board boasting about having QC advice prevents them arguing 7 days isn’t long enough I.e. they already know their legal position 

8. That we have tried to resolve and mitigate our loss but to no avail.
 

All a bit of a masterpiece really.

  

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

17 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

They haven’t done anything yet, only taken legal advice apparently. 
 

Why would they take action against the SPFL? They had legal papers served on them by Hearts and Partick, not the SPFL. That doesn’t make any sense. 

No they haven't. We have served papers on the SPFL, not other clubs.

[Jammy T]

As regards the SFA asking us to explain our position - we should simply ask them to read our Petition 

[JimmyCant]

2 hours ago, Homme said:

The compliance officer? 

 

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

All she has done there is pushed us a bit closer to an interdict. We can’t have them interfering in or suppressing a legal process we have lawfully embarked on or punish us for doing so. It’s outright bullying, threats and intimidation and we ought to get right back into court and get any investigation halted until the court proceedings are complete. Just answer the letter no comment and get an interdict to stop this nonsense (if it’s even true of course)

[Heartsmad1874]

That Alison Conroy on Clyde SSB slavers some amount of pish.

[NANOJAMBO]

1 minute ago, Jammy T said:

As regards the SFA asking us to explain our position - we should simply ask them to read our Petition 

It's complete bollocks- and Doncaster is on the SPFL & SFA so I'm sure he can fill them in. 

[Heartsmad1874]

3 minutes ago, GMEdinburgh said:

Was there not a 6k figured paid back in the SPFL books that was highlighted? I appreciate Motherwell monies was for 150k but thought there was a 6k discrepancy.

Doncaster explained the difference between a loan and advance where a loan has to be paid back but an advance doesn't plus a loan would be tax free but the advance isn't. This was on one of the interviews on the BBC. 

Aah one of those prior approved questions interviews where the panel like TE are all muted so can’t catch him in his lies.

 

It’s almost as laughable as MacLennan’s Q&A with himself.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, Heartsmad1874 said:

That Alison Conroy on Clyde SSB slavers some amount of pish.

Everyone slavers pish. Some people get paid to do so (see Tam McAnus).

[JimmyCant]

1 minute ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

No they haven't. We have served papers on the SPFL, not other clubs.

We sent official copies to all 3 promoted clubs as they would be effected by us winning the case. Not sure if we were required by the court to do that or if were just being decent about it. Apparently we enclosed a note which said ‘No Hard Feelings’😂

[Thomaso]

58 minutes ago, DC_92 said:

 

I agree with this. I think it sets out a convincing argument as to why the outcome was unfair, but I'm not convinced it shows it to be unlawful.

 

The main points seem to be that:

1) The board falsely claimed that they couldn't provide loans.

2) The Dundee vote should have stood.

3) It is unfair to change the rules to relegate us.

 

Admittedly I only read through it once so I could have missed something, but I found point 1) to be a bit of a stretch. The Motherwell example given seems to be an advance rather than a loan (i.e. Motherwell were due the money anyway, they were just given it earlier than scheduled). That's different to a loan, because there was never any chance that they would have to pay the money back. Authorising an advance for one club hardly constitutes a precedent for authorising 42 loans at a time when there is a decent chance that some of those clubs may not to pay the money back. Maybe the SPFL could have taken the money out of their prize money for the following season but, as you say, they might be able to show they explored options like this and they justifiably found them to be less workable than the proposed solution.

 

For the Dundee vote, it seems to focus on the fact a no vote was cast, rather than explaining why that vote could not be withdrawn and a different vote submitted. The SPFL can point to their articles that show this is only the case for yes votes. Unfair, but I'd be surprised if we get far with that.

 

Point 3) seems to be our best shout, but again I think the SPFL can claim that denying teams promotion is not fair either (especially when those teams were almost certain to finish first) and that, of all the unfair options, this one was endorsed by a large majority of their members. They can also say that they facilitated reconstruction discussions to try to remedy the unfairness but no format had sufficient support among the members.

 

Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic, but I'm  cautious about our chances after reading that. A very different situation, but the mood on here reminds me of the reaction to Budge's reconstruction proposal a few weeks ago.

 

Still, maybe it'll provide the necessary incentive for others to reconsider their position on reconstruction.

Feck me I’m depressed now! 😕

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, JimmyCant said:

We sent official copies to all 3 promoted clubs as they would be effected by us winning the case. Not sure if we were required by the court to do that or if were just being decent about it. Apparently we enclosed a note which said ‘No Hard Feelings’😂

Pity it didn't say "take your medicine".

[RobNox]

2 minutes ago, Jammy T said:

Agree entirely.

 

The Petition is as you would hope/expect:

well written, concise and contains the right balance of law and “prejudicial” comments  to creat a strong initial impression.

 

The strong points:

 

1. The Dundee vote counts as soon as sent

2. Effectively misrepresentation by the Board

3. Breach of duty of care to members

4. The fact the there were alternatives To the ‘take it or leave it’ option

5. Referenced to ‘good faith’ - clever but not expanded upon yet as that will be a point of evidence eg “take their medicine” and all other loudmouth chairmen calling us out in bad faith

6. A Board member admitting The decision was unfair

7. The Board boasting about having QC advice prevents them arguing 7 days isn’t long enough I.e. they already know their legal position 

8. That we have tried to resolve and mitigate our loss but to no avail.
 

All a bit of a masterpiece really.

  

 

I agree, you'd almost think we had been preparing for this eventuality for some time, with expert legal advisers on board.  You know, like any professionally run organisation would do.  And that we wouldn't be making any public statements that might damage our case, unlike certain SPFL Board members.

[gnasher75]

5 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

No they haven't. We have served papers on the SPFL, not other clubs.

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, Cruickshank for Scotland said:

Feck me I’m depressed now! 😕

I wouldn't be. The judge would have to determine that and the case would have to be heard by the middle of July to maintain a 1 August start. The problem the SPFL have is there are 3 conflicting voices - those spoiling to fight us, those wanting a season to start and those shit scared of losing money. Ourselves and Partick are clear - reinstate us or pay us a shitload of cash. We're not going to drop those without a verdict.

[Jammy T]

2 minutes ago, RobNox said:

 

I agree, you'd almost think we had been preparing for this eventuality for some time, with expert legal advisers on board.  You know, like any professionally run organisation would do.  And that we wouldn't be making any public statements that might damage our case, unlike certain SPFL Board members.

Whilst a number of our fans were slating Budge for being passive and longing for Romanov’s wild and psychopathic rants -which would have been the worst outcome for us entirely given where we are now.