SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[1971fozzy]

12 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said:

Yes

If Hearts, Thistle and Stranraer end up not being relegated, the reason why the 3 clubs, who think they should be promoted, may not be, is because Dundee United and Raith Rovers, amongst others, voted to reject reconstruction. 
They could end up having voted against their own promotions.

karma in its finest form 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

3 minutes ago, Sir Gio said:

Jackson is merely commenting on what Scottish clubs think. 

 

Its observational. 

 

We are now threatening other clubs. 

 

Realistically,  when you threaten people,  you put yourself in a position where rightly or WRONGLY people will be outraged by your actions. 

 

That's where the rest stand as we were outraged when they voted us down 

 

We're not threatening anyone though. We're defending ourselves against the actions of those and other clubs. That's a big difference that has not been reflected in the "Hearts and Thistle bad, other clubs good" narrative in the media (or most of the media).

[JamboBornNBred]

3 minutes ago, Sir Gio said:

Jackson is merely commenting on what Scottish clubs think. 

 

Its observational. 

 

We are now threatening other clubs. 

 

Realistically,  when you threaten people,  you put yourself in a position where rightly or WRONGLY people will be outraged by your actions. 

 

That's where the rest stand as we were outraged when they voted us down 

Threatening other Clubs????

 

No,Dundee Utd,Raith and Cove have been notified that if we win our case then they have been told what could happen............No threats,just the possibility of the outcome if we win.

[Jambo66]

I see that there is some suggestion that the main defence being put forward by the SPFL is that our case should be remitted to the SFA for adjudication. As a few posters have pointed out, this is unlikely to be successful.

 

While the impact of what has happened is footballing - which leagues will we and Partick Thistle play in this season - our case does not rest on footballing matters. We are petitioning under the Companies Act. In other words we are alleging a breach of company law. The SFA cannot adjudicate on such a matter. Even if it could, both parties to the action could go the the CoS if they disagree with the SFA's decision.

 

It seems to me that this is simply a tactic by the SPFL and is extremely unlikely to be successful.

 

I cannot believe that the entirety of the SPFL's defence is that the SFA should adjudicate. Apart from anything else that is not a defence. If they lose the argument over the forum, then the court is likely to take a very dim view of the lack of defences.

 

In lodging defences, the respondents are expected to take every individual statement made by the petitioners and say whether or not it is admitted, not known and not admitted, or denied. I expect that the SPFL will have done so here. To do otherwise would be extremely foolish.

 

If we look at the petition, we can see that in relation to the Dundee vote, they will have virtually no option other than to admit the facts. After all, it is public knowledge that Dundee did vote against. This is why I believe that part of our action to be the most significant. There is effectively an decision to be taken by the court as to whether or not Dundee's first vote was final. That is a legal argument and so much of the petition rests on that.

 

The facts are not in doubt. The question for the court is whether or not at 5 pm on Good Friday the resolution had passed or not. If the answer is that it did not, the whole SPFL defence comes crashing down.

 

Even if the court holds that Dundee were entitled to change their vote, we still have several other good arguments as to why our expulsion should not stand. However, if the court agrees with us, the game's a bogey for the SPFL.

 

I think that we have a very good argument on that first point alone. I hope I am right, because that gives us the best outcome - reinstatement to the premiership.

 

I don't think we will find out on Wednesday, but we are edging closer to the end.

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

7 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

We're not threatening anyone though. We're defending ourselves against the actions of those and other clubs. That's a big difference that has not been reflected in the "Hearts and Thistle bad, other clubs good" narrative in the media (or most of the media).

Naive in the extreme. 

 

Or hopelessly biased. I am right behind the action but it is a threat. Give us what we want or we stop your League 

[SUTOL]

1 hour ago, bean counter said:

Have any other clubs joined the list of respondents

 

The petition stated that any one else who was affected by it could respond, as well as the  SPFL and 4 clubs named. 

 

The replies were due within 7 days.

 

 

I'm not sure if Doncasters appeal for more responses would be time-barred, as they would be after the seven days specified. 

Edited June 29, 2020 by SUTOL

[OTT]

6 minutes ago, JamboBornNBred said:

Threatening other Clubs????

 

No,Dundee Utd,Raith and Cove have been notified that if we win our case then they have been told what could happen............No threats,just the possibility of the outcome if we win.

 

ALL 3 also were under no illusions that if reconstruction failed Budge would go legal therefore putting their places at risk. 

 

Hearts: We will go legal if reconstruction fails

Dundee utd, Cove and Raith: lol stfu reconstruction can gtf

Hearts: *Launch legal proceedings*

Dundee Utd et al: 

 

 

Short sighted arseholes man. 

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

8 minutes ago, JamboBornNBred said:

Threatening other Clubs????

 

No,Dundee Utd,Raith and Cove have been notified that if we win our case then they have been told what could happen............No threats,just the possibility of the outcome if we win.

You don't think 10 million in compensation or delay,  ringfencing of tv deals is not seen as a threat by the other clubs?

 

If the boot was on the other foot,  I would be honest enough to admit I was less than happy. 

 

However this is the level of attrition their own actions have led to 

[sac]

3 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

I see that there is some suggestion that the main defence being put forward by the SPFL is that our case should be remitted to the SFA for adjudication. As a few posters have pointed out, this is unlikely to be successful.

 

While the impact of what has happened is footballing - which leagues will we and Partick Thistle play in this season - our case does not rest on footballing matters. We are petitioning under the Companies Act. In other words we are alleging a breach of company law. The SFA cannot adjudicate on such a matter. Even if it could, both parties to the action could go the the CoS if they disagree with the SFA's decision.

 

It seems to me that this is simply a tactic by the SPFL and is extremely unlikely to be successful.

 

I cannot believe that the entirety of the SPFL's defence is that the SFA should adjudicate. Apart from anything else that is not a defence. If they lose the argument over the forum, then the court is likely to take a very dim view of the lack of defences.

 

In lodging defences, the respondents are expected to take every individual statement made by the petitioners and say whether or not it is admitted, not known and not admitted, or denied. I expect that the SPFL will have done so here. To do otherwise would be extremely foolish.

 

If we look at the petition, we can see that in relation to the Dundee vote, they will have virtually no option other than to admit the facts. After all, it is public knowledge that Dundee did vote against. This is why I believe that part of our action to be the most significant. There is effectively an decision to be taken by the court as to whether or not Dundee's first vote was final. That is a legal argument and so much of the petition rests on that.

 

The facts are not in doubt. The question for the court is whether or not at 5 pm on Good Friday the resolution had passed or not. If the answer is that it did not, the whole SPFL defence comes crashing down.

 

Even if the court holds that Dundee were entitled to change their vote, we still have several other good arguments as to why our expulsion should not stand. However, if the court agrees with us, the game's a bogey for the SPFL.

 

I think that we have a very good argument on that first point alone. I hope I am right, because that gives us the best outcome - reinstatement to the premiership.

 

I don't think we will find out on Wednesday, but we are edging closer to the end.

If the SPFL have nothing to fear even after their own Deloitte forensic inquiry aquitted them, why would they still be trying to push this away from court & asking the SFA to now adjudicate? Why, because it their last throw of the dice, we & PTFC have went all in & they know on Wednesday they are going to get called.

[wavydavy]

1 hour ago, dazinho88 said:

Can confirm you are correct, I read it too. Strange that it has been removed

 

Very interesting. I wonder if they have had a request from Doncaster and his cohorts to remove it.

[Bull's-eye]

24 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

Irrelevant to what I was saying, though. Jackson wrote an article about the situation we find ourselves in. Folk have commented on it. That’s what people do on a forum. This thread is full of tangents amongst the main story, mainly because nothing much happens in between important developments, and JKB has zero power to decide anything. People are giving their opinions, and the thread itself would be a lot better without a handful of posters trying to position themselves like school teachers watching over an unruly class. Especially when by and large they don’t really know anything more than the rest of us.

 

Since you asked however, the only entities that matter in terms of the courtroom; are HMFC, SPFL, and the Law. JKB isn’t a court room though.

 

QCs, Barristers, Lawyer's, Professors in Science specialising in Virus's, MPs, Prime Minister's. 

All been on JKB in recent weeks and month's, its been an education for me and the only way ive survived lockdown. 

[Dazo]

4 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

I see that there is some suggestion that the main defence being put forward by the SPFL is that our case should be remitted to the SFA for adjudication. As a few posters have pointed out, this is unlikely to be successful.

 

While the impact of what has happened is footballing - which leagues will we and Partick Thistle play in this season - our case does not rest on footballing matters. We are petitioning under the Companies Act. In other words we are alleging a breach of company law. The SFA cannot adjudicate on such a matter. Even if it could, both parties to the action could go the the CoS if they disagree with the SFA's decision.

 

It seems to me that this is simply a tactic by the SPFL and is extremely unlikely to be successful.

 

I cannot believe that the entirety of the SPFL's defence is that the SFA should adjudicate. Apart from anything else that is not a defence. If they lose the argument over the forum, then the court is likely to take a very dim view of the lack of defences.

 

In lodging defences, the respondents are expected to take every individual statement made by the petitioners and say whether or not it is admitted, not known and not admitted, or denied. I expect that the SPFL will have done so here. To do otherwise would be extremely foolish.

 

If we look at the petition, we can see that in relation to the Dundee vote, they will have virtually no option other than to admit the facts. After all, it is public knowledge that Dundee did vote against. This is why I believe that part of our action to be the most significant. There is effectively an decision to be taken by the court as to whether or not Dundee's first vote was final. That is a legal argument and so much of the petition rests on that.

 

The facts are not in doubt. The question for the court is whether or not at 5 pm on Good Friday the resolution had passed or not. If the answer is that it did not, the whole SPFL defence comes crashing down.

 

Even if the court holds that Dundee were entitled to change their vote, we still have several other good arguments as to why our expulsion should not stand. However, if the court agrees with us, the game's a bogey for the SPFL.

 

I think that we have a very good argument on that first point alone. I hope I am right, because that gives us the best outcome - reinstatement to the premiership.

 

I don't think we will find out on Wednesday, but we are edging closer to the end.

Hopefully people will take this post in as a lot seem to be getting carried away with the unfairness of our expulsion and think we will skip our way to a court win. We are arguing over Points of company law and as I’ve said before I hope to good we’ve got it right. 
 

On that point and not being an expert can I ask what makes the vote fiasco Illegal ? Company law allows 28 days and for changing to support A proposal. It’s this area that concerns me when it goes to court. 

[Anything2]

7 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

ALL 3 also were under no illusions that if reconstruction failed Budge would go legal therefore putting their places at risk. 

 

Hearts: We will go legal if reconstruction fails

Dundee utd, Cove and Raith: lol stfu reconstruction can gtf

Hearts: *Launch legal proceedings*

Dundee Utd et al: 

 

 

Short sighted arseholes man. 

The behaviour of those clubs in particular has been bizarre because as you say, they were the clubs whose position would be under threat when the case inevitably went to court. You would have thought that they would have hedged their bets and voted for reconstruction just to be sure. 

[RENE]

Is there any chance on Wednesday that if the judge decides it can't  be dealt with by SFA and the SPFL haven't  put any other defence he can decide Hearts/Thistle have won their case and they should be reinstated to their appropriate  leagues.

[neilnunb]

36 minutes ago, bobskeldon said:

 

 

Anyone know Jackson's email addy?

 

🤣

[Jodami]

14 minutes ago, Sir Gio said:

Naive in the extreme. 

 

Or hopelessly biased. I am right behind the action but it is a threat. Give us what we want or we stop your League 

Just catching up with this thread this afternoon. The article is a bombscare but you are absolutely bang on to point out that we need to try and see this from both sides. Everyone sees this tribally and very few people have been as interested in the detail as us. The narrative of us as villains has been endorsed across the media in general and this is what sticks with fans of other clubs. 

[true-jambo]

1 hour ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

At the start of all of this we all pretty much agreed: time to fill the sand bags, get the flak jackets on, baton down the hatches.  The media will be scouring through our bins, tapping phones, digging up dirt from anybody who has a snippet to sell?  But the best they have mustered so far is a few drive-by name callings. Not even as much as a wedge?  They could have found a decorous ‘gargantuan’ story if they truly stayed natural?  The SPFL IS the story! The SPFL have had more leaks than a blow fish after shagging a porcupine?  There are stories in abundance but the narrative is to paint us as the “Rebellious 2” and are being unreasonable very naughty boys, who have hurt others feelings, ignoring the fact that we have been expelled illegally and are being unreasonable.  The SMSM used to have real teeth, they were to be feared and admired in equal measure, I can count more teeth from car boot salesmen at the ‘Barras’ Should that be tooth?  I can’t even find the effort to pity them? I am only scribing this partly out of enjoyment and upstaging so called pro journalists with ease!

 

I would be more scared if they had Coleen Rooney on the job rather than Keef.  This could have been the next ‘Line of Duty’ but the media have written a script worse than Crossroads with Donkey in the Benny role still trying to find a beanie hat that fits over his ridiculous hair style.  I have generated an image I can’t undo of Peter being Miss Dianne.

 

But let’s be clear not just to Keef but to all the SMSM, We are NOT threatening anybody no clubs whatsoever, we are taking the SPFL to court as it acted illegally in expelling us and we are either wanting reinstated or compensated significantly, the latter is not for Celtic, the SFA, the SPFL and the clubs to decide but the courts.  As for holding a gun over their heads, fine, stop then giving us the ammo for the gun, but the finger on that particular trigger belongs to the SPFL and pointing the business end at themselves.  We do not for one iota regret any of this nor do we care if there is no support for a £10m ransom.  But the reporting of there was sympathy and support, but now there is no support, but there is some support “in agreement”  but ‘plenty of others’ always unnamed of course who don’t?  So which is it, all, none or some?  Coupled with the ludicrous claim that the M8 alliance has refused them to move forward when the fact of the matter is the SPFL has forced us to stand still.  And how did we manage to time travel the country back to the start of the crisis. 

 

The SPFL could not be in more trouble than if Gazza turned up at the Hampden steps with his fishing rod and a chicken supper.  The biggest story that came out of the weekend and had more meat on the bones than corpulent Rod McKenzie comfort eating at an all you can eat foie gras factory?  Was that the answer to the SPFL reply to the courts and the entirety of the SPFL defence is they want it returned to the SFA for arbitration, but when they say arbitration they really mean is they have more Kangaroos than an episode of Skippy.  But if anybody wants to see the defence, then the recommendation is you litigate by tagging in with the Cal-police, then you get to the see the defence properly and are stating they can’t break the law and influence the court case by well breaking the law and influencing the court case. They will be more disappointed than the finale of Game of  Thrones, after such promise the series brought! 

 

They are trying to strengthen their case by playing an alternative reality egame by collectively spending weeks hiding in the woods by killing wild boar for 1 virtual point at a time by sitting in their underpants being fed pot noodles by their mum on demand,  sooner or later their avatar will have to come out of the forest as we need the wood to build a funeral pyre.

 

Still we have bigger things to worry about at the SMSM have puffed their chests from their nine stone vacillating frame and called upon the colossus that is Optimus Prime from Weinstein FC, who will sort us out. News flash …this just in…Oleaginous slime that is Lawwell is himself trying to clean Celtic up with a wet wipe after failing into an Olympic sized Vat of excrement.  Not sure how they will play that minority victim card in that barely reported pique?

 

Sorry Keef but the SMSM are as effective as a second hand hover from the Barras car boot sale, its just gathering dust?  And not in the way it is supposed to?  Open up your mouth wide here comes the teaspoon plane with a large drop of Calpol  #TYM

 

Sorry missed half the post out...how DR of me

 

Great post again and perfectly sums up the role of the SMSM in this SPFL engineered debacle.

However, while we all expect this type of behaviour from the West Coast brigade, it's the failure of our local rag to show any appetite to wholeheartedly support our case I find most reprehensible.

An earlier poster was suggesting that after this is over we should have a review of our relationship with the press. I would put the Scotsman and EEN squarely at the top of the list.

[Jambo66]

3 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Hopefully people will take this post in as a lot seem to be getting carried away with the unfairness of our expulsion and think we will skip our way to a court win. We are arguing over Points of company law and as I’ve said before I hope to good we’ve got it right. 
 

On that point and not being an expert can I ask what makes the vote fiasco Illegal ? Company law allows 28 days and for changing to support A proposal. It’s this area that concerns me when it goes to court. 

Company law does not provide for no votes. A resolution is either agreed by sufficient votes in favour or it is not agreed.

 

The argument put forward by the SPFL is likely to be that company law specifically provides that once you have voted in favour, you cannot change your mind. It does not mention votes against at all. Therefore, a no vote can be changed.

 

I think that we will argue that it is too big a step to say that a no vote can be changed simply because company law does not specifically prohibit it.  At the moment Dundee voted no, the resolution was defeated and the matter was at an end. The SPFL could have another vote if it wished, but could not ask one club to reconsider.

 

The second argument is that companies are free to make their own provisions in respect of votes. In this case, the member clubs were sent a voting slip with boxes for yes or no. They were asked to vote by 5pm on Good Friday - even though in terms of company law the normal deadline is 28 days. In other words, the normal rule that you either vote in favour or not at all was changed for the purposes of this vote. On that basis, it follows that no member could change its vote once cast.

 

As an aside, there seems to me to be no valid argument around the vote disappearing into the spam folder. The law is pretty clear on this point. Dundee cast their vote when the send button was hit.

[RENE]

7 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

Company law does not provide for no votes. A resolution is either agreed by sufficient votes in favour or it is not agreed.

 

The argument put forward by the SPFL is likely to be that company law specifically provides that once you have voted in favour, you cannot change your mind. It does not mention votes against at all. Therefore, a no vote can be changed.

 

I think that we will argue that it is too big a step to say that a no vote can be changed simply because company law does not specifically prohibit it.  At the moment Dundee voted no, the resolution was defeated and the matter was at an end. The SPFL could have another vote if it wished, but could not ask one club to reconsider.

 

The second argument is that companies are free to make their own provisions in respect of votes. In this case, the member clubs were sent a voting slip with boxes for yes or no. They were asked to vote by 5pm on Good Friday - even though in terms of company law the normal deadline is 28 days. In other words, the normal rule that you either vote in favour or not at all was changed for the purposes of this vote. On that basis, it follows that no member could change its vote once cast.

 

As an aside, there seems to me to be no valid argument around the vote disappearing into the spam folder. The law is pretty clear on this point. Dundee cast their vote when the send button was hit.

How can a no vote be changed when according to Company Law there is no such thing as a No vote?????

[Rods]

7 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

Company law does not provide for no votes. A resolution is either agreed by sufficient votes in favour or it is not agreed.

 

The argument put forward by the SPFL is likely to be that company law specifically provides that once you have voted in favour, you cannot change your mind. It does not mention votes against at all. Therefore, a no vote can be changed.

 

I think that we will argue that it is too big a step to say that a no vote can be changed simply because company law does not specifically prohibit it.  At the moment Dundee voted no, the resolution was defeated and the matter was at an end. The SPFL could have another vote if it wished, but could not ask one club to reconsider.

 

The second argument is that companies are free to make their own provisions in respect of votes. In this case, the member clubs were sent a voting slip with boxes for yes or no. They were asked to vote by 5pm on Good Friday - even though in terms of company law the normal deadline is 28 days. In other words, the normal rule that you either vote in favour or not at all was changed for the purposes of this vote. On that basis, it follows that no member could change its vote once cast.

 

As an aside, there seems to me to be no valid argument around the vote disappearing into the spam folder. The law is pretty clear on this point. Dundee cast their vote when the send button was hit.

 

Even if this was defeated surely we could also point to the fact that Dundee voted on a different resolution or am I wrong on that?

 

ie Reconstruction was not on the original resolution so Dundee effectively voted on a different resolution( possible Aberdeen aswell)

[Jambo66]

Just now, RENE said:

How can a no vote be changed when according to Company Law there is no such thing as a No vote?????

Quite.

[Rogue Daddy]

21 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Hopefully people will take this post in as a lot seem to be getting carried away with the unfairness of our expulsion and think we will skip our way to a court win. We are arguing over Points of company law and as I’ve said before I hope to good we’ve got it right. 
 

On that point and not being an expert can I ask what makes the vote fiasco Illegal ? Company law allows 28 days and for changing to support A proposal. It’s this area that concerns me when it goes to court. 

I seem to remember someone on here stating along the lines of “... it was a ballot. Tick in box - yes or no”. Like yourself, I’m no expert but I think the point was that this makes a difference.
It also contradicts the SPFLs constitution with regards to submitting the ballot. 

...I could be wrong, however. 🤷‍♂️

[Jambo66]

Just now, Rods said:

 

Even if this was defeated surely we could also point to the fact that Dundee voted on a different resolution or am I wrong on that?

 

ie Reconstruction was not on the original resolution so Dundee effectively voted on a different resolution( possible Aberdeen aswell)

This is also a fair point.

[Horatio Caine]

55 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

. JKB isn’t a court room though....

Oh I dunno... how many players and managers etc have been judged on here?

[Central Belt 1874]

37 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

I see that there is some suggestion that the main defence being put forward by the SPFL is that our case should be remitted to the SFA for adjudication. As a few posters have pointed out, this is unlikely to be successful.

 

While the impact of what has happened is footballing - which leagues will we and Partick Thistle play in this season - our case does not rest on footballing matters. We are petitioning under the Companies Act. In other words we are alleging a breach of company law. The SFA cannot adjudicate on such a matter. Even if it could, both parties to the action could go the the CoS if they disagree with the SFA's decision.

 

It seems to me that this is simply a tactic by the SPFL and is extremely unlikely to be successful.

 

I cannot believe that the entirety of the SPFL's defence is that the SFA should adjudicate. Apart from anything else that is not a defence. If they lose the argument over the forum, then the court is likely to take a very dim view of the lack of defences.

 

In lodging defences, the respondents are expected to take every individual statement made by the petitioners and say whether or not it is admitted, not known and not admitted, or denied. I expect that the SPFL will have done so here. To do otherwise would be extremely foolish.

 

If we look at the petition, we can see that in relation to the Dundee vote, they will have virtually no option other than to admit the facts. After all, it is public knowledge that Dundee did vote against. This is why I believe that part of our action to be the most significant. There is effectively an decision to be taken by the court as to whether or not Dundee's first vote was final. That is a legal argument and so much of the petition rests on that.

 

The facts are not in doubt. The question for the court is whether or not at 5 pm on Good Friday the resolution had passed or not. If the answer is that it did not, the whole SPFL defence comes crashing down.

 

Even if the court holds that Dundee were entitled to change their vote, we still have several other good arguments as to why our expulsion should not stand. However, if the court agrees with us, the game's a bogey for the SPFL.

 

I think that we have a very good argument on that first point alone. I hope I am right, because that gives us the best outcome - reinstatement to the premiership.

 

I don't think we will find out on Wednesday, but we are edging closer to the end.

 

You cant really put it any simpler than that.

This has been my thoughts from the start. Let's hope there has been some movement behind the scenes from The SPFL in anticipation of losing this on Wednesday.

[Rick Sanchez]

Let's not forget that the result was publicised with the vote not completed, letting Dundee know they had the deciding vote, before trying to negotiate a better deal for themselves. All the while their original vote was discovered in the spam folder.

 

Just a tiny bit ****ing corrupt.

[TheBigO]

8 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

Company law does not provide for no votes. A resolution is either agreed by sufficient votes in favour or it is not agreed.

 

The argument put forward by the SPFL is likely to be that company law specifically provides that once you have voted in favour, you cannot change your mind. It does not mention votes against at all. Therefore, a no vote can be changed.

 

I think that we will argue that it is too big a step to say that a no vote can be changed simply because company law does not specifically prohibit it.  At the moment Dundee voted no, the resolution was defeated and the matter was at an end. The SPFL could have another vote if it wished, but could not ask one club to reconsider.

 

The second argument is that companies are free to make their own provisions in respect of votes. In this case, the member clubs were sent a voting slip with boxes for yes or no. They were asked to vote by 5pm on Good Friday - even though in terms of company law the normal deadline is 28 days. In other words, the normal rule that you either vote in favour or not at all was changed for the purposes of this vote. On that basis, it follows that no member could change its vote once cast.

 

As an aside, there seems to me to be no valid argument around the vote disappearing into the spam folder. The law is pretty clear on this point. Dundee cast their vote when the send button was hit.

All correct. This was the basis of the Partick QC opinion and has been backed up by others.

 

Let's not forget the lying about ending the season being the "only" way to pay out cash. That's a huge point.

 

Neither of these arguments are "football matters" either, so, uneducated as I am (I can cook though so I'm no a total nomark!), I just can't see this being referred back to the SFA. The SFA, who share board members with the SPFL. The very same board members who are essentially on trial and stand to lose their jobs if proven wrong here.

 

Pride before a fall etc, but surely Wed goes our way...!!!?

[Rogue Daddy]

7 minutes ago, TheBigO said:

All correct. This was the basis of the Partick QC opinion and has been backed up by others.

 

Let's not forget the lying about ending the season being the "only" way to pay out cash. That's a huge point.

 

Neither of these arguments are "football matters" either, so, uneducated as I am (I can cook though so I'm no a total nomark!), I just can't see this being referred back to the SFA. The SFA, who share board members with the SPFL. The very same board members who are essentially on trial and stand to lose their jobs if proven wrong here.

 

Pride before a fall etc, but surely Wed goes our way...!!!?

... and remember, according to keef, the SFAs own Peter Lawell will be joining the SPFL board in a couple of weeks. Aye, no conflict of interest here m’lud!

[Bickfest]

28 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

Company law does not provide for no votes. A resolution is either agreed by sufficient votes in favour or it is not agreed.

 

The argument put forward by the SPFL is likely to be that company law specifically provides that once you have voted in favour, you cannot change your mind. It does not mention votes against at all. Therefore, a no vote can be changed.

 

I think that we will argue that it is too big a step to say that a no vote can be changed simply because company law does not specifically prohibit it.  At the moment Dundee voted no, the resolution was defeated and the matter was at an end. The SPFL could have another vote if it wished, but could not ask one club to reconsider.

 

The second argument is that companies are free to make their own provisions in respect of votes. In this case, the member clubs were sent a voting slip with boxes for yes or no. They were asked to vote by 5pm on Good Friday - even though in terms of company law the normal deadline is 28 days. In other words, the normal rule that you either vote in favour or not at all was changed for the purposes of this vote. On that basis, it follows that no member could change its vote once cast.

 

As an aside, there seems to me to be no valid argument around the vote disappearing into the spam folder. The law is pretty clear on this point. Dundee cast their vote when the send button was hit.

There were no objections to the reduced timescale and all clubs voted within it. Thus it was tacitly accepted by all. You cannot extend that time limit for one club only, and on the promise of other inducements not offered to other clubs (allegedly).

Edited June 29, 2020 by Bickfest

[Jambo314]

Can someone post a copy of the letter from Doncaster that was sent out to clubs re the vote please.

[kila]

1 minute ago, Jambo314 said:

Can someone post a copy of the letter from Doncaster that was sent out to clubs re the vote please.

 

 

On 27/06/2020 at 21:55, kila said:

Full letter to save you looking at screen shots from that joe black twitter guy:

 

 

 

SPFL Letter from Neil Doncaster, 27th June 2020

 

Dear all

A number of clubs have asked whether we can provide them with copies of the petition lodged by Heart of Midlothian PLC and Partick Thistle Limited naming The SPFL Limited and the companies owning the three promoted clubs (Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers) plus Stranraer FC Limited, as respondents in the action. Several clubs have also asked us to provide the answers (to the petition) that we lodged in court yesterday.

There is one set of answers for the SPFL and another joint set for the three promoted clubs. We and the three promoted clubs have been advised that there are sufficiently different interests between our respective positions that to lodge consolidated answers is not possible.

Unfortunately, we have also been advised that it would not be appropriate, and arguably unlawful, to make available to non-parties the litigation copies of the pleadings lodged in court. This includes the petition, the two sets of answers and the documents (ie productions), lodged in court by the parties.

We have been advised that such items, when lodged, become the property (or at least under the control) of the court and that parties to a litigation are not permitted, subject to potentially severe sanctions, to circulate copies of such material to non-parties.

If SPFL Member Clubs wish to receive copies of the documents lodged, then it would be necessary for each of them to apply to the court to become a respondent in the action and to lodge its own individual (or potentially joint) answers, or at least to formally associate itself with the existing answers of the three promoted clubs. If any Member is considering doing so, then it should contact Rod McKenzie and he will be pleased to advise on the required procedure and the options available.

It is appropriate to observe that copies of the petition are circulating (although not through any act or omission of the SPFL) reasonably openly on the internet.

There will be a first hearing in the Court of Session, provisionally scheduled for Wednesday 1 July at 11.00am. The principle issue for discussion at that hearing is likely to be whether the petition procedure in court should be sisted (suspended) whilst the issues in dispute are determined by the Scottish FA arbitration.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2020 by kila

[Jambo314]

Sorry Kila, I meant the letter relating to the first voting fiasco (Dundee vote) outlining the vote process. 

Edited June 29, 2020 by Jambo314

[jock _turd]

1 hour ago, Jambo66 said:

I see that there is some suggestion that the main defence being put forward by the SPFL is that our case should be remitted to the SFA for adjudication. As a few posters have pointed out, this is unlikely to be successful.

 

While the impact of what has happened is footballing - which leagues will we and Partick Thistle play in this season - our case does not rest on footballing matters. We are petitioning under the Companies Act. In other words we are alleging a breach of company law. The SFA cannot adjudicate on such a matter. Even if it could, both parties to the action could go the the CoS if they disagree with the SFA's decision.

 

It seems to me that this is simply a tactic by the SPFL and is extremely unlikely to be successful.

 

I cannot believe that the entirety of the SPFL's defence is that the SFA should adjudicate. Apart from anything else that is not a defence. If they lose the argument over the forum, then the court is likely to take a very dim view of the lack of defences.

 

In lodging defences, the respondents are expected to take every individual statement made by the petitioners and say whether or not it is admitted, not known and not admitted, or denied. I expect that the SPFL will have done so here. To do otherwise would be extremely foolish.

 

If we look at the petition, we can see that in relation to the Dundee vote, they will have virtually no option other than to admit the facts. After all, it is public knowledge that Dundee did vote against. This is why I believe that part of our action to be the most significant. There is effectively an decision to be taken by the court as to whether or not Dundee's first vote was final. That is a legal argument and so much of the petition rests on that.

 

The facts are not in doubt. The question for the court is whether or not at 5 pm on Good Friday the resolution had passed or not. If the answer is that it did not, the whole SPFL defence comes crashing down.

 

Even if the court holds that Dundee were entitled to change their vote, we still have several other good arguments as to why our expulsion should not stand. However, if the court agrees with us, the game's a bogey for the SPFL.

 

I think that we have a very good argument on that first point alone. I hope I am right, because that gives us the best outcome - reinstatement to the premiership.

 

I don't think we will find out on Wednesday, but we are edging closer to the end.

 

While I think what you are saying makes sense... what if the judge presiding says it is a football matter ? Is there a right of appeal to a higher court?

[complete control]

1 hour ago, JamboBornNBred said:

Threatening other Clubs????

 

No,Dundee Utd,Raith and Cove have been notified that if we win our case then they have been told what could happen............No threats,just the possibility of the outcome if we win.

+ a Hearts fan gave them all 50 grand each...

[Dazo]

41 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

Company law does not provide for no votes. A resolution is either agreed by sufficient votes in favour or it is not agreed.

 

The argument put forward by the SPFL is likely to be that company law specifically provides that once you have voted in favour, you cannot change your mind. It does not mention votes against at all. Therefore, a no vote can be changed.

 

I think that we will argue that it is too big a step to say that a no vote can be changed simply because company law does not specifically prohibit it.  At the moment Dundee voted no, the resolution was defeated and the matter was at an end. The SPFL could have another vote if it wished, but could not ask one club to reconsider.

 

The second argument is that companies are free to make their own provisions in respect of votes. In this case, the member clubs were sent a voting slip with boxes for yes or no. They were asked to vote by 5pm on Good Friday - even though in terms of company law the normal deadline is 28 days. In other words, the normal rule that you either vote in favour or not at all was changed for the purposes of this vote. On that basis, it follows that no member could change its vote once cast.

 

As an aside, there seems to me to be no valid argument around the vote disappearing into the spam folder. The law is pretty clear on this point. Dundee cast their vote when the send button was hit.

 

Thanks for responding. To simplify are we saying they ****ed up by asking for a yes or no response therefore Dundee can not change their vote or in fact the whole process is flawed ?

[Jambo66]

2 minutes ago, jock _turd said:

 

While I think what you are saying makes sense... what if the judge presiding says it is a football matter ? Is there a right of appeal to a higher court?

We can appeal on appoint of law to the Inner House - normally 3 judges. Of course, so can the SPFL 😕

[The Merse]

57 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Hopefully people will take this post in as a lot seem to be getting carried away with the unfairness of our expulsion and think we will skip our way to a court win. We are arguing over Points of company law and as I’ve said before I hope to good we’ve got it right. 
 

On that point and not being an expert can I ask what makes the vote fiasco Illegal ? Company law allows 28 days and for changing to support A proposal. It’s this area that concerns me when it goes to court. 

I agree with that.

 

Our biggest argument should surround the fact that the ‘proposal’ itself was drafted to determine an outcome of least resistance by the SPFL and deliberately omitted key information, thus meaning clubs voted without being in possession of the full facts.

[Dazo]

4 minutes ago, jock _turd said:

 

While I think what you are saying makes sense... what if the judge presiding says it is a football matter ? Is there a right of appeal to a higher court?

It quite clearly isn’t a football matter. The sport or company’s field is irrelevant in this matter I would think. 

Edited June 29, 2020 by Dazo

[Dazo]

1 minute ago, The Merse said:

I agree with that.

 

Our biggest argument should surround the fact that the ‘proposal’ itself was drafted to determine an outcome of least resistance by the SPFL and deliberately omitted key information, thus meaning clubs voted without being in possession of the full facts.

Yep hopefully the judge points out the proposal was a ****ing mess from start to finish. 

[Jambo66]

4 minutes ago, Dazo said:

 

Thanks for responding. To simplify are we saying they ****ed up by asking for a yes or no response therefore Dundee can not change their vote or in fact the whole process is flawed ?

They certainly didn't help themselves by asking for a yes or no response. 

 

I don't think anyone can seriously take the view that if you are asked to vote yes or no and everyone does, that the people who voted no can change their minds, while the people who voted yes cannot.

 

The vote was done and dusted. The clubs voted no. If the SPFL wasn't happy with that, they ought to have had a fresh vote for everyone.

Edited June 29, 2020 by Jambo66

[Jambo314]

2 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

They certainly didn't help themselves by asking for a yes or no response. 

 

I don't think anyone can seriously take the view that if you are asked to vote yes or no and everyone does, that the people who voted no can change their minds, while the people who voted yes cannot.

 

The vote was done and dusted. The clubs voted no. If the SPFL wasn't happy with that, they ought to have had a fresh vote for everyone.

Can you post a copy of the letter @Jambo66 please.

[SUTOL]

18 minutes ago, Bickfest said:

There were no objections to the reduced timescale and all clubs voted within it. Thus it was tacitly accepted by all. You cannot extend that time limit for one club only, and on the promise of other inducements not offered to other clubs (allegedly).

 

Companies Act 2006:

297Period for agreeing to written resolution

(1)A proposed written resolution lapses if it is not passed before the end of—

(a)the period specified for this purpose in the company's articles, or

(b)if none is specified, the period of 28 days beginning with the circulation date.

(2)The agreement of a member to a written resolution is ineffective if signified after the expiry of that period.

 

 

 

So if the 5.00pm time deadline was specified, and the articles of the SPFL allow for setting a deadline less than 28 days, then you can't vote for a resolution after the agreed deadline. 

 

I suppose it comes down to if the 5.00pm deadline, was a deadline. And if voting no on a resolution constitutes voting on a resolution. 

 

 

Lord Clark may be setting precedent for other cases in the future on Wednesday. 

[Riccarton3]

No Hard Feelings

[Big Mack]

Suppose the Court decides that the vote was flawed, which seems to be the general view here.  Would it then be open to the SPFL to re-run the vote, but do it properly this time?  If so there must be a danger that the vote to end the leagues early with promotion and relegation would be passed validly so that the court action will have achieved nothing.  Sorry to be pessimistic but I fear this may be a possibility.

[jock _turd]

Just now, Big Mack said:

Suppose the Court decides that the vote was flawed, which seems to be the general view here.  Would it then be open to the SPFL to re-run the vote, but do it properly this time?  If so there must be a danger that the vote to end the leagues early with promotion and relegation would be passed validly so that the court action will have achieved nothing.  Sorry to be pessimistic but I fear this may be a possibility.

 

There must be something to safeguard against that otherwise why even think about trying to get justice? However I am sure the flawed vote is only one strand of our petition to over turn our expulsion .

[Rods]

Just now, Big Mack said:

Suppose the Court decides that the vote was flawed, which seems to be the general view here.  Would it then be open to the SPFL to re-run the vote, but do it properly this time?  If so there must be a danger that the vote to end the leagues early with promotion and relegation would be passed validly so that the court action will have achieved nothing.  Sorry to be pessimistic but I fear this may be a possibility.

 

After the bad blood that has already went under the bridge do you think that would be a wise approach and Hearts/partick are just going to accept that? 

 

This has already happend by the three votes on reconstruction. The SPFL in my oponion aware that they messed up and tried to push through reconstruction to avoid the scenario were the Dundee vote was looked at in court.

 

Not one journalist has the integrity to ask why there was three attempts at reconstruction once the first one failed to pass they should have said its not going to happen. They were so desperate for reconstruction they made two further attempts.

 

[SMJ_1874]

2 hours ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

At the start of all of this we all pretty much agreed: time to fill the sand bags, get the flak jackets on, baton down the hatches.  The media will be scouring through our bins, tapping phones, digging up dirt from anybody who has a snippet to sell?  But the best they have mustered so far is a few drive-by name callings. Not even as much as a wedge?  They could have found a decorous ‘gargantuan’ story if they truly stayed natural?  The SPFL IS the story! The SPFL have had more leaks than a blow fish after shagging a porcupine?  There are stories in abundance but the narrative is to paint us as the “Rebellious 2” and are being unreasonable very naughty boys, who have hurt others feelings, ignoring the fact that we have been expelled illegally and are being unreasonable.  The SMSM used to have real teeth, they were to be feared and admired in equal measure, I can count more teeth from car boot salesmen at the ‘Barras’ Should that be tooth?  I can’t even find the effort to pity them? I am only scribing this partly out of enjoyment and upstaging so called pro journalists with ease!

 

I would be more scared if they had Coleen Rooney on the job rather than Keef.  This could have been the next ‘Line of Duty’ but the media have written a script worse than Crossroads with Donkey in the Benny role still trying to find a beanie hat that fits over his ridiculous hair style.  I have generated an image I can’t undo of Peter being Miss Dianne.

 

But let’s be clear not just to Keef but to all the SMSM, We are NOT threatening anybody no clubs whatsoever, we are taking the SPFL to court as it acted illegally in expelling us and we are either wanting reinstated or compensated significantly, the latter is not for Celtic, the SFA, the SPFL and the clubs to decide but the courts.  As for holding a gun over their heads, fine, stop then giving us the ammo for the gun, but the finger on that particular trigger belongs to the SPFL and pointing the business end at themselves.  We do not for one iota regret any of this nor do we care if there is no support for a £10m ransom.  But the reporting of there was sympathy and support, but now there is no support, but there is some support “in agreement”  but ‘plenty of others’ always unnamed of course who don’t?  So which is it, all, none or some?  Coupled with the ludicrous claim that the M8 alliance has refused them to move forward when the fact of the matter is the SPFL has forced us to stand still.  And how did we manage to time travel the country back to the start of the crisis. 

 

The SPFL could not be in more trouble than if Gazza turned up at the Hampden steps with his fishing rod and a chicken supper.  The biggest story that came out of the weekend and had more meat on the bones than corpulent Rod McKenzie comfort eating at an all you can eat foie gras factory?  Was that the answer to the SPFL reply to the courts and the entirety of the SPFL defence is they want it returned to the SFA for arbitration, but when they say arbitration they really mean is they have more Kangaroos than an episode of Skippy.  But if anybody wants to see the defence, then the recommendation is you litigate by tagging in with the Cal-police, then you get to the see the defence properly and are stating they can’t break the law and influence the court case by well breaking the law and influencing the court case. They will be more disappointed than the finale of Game of  Thrones, after such promise the series brought! 

 

They are trying to strengthen their case by playing an alternative reality egame by collectively spending weeks hiding in the woods by killing wild boar for 1 virtual point at a time by sitting in their underpants being fed pot noodles by their mum on demand,  sooner or later their avatar will have to come out of the forest as we need the wood to build a funeral pyre.

 

Still we have bigger things to worry about at the SMSM have puffed their chests from their nine stone vacillating frame and called upon the colossus that is Optimus Prime from Weinstein FC, who will sort us out. News flash …this just in…Oleaginous slime that is Lawwell is himself trying to clean Celtic up with a wet wipe after failing into an Olympic sized Vat of excrement.  Not sure how they will play that minority victim card in that barely reported pique?

 

Sorry Keef but the SMSM are as effective as a second hand hover from the Barras car boot sale, its just gathering dust?  And not in the way it is supposed to?  Open up your mouth wide here comes the teaspoon plane with a large drop of Calpol  #TYM

 

Sorry missed half the post out...how DR of me

 

Great post and a thoroughly enjoyable read 👏👏👏

[Dazo]

24 minutes ago, SUTOL said:

 

Companies Act 2006:

297Period for agreeing to written resolution

(1)A proposed written resolution lapses if it is not passed before the end of—

(a)the period specified for this purpose in the company's articles, or

(b)if none is specified, the period of 28 days beginning with the circulation date.

(2)The agreement of a member to a written resolution is ineffective if signified after the expiry of that period.

 

 

 

So if the 5.00pm time deadline was specified, and the articles of the SPFL allow for setting a deadline less than 28 days, then you can't vote for a resolution after the agreed deadline. 

 

I suppose it comes down to if the 5.00pm deadline, was a deadline. And if voting no on a resolution constitutes voting on a resolution. 

 

 

Lord Clark may be setting precedent for other cases in the future on Wednesday. 

That really is the smoking gun, let’s hope the deadline is on that proposal. 

[JimmyCant]

13 minutes ago, Big Mack said:

Suppose the Court decides that the vote was flawed, which seems to be the general view here.  Would it then be open to the SPFL to re-run the vote, but do it properly this time?  If so there must be a danger that the vote to end the leagues early with promotion and relegation would be passed validly so that the court action will have achieved nothing.  Sorry to be pessimistic but I fear this may be a possibility.

There were 4 main strands to the original vote.

1. That the season should be ended in the case of 3 of the 4 leagues and authority given to the board to end the top league after further consideration.

2. That final positions be determined on a PPG basis.

3. That monies due to clubs could be paid immediately a vote was passed to end a league.

4. The biggy for us. Title awarding, promotion and relegation would be enacted based on final positions taken from point 2 above.

 

All the points above have been enacted now beyond recovery, except promotion and relegation which, obviously we are seeking to have removed from the resolution 

 

In view of that, the resolution can’t be re-presented for a new vote. Not in a fair and open manner anyway. Not an option IMO. 
 

There is a much easier and fairer option the court has. The same easy and fair option that the SPFL have had since day 1. That being no promotion/relegation and a vote on reconstruction to promote clubs declared champions (and those in second place)

[PTBCAL]

I still believe we will settle for some kind of compensation before it goes to a full blown court case. Hopefully a decent amount.

 

There’s not a chance we will be reinstated. Sorry if that goes against the grain on here but we have to realistic. Only got to Weds to wait thankfully. 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2020 by PTBCAL