SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Jamboelite]

3 minutes ago, PTBCAL said:

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. 

 

 

I agree.

[jock _turd]

Just now, PTBCAL said:

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. 

 

 

 

I don't know squat about the law BUT if the initial vote on the resolution is deemed to be illegal the I think we would be reinstated since we would never have been excluded in the first place. So if we end up with a situation on Wednesday where the judge actually says the vote on the resolution was fundamentally not carried we will have to be placed back into the SPL surely? 

[JimmyCant]

1 minute ago, PTBCAL said:

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. 

 

 

If there isn’t a case to re-instate us, where is the case for compensation. I’d say thats only possible if his lordship finds in our favour but is unwilling/unable to instruct re-instatement. If that’s on the cards then his lordship washing his hands of the whole case on the grounds of non jurisdiction is equally on the cards.

[adayinmay]

7 minutes ago, PTBCAL said:

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. 

 

 

As much as I respect your info can I ask why not?

 

If Hearts were to win the court verdict, why not? The SPFL (or clubs) cant afford to dish out £10m (or even a quarter of that). Even if they could, why would they when reinstatement via reconstruction would be absolutely free?

 

Dishing out compensation just doesn't make any sense when there is a free alternative. Especially in this financially ruinous climate.

Edited June 29, 2020 by adayinmay
typo

[David Black]

1 minute ago, adayinmay said:

As much as I respect your info can I ask why not?

 

If Hearts were to win the court verdict, why not? The SPFL (or clubs) cant afford to dish out £10m (ore even a quarter of that). Even if they could, why would they when reinstatement via reconstruction would be absolutely free?

 

Dishing out compensation just doesn't make any sense when there is a free alternative. Especially in this financially ruinous climate.

Exactly. 

 

[Jambo66]

42 minutes ago, Jambo314 said:

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

What letter?

[SUTOL]

28 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.

 

In our submission to the court we aren't basing our case on the flawed (or otherwise) Dundee vote. 

 

Our case is based on the company (SPFL) conducting its affairs in a way that is prejudicial to the interests of some of its members (shareholders). i.e. it is changing its normal rules (regarding promotion and relegation) and doing so is damaging some members unnecessarily. That there was a dodgy vote, lies about being able to award prize money or lies about (not) having to pay pack TV moneys etc just help add to our case and evidence the damage being done unfairly.

 

994Petition by company member

(1)A member of a company may apply to the court by petition for an order under this Part on the ground—

(a)that the company's affairs are being or have been conducted in a manner that is unfairly prejudicial to the interests of members generally or of some part of its members (including at least himself), or

[JimmyCant]

6 minutes ago, jock _turd said:

 

I don't know squat about the law BUT if the initial vote on the resolution is deemed to be illegal the I think we would be reinstated since we would never have been excluded in the first place. So if we end up with a situation on Wednesday where the judge actually says the vote on the resolution was fundamentally not carried we will have to be placed back into the SPL surely? 

All the judge would need to pass down is ‘It is not in the power of the court to instruct a private company how to run and organise its Internal affairs, however it IS in the power of the court to grant compensation when those affairs have led to calculable and culpable losses to another private company due to mal-management/unfairness of their rules and affairs‘

 

Having said that, the minute we are awarded compensation, if it’s anything approaching what we are looking for, the SPFL would immediately offer reinstatement as an alternative. We would then have to decide whether to accept reinstatement or take the money and blow the house down

Edited June 29, 2020 by JimmyCant

[Jambo314]

3 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

What letter?

The letter which Doncaster sent to the clubs to vote (first vote) which included the guidelines/process i.e 5pm deadline etc

Edited June 29, 2020 by Jambo314

[Jodami]

12 minutes ago, PTBCAL said:

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. 

 

 

In principle I subscribe to this viewpoint but the issue is can the SPFL offer serious money when it impacts so many other clubs. That makes offering an enticing enough deal very difficult. Your expectation is any offer would be on the back of us winning Wednesday's argument and getting the case to court I presume?

Edited June 29, 2020 by Jodami

[Guest ToqueJambo]

2 hours 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 

 

Agree to disagree. The league is already stopped - by the other clubs, not us. The first shots were fired by the SPFL and other clubs. The three clubs then voted against reconstruction in the full knowledge of what could happen. Raith and co had at least two chances to avoid all this. They could have voted against the concept of winning a title with a good number of games to play and when you're only 1 pt ahead in the case of Raith. They could have then sided with the relegated clubs to help them out by voting for reconstruction.

Edited June 29, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Jambo66]

35 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.

In theory, it would be possible for the SPFL to hold another vote. However, our case is not solely based on the Dundee vote. We have the prejudicial nature of the vote argument as well. If we win on that point then the SPFL will be interdicted from having a further vote to expel us.

 

In any event and in spite of the vitriol from some clubs, there is no guarantee that the vote would be passed this time either. I suspect that such a vote would actually be defeated more heavily, because we would still have the whole anti-competition and compensation argument. As we know, money matters to a lot of these clubs much more than sporting integrity.

 

When push comes to shove, if we get our expulsion reversed, I am pretty certain that we will play in the premiership and the only remaining question will be whether or not there is some sort of reconstruction to allow teams like Dundee United to move up a league as well.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

11 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

If there isn’t a case to re-instate us, where is the case for compensation. I’d say thats only possible if his lordship finds in our favour but is unwilling/unable to instruct re-instatement. If that’s on the cards then his lordship washing his hands of the whole case on the grounds of non jurisdiction is equally on the cards.

 

Even SPFL board members (les Gray for one) are quoted as saying there should be compensation. The only difference will be in what that amount should be. that's where the court will come in. I'll be amazed if the SPFL let it get that far but they've let it get this far, so...

Edited June 29, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Footballfirst]

It might be worth summarising the key issues raised in the Hearts/Partick petition and the likely defences or arguments put forward by the SPFL and the three promoted clubs, in a fairly simplistic fashion.

 

Preamble

 

SPFL - We do not believe that this case should be heard by the Court of Session without previously exhausting the dispute resolution process within the SPFL and SFA. We consider that the dispute is fundamentally a footballing matter and should be resolved by the football authorities.

 

Hearts/PT - The issues in front of you are fundamentally matters of Company Law and as such should be determined by this court.

 

Issues from the petition

 

Hearts/PT - Fee payments could have been made without ending the season and the SPFL misled the clubs, including declaring Rangers resolution incompetent.

 

SPFL - We looked at all possibilities and what we proposed was the most practical solution for all clubs to receive much needed fees as soon as possible.

 

Hearts/PT - The original Dundee vote was valid at the point it was sent and as such the resolution should have be deemed to have failed. Dundee should not have been allowed to change their vote.

 

SPFL - Members had 28 days in which to cast their votes. Dundee issued a note revoking their original vote, which the SPFL had not seen, thus was not able to be counted at that point in time. Dundee then submitted their agreement to the resolution a few days later. We do not believe that the SPFL's handling of that situation was contrary either, to the SPFL's Articles, or Company Law. 

  
Hearts/PT - Both clubs have been subjected to "unfair prejudice".

The SPFL Board failed to provide sufficient information to clubs in order that they could make informed decisions.

The SPFL Board also advised that the resolution had been approved, when it had in fact been rejected. 
The Clubs also did not act in good faith, by voting in a way that oppressed a minority.

Clubs could not have judged that the Written resolution was in the interests of the company (the SPFL)
The written resolution removed the rights of the "relegated" clubs to be judged after 38 games as specified in the rules.
The SPFL knew that fee payments could be made without ending the season. 

The SPFL could have decoupled elements such as promotion/relegation, and fee payments from the decision to end the season

The SPFL was aware that competitive fairness and adherence to the rules was integral to the League competition

The SPFL facilitated promotion/relegation, but arbitrarily cancelled play-offs 
The league positions of Hearts/PT could have improved over the remaining games.
Clubs knew that enforcing "relegation" on clubs would have a serious impact.
No other options were explored in the briefing notes

 

SPFL - We considered all the options available to us, at length, and came up with a recommendation in the form of the written resolution that we believed was in the best interests of the company. That resolution received the overwhelming support of the majority of member clubs. The SPFL is a members organisation after all.  

 

Dundee Utd/Raith/Cove - We believe that we would be unfairly treated if our promotion was reversed. Each of us already entered into contracts and arrangements with fans, players, sponsors and  advertisers on the basis of playing in a higher league. We would suffer financial hardship were the petition to be successful.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

2 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

It might be worth summarising the key issues raised in the Hearts/Partick petition and the likely defences or arguments put forward by the SPFL and the three promoted clubs, in a fairly simplistic fashion.

 

Preamble

 

SPFL - We do not believe that this case should be heard by the Court of Session without previously exhausting the dispute resolution process within the SPFL and SFA. We consider that the dispute is fundamentally a footballing matter and should be resolved by the football authorities.

 

Hearts/PT - The issues in front of you are fundamentally matters of Company Law and as such should be determined by this court.

 

Issues from the petition

 

Hearts/PT - Fee payments could have been made without ending the season and the SPFL misled the clubs, including declaring Rangers resolution incompetent.

 

SPFL - We looked at all possibilities and what we proposed was the most practical solution for all clubs to receive much needed fees as soon as possible.

 

Hearts/PT - The original Dundee vote was valid at the point it was sent and as such the resolution should have be deemed to have failed. Dundee should not have been allowed to change their vote.

 

SPFL - Members had 28 days in which to cast their votes. Dundee issued a note revoking their original vote, which the SPFL had not seen, thus was not able to be counted at that point in time. Dundee then submitted their agreement to the resolution a few days later. We do not believe that the SPFL's handling of that situation was contrary either, to the SPFL's Articles, or Company Law. 

  
Hearts/PT - Both clubs have been subjected to "unfair prejudice".

The SPFL Board failed to provide sufficient information to clubs in order that they could make informed decisions.

The SPFL Board also advised that the resolution had been approved, when it had in fact been rejected. 
The Clubs also did not act in good faith, by voting in a way that oppressed a minority.

Clubs could not have judged that the Written resolution was in the interests of the company (the SPFL)
The written resolution removed the rights of the "relegated" clubs to be judged after 38 games as specified in the rules.
The SPFL knew that fee payments could be made without ending the season. 

The SPFL could have decoupled elements such as promotion/relegation, and fee payments from the decision to end the season

The SPFL was aware that competitive fairness and adherence to the rules was integral to the League competition

The SPFL facilitated promotion/relegation, but arbitrarily cancelled play-offs 
The league positions of Hearts/PT could have improved over the remaining games.
Clubs knew that enforcing "relegation" on clubs would have a serious impact.
No other options were explored in the briefing notes

 

SPFL - We considered all the options available to us, at length, and came up with a recommendation in the form of the written resolution that we believed was in the best interests of the company. That resolution received the overwhelming support of the majority of member clubs. The SPFL is a members organisation after all.  

 

Dundee Utd/Raith/Cove - We believe that we would be unfairly treated if our promotion was reversed. Each of us already entered into contracts and arrangements with fans, players, sponsors and  advertisers on the basis of playing in a higher league. We would suffer financial hardship were the petition to be successful.

 

 

Yeah and we entered into contracts with all of the above and bought players and appointed a manager in the expectation of playing 38 games in 19/20 and then playing a full league programme the following season - something we are now being denied due to the actions of the SPFL.

Edited June 29, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Jambo66]

7 minutes ago, Jambo314 said:

The letter which Doncaster sent to the clubs to vote (first vote) which included the guidelines/process i.e 5pm deadline etc

I'm not sure that any such letter is available online. What we have seen is the voting paper which has boxes for yes and no on it. It is several hundred pages back in this thread.

[JAMBO.LOU]

1 hour 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.

you appear to have a decent grasp on the legal side of things 

 

I was wondering if it is usual company practice to announce the result of an incomplete vote and make a shareholder aware that they would the casting vote? 
 

I have no legal knowledge but that is one of the main things that has never sat right with me.  

[kila]

I'm trying to find out how set in stone the 5pm deadline might be viewed in court. Aberdeen seemed to think it was set in stone noting that usually there is 28 days.

 

From their April statement:

 

https://www.afc.co.uk/2020/04/10/club-statement-spfl-resolution/

 

“We feel strongly that the SPFL board should not have asked member clubs to cast a vote on this resolution with less than 48 hours’ notice, especially when these resolutions allow for 28 days. This request was made during a one hour video conference with no room for constructive discussion or debate, leaving us scrambling for time to review the resolution legal document and then discuss the merits of it with our board. Open and transparent governance and communication is critical to the survival of Scottish Football and should include our most important assets, our fans. We ignore the fans at our peril."

 

[kila]

(now how long until the resident sheep turns up)

[Jambo66]

5 minutes ago, JAMBO.LOU said:

you appear to have a decent grasp on the legal side of things 

 

I was wondering if it is usual company practice to announce the result of an incomplete vote and make a shareholder aware that they would the casting vote? 
 

I have no legal knowledge but that is one of the main things that has never sat right with me.  

I would be very surprised if it were. After all, it is prejudicial to the voting process.

 

If people think that their vote is unlikely to matter (like Aberdeen, apparently), they are less likely to vote or may decide to vote in a way that ensures they are on the side of the winners (the majority). It's human nature to do that.

 

It seems to me to be one of those things where there is no need to have a specific rule about it, as it is fundamental to the point of voting.

Edited June 29, 2020 by Jambo66

[Guest ToqueJambo]

6 minutes ago, kila said:

I'm trying to find out how set in stone the 5pm deadline might be viewed in court. Aberdeen seemed to think it was set in stone noting that usually there is 28 days.

 

From their April statement:

 

https://www.afc.co.uk/2020/04/10/club-statement-spfl-resolution/

 

“We feel strongly that the SPFL board should not have asked member clubs to cast a vote on this resolution with less than 48 hours’ notice, especially when these resolutions allow for 28 days. This request was made during a one hour video conference with no room for constructive discussion or debate, leaving us scrambling for time to review the resolution legal document and then discuss the merits of it with our board. Open and transparent governance and communication is critical to the survival of Scottish Football and should include our most important assets, our fans. We ignore the fans at our peril."

 

 

 

The good thing for our case is that so many Scottish football clubs just LOVE a wee statement. Everything we need is out there on the record.

 

For example we know that Dundee changed their vote because the SPFL had released the interim results with their weird just after 5pm statement. So that seems to back up the "SPFL influencing votes" claim.

Edited June 29, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[JAMBO.LOU]

2 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

I would be very surprised if it were. After all, it is prejudicial to the voting process.

 

If people think that their vote is unlikely to matter (like Aberdeen, apparently), they are less likely to vote or may decide to vote in a way that ensures they are on the side of the winners (the majority). It's human nature to do that.

 

It seems to me to be on rod those things where there is no need to have a specific rule about it, it is fundamental to the point of voting.

thanks for that.   I have genuinely been surprised that a bigger deal hasn’t been made of this.   (Maybe it has and I just missed it) 

[pettigrewsstylist]

37 minutes ago, Dazo said:

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

Cant miss the fact they

A. also made sure all knew how the other votes had been cast,

B. Dundee then were allowed to change vote days later, after a nice wee period of bribery and bullying ...oops sorry meant reflection.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

1 minute ago, pettigrewsstylist said:

Cant miss the fact they

A. also made sure all knew how the other votes had been cast,

B. Dundee then were allowed to change vote days later, after a nice wee period of bribery and bullying ...oops sorry meant reflection.

 

 

Not only that but Dundee got their very own wee reconstruction talks no-one else was in on and it was those that led them to change ether vote (according to their statement), meaning they voted on something completely different to the original Resolution everyone else voted on.

[Footballfirst]

16 minutes ago, Jambo314 said:

The letter which Doncaster sent to the clubs to vote (first vote) which included the guidelines/process i.e 5pm deadline etc

 

There are two pertinent pages. The first outlines the "Company Law" elements relating only to agreement with the resolution within 28 days, and the second that asks for agreement or rejection of the resolution together with the request for an earlier response.

 

 

[Kiwidoug]

Does anyone know if there are witnesses involved in this process or is it just lawyers?

 

I would love to hear a cross examination of Doncaster.

[Footballfirst]

1 minute ago, Kiwidoug said:

Does anyone know if there are witnesses involved in this process or is it just lawyers?

 

I would love to hear a cross examination of Doncaster.

 

It's doubtful, but there is the possibility of a written statement being provided (e.g. a sworn affidavit)

[Victorian]

3 minutes ago, Kiwidoug said:

Does anyone know if there are witnesses involved in this process or is it just lawyers?

 

I would love to hear a cross examination of Doncaster.

 

I would think it will all be submission of documents and arguments.    I think a key person could be ordered by the court to answer questions,   either by an appearance on zoom or possibly by an affidavit in another submission.

[Diadora Van Basten]

I don’t expect us to win on the Dundee vote but do think we will win on the unfairness of what has happened and the way that the SPFL misled the clubs.

 

I would add that I think the fact that BT sports are due a repayment for the season ending early and this was not brought to the attention of the clubs will be significant.

[JAMBO.LOU]

7 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

 

Not only that but Dundee got their very own wee reconstruction talks no-one else was in on and it was those that led them to change ether vote (according to their statement), meaning they voted on something completely different to the original Resolution everyone else voted on.

unless this article has been edited after the fact, it would appear that reconstruction was always on the table in the event that the resolution passed 

 

https://spfl.co.uk/news/spfl-clubs-to-vote-on-curtailment-of-ladbrokes-s

 

 

[Ethan Hunt]

3 hours ago, bobskeldon said:

Lickspittle

 

Bravo sir 👏👏👏👏👏

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

I don’t expect us to win on the Dundee vote but do think we will win on the unfairness of what has happened and the way that the SPFL misled the clubs.

 

I would add that I think the fact that BT sports are due a repayment for the season ending early and this was not brought to the attention of the clubs will be significant.

 

The court will not decide anything on fairness alone.    Or even on misleading information alone.     We need to win some kind of ruling in law.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

3 minutes ago, JAMBO.LOU said:

unless this article has been edited after the fact, it would appear that reconstruction was always on the table in the event that the resolution passed 

 

https://spfl.co.uk/news/spfl-clubs-to-vote-on-curtailment-of-ladbrokes-s

 

 

 

It wasn't on the voting ballot but it was discussed by Dundee before they changed their vote. Given how quickly reconstruction talks were rejected by the Premiership clubs I can't see how that statement holds any weight. 

[wavydavy]

34 minutes ago, Jambo314 said:

The letter which Doncaster sent to the clubs to vote (first vote) which included the guidelines/process i.e 5pm deadline etc

 

The content of the letter is included in the  Court Action we and Partick lodged if you want to read that you will get the gist of it

 

Petition of Heart of Midlothian Football Club and another P -20 Petition 3 (1).pdf

[Footballfirst]

3 minutes ago, JAMBO.LOU said:

unless this article has been edited after the fact, it would appear that reconstruction was always on the table in the event that the resolution passed 

 

https://spfl.co.uk/news/spfl-clubs-to-vote-on-curtailment-of-ladbrokes-s

 

 

 

It was. The Briefing note to clubs issued before the first vote included the following.

 

[jock _turd]

With repect to the paper FF has just posted.

What I found interesting many weeks back now what the opinion of the PTFC QC who said that this voting format changed the normally adopted rules of voting on a resolution, in as much as by providing a voting slip and asking to adopt or reject when the voting slip was returned by email, as DFC did their vote should have been counted and that was the end of the matter. They could not change that vote. Now this is also part of our petition to the court as well is it not. I find this point both interesting and probably very important.

[cb1874]

12 minutes ago, Kiwidoug said:

Does anyone know if there are witnesses involved in this process or is it just lawyers?

 

I would love to hear a cross examination of Doncaster.

If it goes forward to a full hearing, then witnesses can be called and cross examined. Not at this stage though.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

2 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

It was. The Briefing note to clubs issued before the first vote included the following.

 

 

This seems like a clear attempt to influence the decision of clubs but without committing to anything. And clearly they hadn't consulted with premiership clubs over reconstruction as they refused to discuss it at all. So they were promising something they didn't;t know was possible or not.

Edited June 29, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Bickfest]

I think there may be another strand to our case not yet set out. (Apologies, I have not read the petition in full.) I think that each season of football constitutes an implied contract between the SPFL and the members who participate in the competitions. My vague recollection of contract law is that, unless the contract explicitly expresses otherwise, once it has commenced, it is not competent for one or more parties to amend the contract without the agreement of all other parties. The rules for the season are set out in advance and all members effectively agree to them when the competition commences. The SPFL have already admitted that the rules do not themselves allow the season to be called prematurely. Is it possible that, under contract law, the vote to terminate early might have to be 100% in favour? @Jambo66 @jambogirlglasgow @Footballfirst

[Gmcjambo]

2 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

This seems like a clear attempt to influence the decision of clubs but without committing to anything. And clearly they hadn't consulted with premiership clubs over reconstruction as they refused to discuss it at all. So they were promising something they didn't;t know was possible or not.

It seems pretty clear they are dangling a carrot to influence the vote, but also the heavy caveat is to help if and when (when!) they are challenged on this.  The other point which is abundantly clear is that they failed to show any real commitment towards restructuring and in fact passed it to AB to do for them, until they put forward their 14.10.10.10 resolution very late in the day.    If true to the wording here, they should have be driving towards it after this vote was 'passed'.

[Footballfirst]

5 minutes ago, Bickfest said:

I think there may be another strand to our case not yet set out. (Apologies, I have not read the petition in full.) I think that each season of football constitutes an implied contract between the SPFL and the members who participate in the competitions. My vague recollection of contract law is that, unless the contract explicitly expresses otherwise, once it has commenced, it is not competent for one or more parties to amend the contract without the agreement of all other parties. The rules for the season are set out in advance and all members effectively agree to them when the competition commences. The SPFL have already admitted that the rules do not themselves allow the season to be called prematurely. Is it possible that, under contract law, the vote to terminate early might have to be 100% in favour? @Jambo66 @jambogirlglasgow @Footballfirst

 

I'm not a lawyer so I couldn't say one way or another.

 

The solution recommended by the SPFL's QC was to submit a written resolution to members to change the rules applicable to the competition. That required 75% votes in favour by the three voting groups.

 

Edit: I should have added that the Hearts/PT petition sets out the contractual arrangements between the various parties, so it may not have been overlooked, if applicable.

Edited June 29, 2020 by Footballfirst

[Hackney Hearts]

11 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

This seems like a clear attempt to influence the decision of clubs but without committing to anything. And clearly they hadn't consulted with premiership clubs over reconstruction as they refused to discuss it at all. So they were promising something they didn't;t know was possible or not.

 

If they'd felt like it (in the way that they 'felt like' awarding the title to Celtic), they could have made the principle of reconstruction part of the resolution (crucially attached to receiving payments) with only the format to be decided at a later date, i.e. a vote on whether it should be 14-10-10-10, 14-10-10-8, 13-29-0 or whatever. Thereby eliminating unfair relegation as part of the package.

Edited June 29, 2020 by Hackney Hearts

[Jambo314]

Thanks to FF 

 

There was no need for Doncaster to contact Dundee because they didn't receive their vote (lost?) as any club who chose to abstain their vote was classed as a NO.

[Bickfest]

3 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

I'm not a lawyer so I couldn't say one way or another.

 

The solution recommended by the SPFL's QC was to submit a written resolution to members to change the rules applicable to the competition. That required 75% votes in favour by the three voting groups.

 

Edit: I should have added that the Hearts/PT petition sets out the contractual arrangements between the various parties, so it may not have been overlooked, if applicable.

I have now read the petition in full and it is indeed not a point that has been raised. I think it is OK to change the rules of a competition before it starts by resolution requiring the approvals as set out in the SPFL circular. But I am not sure that such a resolution is competent after the leagues have commenced. And I believe this is why the SPFL are applying now for that power for next season - ie before it has started. I think they know that they couldn't do this retrospectively.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

7 minutes ago, Bickfest said:

I think there may be another strand to our case not yet set out. (Apologies, I have not read the petition in full.) I think that each season of football constitutes an implied contract between the SPFL and the members who participate in the competitions. My vague recollection of contract law is that, unless the contract explicitly expresses otherwise, once it has commenced, it is not competent for one or more parties to amend the contract without the agreement of all other parties. The rules for the season are set out in advance and all members effectively agree to them when the competition commences. The SPFL have already admitted that the rules do not themselves allow the season to be called prematurely. Is it possible that, under contract law, the vote to terminate early might have to be 100% in favour? @Jambo66 @jambogirlglasgow @Footballfirst

I have, from the outset, felt that there was a contract between the 12 Premiership clubs and the SPFL to play 38 games with the title and relegation decided on league positions after that 38 games. Unless the rules state that relegation can be decided either by vote or current placings in the event the season is cut short. I can't see how the contract could possibly be considered to have been honoured. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to form a part of the petition so we may never know.

[Dagger Is Back]

1 minute ago, Jambo314 said:

Thanks to FF 

 

There was no need for Doncaster to contact Dundee because they didn't receive their vote (lost?) as any club who chose to abstain their vote was classed as a NO.

 

Was it not also the case that they had 28 days within which to vote? To be honest in Doncasters position I don't think I would have been in touch with Dundee for fear of being accused of seeking to influence 

[Riccarton3]

14 minutes ago, Gmcjambo said:

It seems pretty clear they are dangling a carrot to influence the vote, but also the heavy caveat is to help if and when (when!) they are challenged on this.  The other point which is abundantly clear is that they failed to show any real commitment towards restructuring and in fact passed it to AB to do for them, until they put forward their 14.10.10.10 resolution very late in the day.    If true to the wording here, they should have be driving towards it after this vote was 'passed'.

It seems really dull of mind not to see these times as EXCEPTIONAL and as if this reconstruction they could have proposed was akin to whimsy. 'Oh, you know the clubs, don't like change esp at short notice'. It really is just so contrived. Never has there there been, never will there be again a more obvious case where reconstruction should have been attached, supported vigorously by the Board and CEO. The level of disingenuousness(sp) is off the scale.

Edited June 29, 2020 by Riccarton3

[Gmcjambo]

2 minutes ago, Jambo314 said:

Thanks to FF 

 

There was no need for Doncaster to contact Dundee because they didn't receive their vote (lost?) as any club who chose to abstain their vote was classed as a NO.

Back to the timing issue though.    Seems clear that the deadline was 28 days and that the SPFL 'requested' clubs to send their vote in by 5pm,   in that case they could assume a non reply was a club abstaining.      In reality though, Dundee's vote was cast and it doesn't state that a no vote couldn't be revoked.   It does state a yes vote couldn't be revoked though.    I think there is clear ambiguity personally and I wonder who should be given the benefit of the doubt....Roll on Wed!

[Jambo314]

Just now, Gmcjambo said:

Back to the timing issue though.    Seems clear that the deadline was 28 days and that the SPFL 'requested' clubs to send their vote in by 5pm,   in that case they could assume a non reply was a club abstaining.      In reality though, Dundee's vote was cast and it doesn't state that a no vote couldn't be revoked.   It does state a yes vote couldn't be revoked though.    I think there is clear ambiguity personally and I wonder who should be given the benefit of the doubt....Roll on Wed!

There was no reason to contact Dundee, as I've said every club had the right to abstain.

[Debut 4]

1 hour ago, PTBCAL said:

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. 

 

 

Lawwell dipping into the biscuit tin to cover the loss for his pal Donkey Doncaster?