SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[NANOJAMBO]

43 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 clubs were sent a form in which it clearly stated words to the effect "please return by 5.00, if possible".

Add that to the SPFL narrative that they were trying to get the much needed cash to the clubs as quick as possible, then to suggest there was a 28 day window is just not credible. 

 

The SPFL can't run with the fox & hunt with the hounds here - either the clubs had 28 days to vote or they didn't.

If they REALLY had 28 days to vote, there was no need to put the big reminder at the bottom of the form in bold telling them to send it back by 5.00.

 

Imagine spinning  that to a judge , in a court of law rather than a "SPFL   friendly"  SFA adjudication. 

 

 

[Gmcjambo]

1 minute ago, NANOJAMBO said:

The clubs were sent a form in which it clearly stated words to the effect "please return by 5.00, if possible".

Add that to the SPFL narrative that they were trying to get the much needed cash to the clubs as quick as possible, then to suggest there was a 28 day window is just not credible. 

 

The SPFL can't run with the fox & hunt with the hounds here - either the clubs had 28 days to vote or they didn't.

If they REALLY had 28 days to vote, there was no need to put the big reminder at the bottom of the form in bold telling them to send it back by 5.00.

 

Imagine spinning  that to a judge , in a court of law rather than a "SPFL   friendly"  SFA adjudication. 

 

 

But it is still a request not a requirement,   much as I'd love to agree with your view that it was the other way round.      

[Diadora Van Basten]

Just a thought but if the SPFL are changing the articles is is not a special resolution that needs to be passed rather than a written resolution. A special resolution requires 28 days notice (which wasn’t followed). 
 

I am pretty sure that our lawyers will be aware of this but just thought I would flag it up just in case.

[NLTFTh]

4 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

Is that Limmy?

It's limmy playing Raymond Day.. 👍

[Jambo66]

22 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

That's an interesting point and not one I have considered previously. Don't have an answer off the top of my head.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

I wonder, if Dundee had refused to change their vote, which club would have been contacted next to try to persuade them to change their vote from no to yes!

[NANOJAMBO]

Just now, Gmcjambo said:

But it is still a request not a requirement,   much as I'd love to agree with your view that it was the other way round.      

Agreed. The SPFL didn't have the power to ignore company law but we all know what the intention was - otherwise the voting slips wouldn't have had the 5.00 reminder on it. 

Hopefully we'll get to see this played out in court. 

[SUTOL]

3 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

I wonder, if Dundee had refused to change their vote, which club would have been contacted next to try to persuade them to change their vote from no to yes!

 

I wonder what would have happened if it was Partick's vote that was 'missing'? 

[kila]

I reckon if the case ends up moving onto compensation and Hearts/Partick win, both clubs will go to the SPFL again and say:

 

"Look, we really don't want to have to take this money as our preference is still league reconstruction. Let's have one final vote on reconstruction now the cost of compensating the relegated teams has been determined by the court."

 

And I think 14-14-16 will be back on the table as the bluff by all lower league teams that they can play behind closed doors will need to get called. SPFL have already done fixtures for a 14 team top flight so a late switch to a new structure shouldn't be an issue. Though it'll probably mean Inverness v Hearts as our first game so we don't get to pack out their ground and give them the maroon coin they deserve. In fact that'll be our first game either way.

 

Edited June 29, 2020 by kila

[Drumelzier]

15 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.

 

Doncaster prob didn't know Dundee, ICT and Thistle were working together in the NO camp and after his desperate interference certainly wouldn't have expected SG to spill the beans the following day.For that we can all be eternally grateful.

[Diadora Van Basten]

Reading the petition it is quite disgusting the pressure clubs were under to vote for the resolution as the SPFL said that unless they voted for it they would not pay out £7 million they held until September.

 

This would most likely have resulted in some clubs going bust.

[russ]

6 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

I wonder, if Dundee had refused to change their vote, which club would have been contacted next to try to persuade them to change their vote from no to yes!

There was only Inverness and Partick. That is why they chose Dundee. That is why it stinks. 

[russ]

3 minutes ago, SUTOL said:

 

I wonder what would have happened if it was Partick's vote that was 'missing'? 

No ones vote was missing. They got three against and the only one they could influence was Dundee. 

[Jambo314]

2 minutes ago, russ said:

No ones vote was missing. They got three against and the only one they could influence was Dundee. 

Exactly this.

[Riccarton3]

So, other than another puff piece by Jackson Pillock, today has not offered much. Timing is everything. Tomorrow could be 'respondents' day ? After Doncaster's lettter? The offer was there to clubs, bold as you like. Be odd for that not to ' go somewhere'. Just trying to see into tomorrow.

[Don Dan]

One thing that’s becoming clearer especially when reading the recent posts is the SPFL aka Dungcaster either intentionally or unintentionally confused the whole voting procedure. Starting at the beginning by not fully laying out all the possibilities down to allowing Dundee to change their vote after the 5pm requested time limit. 
The whole thing was a complete shambles and I wouldn’t be surprised if the judge overturned the vote as it broke company law imo. 

[Jambo66]

2 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

So, other than another puff piece by Jackson Pillock, today has not offered much. Timing is everything. Tomorrow could be 'respondents' day ? After Doncaster's lettter? The offer was there to clubs, bold as you like. Be odd for that not to ' go somewhere'. Just trying to see into tomorrow.

Why would any other club want to become a respondent when, apparently, the SPFL is defending the petition? Increased cost and no guarantee that their own lawyers would come up with anything the SPFL lawyers don't come up with.

 

I can see why the Group of Three would want to incur cost. They only care about the initial resolution and need to go all out on that defence. None of the rest of the petition makes any real difference to them.

[Riccarton3]

1 minute ago, Dannie Boy said:

One thing that’s becoming clearer especially when reading the recent posts is the SPFL aka Dungcaster either intentionally or unintentionally confused the whole voting procedure. Starting at the beginning by not fully laying out all the possibilities down to allowing Dundee to change their vote after the 5pm requested time limit. 
The whole thing was a complete shambles and I wouldn’t be surprised if the judge overturned the vote as it broke company law imo. 

That would be, erm, awesome. Probably why there's such an aversion to court. Having to actually tell the truth. What a bother.

[GMEdinburgh]

1 hour ago, Dazo said:

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

I'm sure I read way back they were asking for the 5pm deadline if possible due to urgency in this matter. 

[Trained One]

15 minutes ago, russ said:

No ones vote was missing. They got three against and the only one they could influence was Dundee. 

 

Likely...could be very embarrassing for Deloitte if that were to be the case.  Court case could be very revealing. 

[Riccarton3]

6 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

Why would any other club want to become a respondent when, apparently, the SPFL is defending the petition? Increased cost and no guarantee that their own lawyers would come up with anything the SPFL lawyers don't come up with.

 

I can see why the Group of Three would want to incur cost. They only care about the initial resolution and need to go all out on that defence. None of the rest of the petition makes any real difference to them.

Thought it was all to do with giving a perception of strength/support for SPFL case. Would clubs need to use their own lawyer? What was McKenzie offering to help with?  I just feel it's not in Doncaster's nature to send something out without having tested the water beforehand. What we have learned about this character is he has no moral compass. None. To think Gray was hysterical at the idea of Doncaster 'getting after' anyone. Lies lies lies.

[Skiba]

42 minutes ago, Jambo314 said:

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

 

Especially when they had 28 days to reply, not 48 hours.

 

[Jambo314]

1 minute ago, Skiba said:

 

Especially when they had 28 days to reply, not 48 hours.

 

👍

[David McCaig]

 

[kila]

2 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

 

 

That brings in the 5pm deadline versus 28 days.

 

If Dundee's vote wasn't received, they missed the 5pm deadline and it is a rejection of the resolution.

 

[jambogirlglasgow]

1 hour 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

Interesting point. I don’t know enough about contract law to have a view. 🤷🏼‍♀️

[husref musemic]

10 hours ago, jamboman9 said:

Someone really needs to take Jackson's 

Crayons away.

What a total ****piece.

just read the article..... f'n astonishing how that prick gets right under my skin. neck and neck with Doncaster. 

[HMFC01]

1 hour 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.

 

Thanks for that.

 

After reading your summary I am just thinking that the SPFL are pretty much going to lie like **** when they have to explain their defence.  Unless they are waiting on us bluffing.  Unbelievable stuff.

[Jambo66]

2 minutes ago, kila said:

 

 

That brings in the 5pm deadline versus 28 days.

 

If Dundee's vote wasn't received, they missed the 5pm deadline and it is a rejection of the resolution.

 

As a matter of law, Dundee's rejection vote was received because the law deems it to have been cast when sent by email. There is no argument that it was sent by email before 5pm.

 

That strengthens our argument that the normal 28 day rule was superseded, because everyone did as asked and goes within 48 hours.

[David McCaig]

4 minutes ago, kila said:

 

 

That brings in the 5pm deadline versus 28 days.

 

If Dundee's vote wasn't received, they missed the 5pm deadline and it is a rejection of the resolution.

 

It only says by 5pm if possible, so the 28 days is time limit.

[Jambo66]

Just now, David McCaig said:

It only says by 5pm if possible, so the 28 days is time limit.

True, but since everyone did vote by 5pm, the process was at an end.

[Rods]

They also released the results why if they had 28 days to respond.

[David McCaig]

Just now, Jambo66 said:

True, but since everyone did vote by 5pm, the process was at an end.

I agree.

[Saint Jambo]

51 minutes ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

Just a thought but if the SPFL are changing the articles is is not a special resolution that needs to be passed rather than a written resolution. A special resolution requires 28 days notice (which wasn’t followed). 
 

I am pretty sure that our lawyers will be aware of this but just thought I would flag it up just in case.

 

No. A special resolution can be passed as a written resolution. A special resolution is special because of the content and threshold to pass. A written resolution is about the mechanism for passing it.

[Skiba]

3 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

It only says by 5pm if possible, so the 28 days is time limit.

Yeah, to give them some wiggle room for pressuring teams to change their vote to hand over the tainted title.

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

2 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

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.

Never ever going to play out that way. 

 

We are in ballock deep and we had better win. 

 

Nobody is interested in Partick. 

 

This will forever be a stick to beat Hearts with. 

 

Skin needs to be thick enough to take the flak

[David McCaig]

1 minute ago, Skiba said:

Yeah, to give them some wiggle room for pressuring teams to change their vote to hand over the tainted title.

The 5pm deadline was essentially meaningless, the issue is the introduction of the option to reject on the voting to slip.

 

[Boris]

1 minute ago, Sir Gio said:

Never ever going to play out that way. 

 

We are in ballock deep and we had better win. 

 

Nobody is interested in Partick. 

 

This will forever be a stick to beat Hearts with. 

 

Skin needs to be thick enough to take the flak

Give a France.

 

Win or lose I'm proud we have done what we have done.

 

Integrity has no price.

[Paris 1984]

One thing that has always bothered me is going back to the Good Friday vote. When it was announced that one Championship Club hadn’t voted, how did Dundee (who remember had sent their vote in) immediately come to the conclusion that it was their vote which was missing? Their chairman had been in discussions with ICT and Partick Thistle and knew they were set to vote no as well. So how, other than a phone call from the SPFL, did Dundee know that the missing vote was theirs and not one of either PTFC or ICT? It’s not as if they got an email rejection message!! 

[kila]

13 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

True, but since everyone did vote by 5pm, the process was at an end.

 

Good point.

 

As Dundee voted before 5pm the vote was concluded. This is despite the SPFL having difficulties finding that vote in their email system at first. And that email was definitely there, with the time stamps showing sent and received before 5pm.

 

Edited June 29, 2020 by kila

[rmreido]

8 hours ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

We ARE having our day in court.

We ARE going to be allowed to proceed with our full case, after Wednesday.

We ARE going to win.

 

Welcome to the “3 ARE’s”.

 

 

ARE's, ARE's GLORIOUS ARE's 😂🤣

[pablo]

9 minutes ago, Sir Gio said:

Never ever going to play out that way. 

 

We are in ballock deep and we had better win. 

 

Nobody is interested in Partick. 

 

This will forever be a stick to beat Hearts with. 

 

Skin needs to be thick enough to take the flak

 

I think we've proved that we will look after ourselves. Heck, standing up to bullies forms a significant part of the ethos of the whole club!

 

Every fan I know is unwavering in their support of the club over this.

Edited June 29, 2020 by pablo

[John Findlay]

24 minutes ago, jambogirlglasgow said:

Interesting point. I don’t know enough about contract law to have a view. 🤷🏼‍♀️

Very diplomatic young lady😉

[Jambo66]

1 hour 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 think that if there is a contract, implied or otherwise, then you are correct that it cannot be changed unilaterally by one of the parties to it.

 

The first question would be who are the parties to such a contract? That would seem to be effectively the 42 member clubs individually and the SPFL.

 

If we think about what happens if a member club fails to fulfill its part in the contract, then there are rules in place for what happens - points deductions, etc.

 

The problem here is that member clubs were prevented from fulfilling their part in the contract by an outside force - the Scottish government, effectively. If a contract cannot be fulfilled, then it is frustrated and that brings it to an end.

 

However, there is an argument that it was not frustrated because there was little to stop the league from recommencing at a later date. Indeed, most other countries have done just that. Technically, that could still be done in Scotland even now by playing 2 games a week throughout July.

 

The other thing to take into account is what the actual and deemed terms of the contract are in this case. For example, did the SPFL have any overriding powers to change the length of the season midway through, or could the member clubs vote to do so themselves. I think the problem with the latter is that a vote of the member clubs only affects one of the parties to the contract - the SPFL.

 

Arguably, those clubs voting in favour of termination are accepting for themselves as individual clubs. However, those member clubs voting against would need to agree as individual clubs to bring the contract to an end.

 

It's a tricky one and I've not had time to think too deeply about it, so I'm sure someone will be able to point out the flaws in my reasoning. On the face of it though, if there is a contract, then you could well be right.

[Big Mack]

1 hour 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 don't think contract law is relevant.  The rules regarding promotion/relegation are set out in the Articles of Association and therefore it is Company Law that applies, as set out in the petition.

[Hungry hippo]

10 minutes ago, Rods said:

They also released the results why if they had 28 days to respond.

 

Doncaster's excuse for this is absolute nonsense. He claimed that they would have been accused of a lack of transparency if they weren't released.

 

The truth is that if they simply said that all votes were not yet received and 5pm was not a deadline then nobody would have questioned it. The only exception to that being if the clubs were rushed and misled into believing it really was a deadline which is something else the SPFL should be held to account for as it surely didn't allow adequate time to consider the resolution (as confirmed by Aberdeen's statement at the time).

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

7 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

It only says by 5pm if possible, so the 28 days is time limit.

But if every vote is cast (and they were), the motion has either passed or failed, whether at 5pm or at any other time within the 28 days. At least one would think so. Unless there was an agenda not to act in utmost good faith towards each and every member club, that is.

 

And that's something I'm not sure if it's been touched on. The rules call on every member (and presumably the SPFL, itself) to act in good faith towards each other (club). Now would 'persuading' a club to change its vote in such a way as to do immeasurable harm to another club(s) not be the complete antithesis of acting in good faith, especially when that club's vote was the last vote to be cast and so complete the voting?

 

I'd love to hear that debated in court.

[fbjambo]

21 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

True, but since everyone did vote by 5pm, the process was at an end.

yes Or else you would need to wait 28 days 🤷🏻‍♀️
 

so if they go down this route then all the clubs that voted no to reconstruction have 28 days to change their vote so it wasn’t defeated then ?? They can’t have it both ways. 

[jock _turd]

I think that we all know that, without saying it, our legal team know that the missing vote was never missing and that Dundee were contacted by the SPFL with the specific purpose of having them change their vote. I do not for one minute believe that what were are saying on JKB over and over again is in some way not also evident to the lawyers who are conducting our legal arguments. What I would really like to know is when situation such as this arise in court cases do lawyers ever say, I do not believe you you are lying? Or is the a mechanism for this which implies that but the actual words are not used Or do lawyers use the expression I recall from so many TV court room dramas I remind you Mr Dungcaster that when you answer the question you are under oath 

[David McCaig]

4 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

But if every vote is cast (and they were), the motion has either passed or failed, whether at 5pm or at any other time within the 28 days. At least one would think so. Unless there was an agenda not to act in utmost good faith towards each and every member club, that is.

 

And that's something I'm not sure if it's been touched on. The rules call on every member (and presumably the SPFL, itself) to act in good faith towards each other (club). Now would 'persuading' a club to change its vote in such a way as to do immeasurable harm to another club(s) not be the complete antithesis of acting in good faith, especially when that club's vote was the last vote to be cast and so complete the voting?

 

I'd love to hear that debated in court.

What I meant was the 5pm deadline was meaningless.

 

The issue is that all votes were cast.  

 

What I cant find is any precedent of a written resolution containing both accept and reject options.  Could it be argued that by returning their voting slip Dundee agreed to vote and therefore their agreement cannot be revoked?

 

Is there a chance the judge will find the way in which the resolution was worded (2 voting options) was legally incompetent.  Interestingly Lord Clark’s background is one of legal academia, so he may genuinely looking forward to getting stuck into this case.

Edited June 29, 2020 by David McCaig