SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[hughesie27]

33 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.

 

The teams had 28 days. As per rules and normal practice.

[Don Dan]

15 minutes ago, Paris 1984 said:

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!! 

A very good question for the QC to ask. 

[Gmcjambo]

11 minutes ago, Hungry hippo said:

 

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).

He just blows in the wind when it suits him.    He's all over the place re consistency throughout this process.  One minute they just facilitate and it's up to the members to put forward a resolution, the next they put forward a 14.10.10.10 resolution different to Hearts and Rangers.    If the reason to release the votes was transparency (which is clearly bollocks) that should also be the case for the 14.10.10.10 indicative vote but everyone is left in the dark.      You can't conduct yourself like this and then face a court case and not be shiting bricks.      He must be running scared behing the scenes.     I really hope he gets what he deserves. 

Edited June 29, 2020 by Gmcjambo

[PhoenixHearts]

4 hours 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'm by no means an expert, but I would have thought that the fact Dundee had the deciding vote and then changed it AFTER the results had already been published will harm their case.

 

It would be a totally different story if they initially voted one way then considered everything over the full 28 days and changed their mind without seeing the results.

 

It's dodgy as ****. They may be within their rights to change their mind, but surely not after the results are known.

[upgotheheads]

1 hour 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. 

 

 

 

A good point, and well spotted.

 

Also, if a vote is posted within the 28 days, which it was, can it be changed? I suspect that in any legally conducted organisation that it can't be.  

This looks better and better for us.

[hughesie27]

31 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

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

We have been led to believe that members voting No are allowed to change their vote to a yes at any point within the 28 days.

 

Either thats allowed or it isn't thats what our lawyers and the judge need to eek out. Just because all teams responded imdoesnt close the vote in the eyes of the SPFL. Seemingly this voting procedure is common place. 

[Don Dan]

The Dundee vote will be the undoing of the SPFL and The Board. It was always dodgy. 

[LachanHowie]

22 hours ago, Saughton Jambo said:

🤣

I’m not a Hearts fan, but I have huge respect for Ann Budge, Hearts, Ethan Hunt, SJ and lots of other posters on here. Although I follow several football forums, this is my first ever post and despite the fact you have your fair share of doommungers and bampots, I find this forum to be the most fair and balanced, not too mention intelligent and humorous at times.

Anyway, I just wanted to send you my best wishes in your just fight against the incompetent and corrupt SPFL and I sincerely hope you remain in the top division where you belong ( I even hope you finish 2nd next season)

going to finish with a couple of niggles, Rangers fans detest Jackson and the Daily Rag that some of you still call Daily Ranger, just look at the response on followfollow to the last bit of nonsense by Jackson so trust me , it is no longer the daily ranger.

.Finally, some on here still refer Rangers as Sevco, it’s not original, clever or funny , just what is expected from Hibs and Celtic fans, but is surely beneath Hearts fans, who in my experience are a class above.

[Skiba]

5 minutes ago, Gmcjambo said:

He just blows in the wind when it suits him.    He's all over the place re consistency throughout this process.  One minute they just facilitate and it's up to the members to put forward a resolution, the next they put forward a 14.10.10.10 resolution different to Hearts and Rangers.    If the reason to release the votes was transparency (which is clearly bollocks) that should also be the case for the 14.10.10.10 indicative vote but everyone is left in the dark.      You can't conduct yourself like this and then face a court case and not be shiting bricks.      He must be running scared behing the scenes.     I really hope he gets what he deserves. 

 

If he lies in court he'll end up as someones girlfriend in Barlinnie.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

2 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

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.

I agree with you and was not casting doubt on what you said, just bringing into the debate the idea that by 'persuading' Dundee to change its vote, and by Dundee agreeing to change its vote, neither party could possibly be acting in good faith towards the other member cubs, particularly those most impacted by that change of vote. I'd find it hard to accept that voting in such a way as to relegate a club(s) before the season is complete is 'acting in good faith', but it is surely beyond doubt that changing a vote to ensure a club(s) is relegated is definitely not acting in good faith, and therefor a breach of the SPFL's rules, thus corrupting the vote.

[hughesie27]

1 hour 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. 

 

 

I disagree. You say yourself that it says "if possible". Well what if it wasn't possible for one team? All clubs had 28 days. They were asking for prompt responses however no club was being forced to vote by Friday 5pm. Having a legal time limit and asking for responses before that if possible are not mutually exclusive.

[hughesie27]

3 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

The Dundee vote will be the undoing of the SPFL and The Board. It was always dodgy. 

Which part specifically? 

[David McCaig]

4 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

We have been led to believe that members voting No are allowed to change their vote to a yes at any point within the 28 days.

 

Either thats allowed or it isn't thats what our lawyers and the judge need to eek out. Just because all teams responded imdoesnt close the vote in the eyes of the SPFL. Seemingly this voting procedure is common place. 

The fact is that Company Law makes no provision for a no/reject vote as there isn’t supposed to be such an option on the ballot paper.

 

Its a case of vote to accept within 28 days or don’t vote at all.  Once your vote is cast it is cast and cannot be revoked.

 

It would appear common sense that the same rules would apply to a No/Reject vote.  It would be quite a leap by the Judge to decide that anyone casting a vote for No/Reject was essentially wasting their time.

 

 

 

[rmreido]

8 minutes ago, PhoenixHearts said:

 

I'm by no means an expert, but I would have thought that the fact Dundee had the deciding vote and then changed it AFTER the results had already been published will harm their case.

 

It would be a totally different story if they initially voted one way then considered everything over the full 28 days and changed their mind without seeing the results.

 

It's dodgy as ****. They may be within their rights to change their mind, but surely not after the results are known.

Your last part, says it all for me.

[hughesie27]

1 minute ago, David McCaig said:

The fact is that Company Law makes no provision for a no/reject vote as there isn’t supposed to be such an option on the ballot paper.

 

Its a case of vote to accept within 28 days or don’t vote at all.  Once your vote is cast it is cast and cannot be revoked.

 

It would appear common sense that the same rules would apply to a No/Reject vote.  It would be quite a leap by the Judge to decide that anyone casting a vote for No/Reject was essentially wasting their time.

 

 

 

That's a good point then.

[Gmcjambo]

10 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

I disagree. You say yourself that it says "if possible". Well what if it wasn't possible for one team? All clubs had 28 days. They were asking for prompt responses however no club was being forced to vote by Friday 5pm. Having a legal time limit and asking for responses before that if possible are not mutually exclusive.

I agree the 5pm 48 hours thing was a request and the rules state 28 days.  However,    everyone complied with this which included Dundee no vote.    You would think then that as some posters have said,   the process has actually been completed.     If what you say could be true then it would be impossible to shorten the 28 days for a no vote.  You would be in a crazy situation of say, the majority voting no within the 48 hours but everyone having to wait 28 days before this could be confirmed.  Its madness. 

Edited June 29, 2020 by Gmcjambo

[Rods]

4 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

I disagree. You say yourself that it says "if possible". Well what if it wasn't possible for one team? All clubs had 28 days. They were asking for prompt responses however no club was being forced to vote by Friday 5pm. Having a legal time limit and asking for responses before that if possible are not mutually exclusive.

I may be getting this wrong if they had 28 days why did the SPFL call Dundee? Even if it was just courtesy they said we have voted so that’s the end of it.
 

Doncaster and Co will not want to go down the route of recorded phone calls or Nelms being in court. 
 

Also Nelms plus Aberdeen where given concession. Who gave the SPFL authority to give out concessions? The SPFL act in everyones interest giving out concessions to the detriment of other teams is not within that remit it breaks company law surely. 

[kila]

Just now, hughesie27 said:

I disagree. You say yourself that it says "if possible". Well what if it wasn't possible for one team? All clubs had 28 days. They were asking for prompt responses however no club was being forced to vote by Friday 5pm. Having a legal time limit and asking for responses before that if possible are not mutually exclusive.

 

But having a preferred due time is influencing things? Teams felt compelled to vote within the preferred 48 hour time limit, especially since the vote was tied to a cash payout and they'd get it sooner if everyone voted sooner.

 

Manipulative behaviour, especially when the full facts weren't disclosed allowing an informed vote (e.g. how much money would be due back to Sky, BT, BBC, overseas etc). A whole chain of things that don't show a hint of integrity in Neil Doncaster.

 

No idea how that'll be seen in court or if he's likely to get away with it. Really hope Wednesday can be streamed, will be a very intriguing watch.

 

[JamboAl]

3 hours 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.

I think we need to be careful with semantics here.  I don't think the vote (procedure etc) itself was flawed in that everyone voted on time etc.

What was flawed (allegedly. of course) was the the way the SPFL handled it by announcing the result before the deadline, contacting Dundee etc to get a changed vote.  Now it just so happens that John Nelmes of Dundee is on the SPFL executive but I'm sure that is just... ahem... co-incidental.

[jock _turd]

Just now, hughesie27 said:

Which part specifically? 

 

Well I think revealing the votes cast so far and at the end of that saying we are waiting for one vote!

I cannot help but think that this vote was not as shambolic as we may be thinking. I am starting to think it was very cleverly choreographed. Had the normal voting routine been adopted this would never have happened but by issuing a ballot paper everyone felt obliged to answer and also before the 5 pm deadline. Had this been a 28 day return and Dundee's vote had not arrived the resolution would not have carried because the rule stated that a vote not returned would count as a vote against the resolution . The SPFL effectively gave themselves a reason to make it known a vote was missing... whereas with a standard  case yes votes before 28 days gives no excuse to contact anybody about missing votes.

[Taffin]

11 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Which part specifically? 

 

That they voted no, then changed to a yes once they knew they were the deciding vote and had been contacted by the administrator.

 

Maybe it's nothing underhand but surely you can see how that could be considered dodgy?

[SUTOL]

18 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

We have been led to believe that members voting No are allowed to change their vote to a yes at any point within the 28 days.

 

Either thats allowed or it isn't thats what our lawyers and the judge need to eek out. Just because all teams responded imdoesnt close the vote in the eyes of the SPFL. Seemingly this voting procedure is common place. 

 

Where? 

 

If it is I'm sure there is precedent that can be looked at. 

[McCrae]

I wonder if the SPFL notified clubs at the time of the vote that ending the season would mean the loss of millions from the SKY and BT?

[SUTOL]

4 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

I think we need to be careful with semantics here.  I don't think the vote (procedure etc) itself was flawed in that everyone voted on time etc.

What was flawed (allegedly. of course) was the the way the SPFL handled it by announcing the result before the deadline, contacting Dundee etc to get a changed vote.  Now it just so happens that John Nelmes of Dundee is on the SPFL executive but I'm sure that is just... ahem... co-incidental.

 

Asking for a No vote seems to be a flaw. Especially if a member is then pressured to change that vote. 

[Gmcjambo]

5 minutes ago, jock _turd said:

 

Well I think revealing the votes cast so far and at the end of that saying we are waiting for one vote!

I cannot help but think that this vote was not as shambolic as we may be thinking. I am starting to think it was very cleverly choreographed. Had the normal voting routine been adopted this would never have happened but by issuing a ballot paper everyone felt obliged to answer and also before the 5 pm deadline. Had this been a 28 day return and Dundee's vote had not arrived the resolution would not have carried because the rule stated that a vote not returned would count as a vote against the resolution . The SPFL effectively gave themselves a reason to make it known a vote was missing... whereas with a standard  case yes votes before 28 days gives no excuse to contact anybody about missing votes.

I think this is blatently obvious to any reasonable observer let alone a judge.  The only reason for releasing votes when you believe you have just one outstanding vote is to put a ton of pressure on the club yet to vote.  Especially when they would be going against the majority on such a key vote.  This in itself is utterly scandalous. 

Edited June 29, 2020 by Gmcjambo

[hughesie27]

5 minutes ago, Gmcjambo said:

I agree the 5pm 48 hours thing was a request and the rules state 28 days.  However,    everyone complied with this which included Dundee no vote.    You would think then that as some posters have said,   the process has actually been completed.     If what you say could be true then it would be impossible to shorten the 28 days for a no vote.  You would be in a crazy situation of say, the majority voting no within the 48 hours but everyone having to wait 28 days before this could be confirmed.  Its madness. 

A decent point too.

5 minutes ago, Rods said:

I may be getting this wrong if they had 28 days why did the SPFL call Dundee? Even if it was just courtesy they said we have voted so that’s the end of it.
 

Doncaster and Co will not want to go down the route of recorded phone calls or Nelms being in court. 
 

Also Nelms plus Aberdeen where given concession. Who gave the SPFL authority to give out concessions? The SPFL act in everyones interest giving out concessions to the detriment of other teams is not within that remit it breaks company law surely. 

Excuse my bluntness but who cares if Dundee got a phonecall? Of course if the content of that was dodgy thats different but there is no evidence of that.

The SPFL asked for votes by 5pm if possible, they received them all but one so gave them a call to clarify their position and if they intended on voting. Nothing there for a Judge to concern himself with I'd say. 

What concessions are you referring to?

[SUTOL]

Just now, McCrae said:

I wonder if the SPFL notified clubs at the time of the vote that ending the season would mean the loss of millions from the SKY and BT?

 

It was more the opposite. 

 

If they didn't end it 'now' they wouldn't/couldn't get their money, not even some of it. 

 

[Stupid Sexy Flanders]

1 minute ago, McCrae said:

I wonder if the SPFL notified clubs at the time of the vote that ending the season would mean the loss of millions from the SKY and BT?

 

They didn't. This was one of the things mentioned in Rangers' "dossier", and the SPFL responded by saying "We didn't inform clubs of this because it's simply not true". 

 

More should be being made of this IMO. That alone should be enough to prove their guilt. 

[jock _turd]

Just now, hughesie27 said:

A decent point too.

Excuse my bluntness but who cares if Dundee got a phonecall? Of course if the content of that was dodgy thats different but there is no evidence of that.

The SPFL asked for votes by 5pm if possible, they received them all but one so gave them a call to clarify their position and if they intended on voting. Nothing there for a Judge to concern himself with I'd say. 

What concessions are you referring to?

Are you even thinking straight here? If the vote from Dundee was not going to affect the outcome of whether the resolution carried or not why would they Have contacted them? They would just have said the resolution passed or failed. I think you are F'kn at it bud!

 

 

or you are F'kn thick

Edited June 29, 2020 by jock _turd

[SUTOL]

37 minutes ago, Big Mack said:

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.

 

The number of clubs in the SPFL is in the articles, the number of clubs in the divisions, the number of games, play-offs etc is in the Rules. 

[hughesie27]

5 minutes ago, SUTOL said:

 

Where? 

 

If it is I'm sure there is precedent that can be looked at. 

Not sure about other examples but the rule is referenced here. https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/5549058/ayr-lachlan-cameron-change-spfl-vote-no/

 

And a number of people, including I think FootballFirst has said that this is a fairly standard practice.

[David McCaig]

1 minute ago, SUTOL said:

 

Where? 

 

If it is I'm sure there is precedent that can be looked at. 

I can find no precedent which allows a no vote to be revoked.  A written resolution is only supposed to contain one voting option which is accept and once your vote is cast it is cast. So the only law in play is that when you cast a vote it is irrevocable

 

Dundee could have chosen to abstain right up until hour 23 of day 27... Indeed they could have run a national advertising campaign saying no, no, no ad infinitum, but the moment they cast a vote their decision was made.

[JamboAl]

2 minutes ago, SUTOL said:

 

Asking for a No vote seems to be a flaw. Especially if a member is then pressured to change that vote. 

As I opined, it was how they handled it that was flawed.

[David McCaig]

6 minutes ago, SUTOL said:

 

Asking for a No vote seems to be a flaw. Especially if a member is then pressured to change that vote. 

Asking for a no vote which is effectively meaningless seems especially flawed.

[Don Dan]

22 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Which part specifically? 

The vote having been sent prior to the 5pm deadline and not counted as being cast. The unwarranted phone call from the SPFL supposedly asking where the vote was. The calling of the vote before the Dundee vote was seen. Actually the whole Dundee voting saga. 

[David McCaig]

Just now, JamboAl said:

As I opined, it was how they handled it that was flawed.

That's a fair point... Its their decision to apply different rules to legally cast ballots that is unfair/flawed/illegal.

[Rods]

1 minute ago, hughesie27 said:

A decent point too.

Excuse my bluntness but who cares if Dundee got a phonecall? Of course if the content of that was dodgy thats different but there is no evidence of that.

The SPFL asked for votes by 5pm if possible, they received them all but one so gave them a call to clarify their position and if they intended on voting. Nothing there for a Judge to concern himself with I'd say. 

What concessions are you referring to?

 

The concession that Reconstruction would be on the table. Dundee voted for a different resolution after they voted no for the original resolution doncaster and co said it was for the same resolution,

 

Also Aberdeen were told that thier vote was moot by Doncaster. Doncaster is meant to be independent he works for all of the clubs. How is it to the benefit of Hearts/Partick and Stranrear? Doncaster had no right to call anyone.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52339223

[The Wrinkly Ninja]

Unsure why people keep repeating the “ no votes can be changed to a yes “.

 

Please show me where this is written in SPFL articles, the petition itself or in standard company law.

 

You will find that it is normal practice to have 28 days to agree to a resolution with any non reply taken as a no with respondents requested to reply if they agree within the 28 days.

 

The SPFL did not issue the resolution to those normal rules however... they clearly requested a yes or no response. They did state that a yes vote could not be changed to a no. They did not state that once a no vote is cast it could be changed.

 

As for any arguments as to whether the no vote was actually cast. Of course it was. How could Dundee have had a conversation with Ian Blair on the Friday asking for their previous no vote to be disregarded if it hadn’t been cast. 

 

It it is not written anywhere that votes once cast can be disregarded.

[Cobblers]

1 hour 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.

 

I hate to say it but my reading of the document is that everyone had 28 days to agree to the proposal.  If you didn’t want to support it you didn’t need to do anything.   Once you had voted in favour you couldn’t reverse your vote.  If you initially voted no there is nothing I can see in the document that states you couldn’t change your mind Within 28 days to support it.  It doesn’t seem fair to me but that’s what the document seems to state.  

[hughesie27]

5 minutes ago, jock _turd said:

Are you even thinking straight here? If the vote from Dundee was not going to affect the outcome of whether the resolution carried or not why would they cave contacted them? They would just have said the resolution passed or failed. I think you are F'kn at it bud!

If other teams hadn't responded then I'm sure they would have got a phonecall too.

 

I'm thinking straight. I'm thinking about what the evidence and the facts are and what the SPFL can say to justify their actions. Phoning Dundee after the vote is easily explained by the SPFL. Whether the Judge asked for evidence of the conversation is ankther thing.

[Jambof3tornado]

29 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

I disagree. You say yourself that it says "if possible". Well what if it wasn't possible for one team? All clubs had 28 days. They were asking for prompt responses however no club was being forced to vote by Friday 5pm. Having a legal time limit and asking for responses before that if possible are not mutually exclusive.

If they had 28 days to vote why were dundee chased up for theirs 27 days early?

[David McCaig]

7 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Not sure about other examples but the rule is referenced here. https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/5549058/ayr-lachlan-cameron-change-spfl-vote-no/

 

And a number of people, including I think FootballFirst has said that this is a fairly standard practice.

If it's standard practice give me one other example of precedent.

[JamboAl]

3 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

That's a fair point... Its their decision to apply different rules to legally cast ballots that is unfair/flawed/illegal.

There is a subtle difference.

If the vote (ie process etc) was flawed there may be a case for have it rerun but if it was corect in principle and the SPFL arsed it up, that is a quite different matter.

[busby1985]

Dundee United obviously confident that our case will be patched. Looks like they’ve agreed a deal to bring in Steve McLaren. Can’t imagine he’ll be coming to manage in the Scottish championship. 

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

1 hour ago, Boris said:

Give a France.

 

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

 

Integrity has no price.

Totally agree. Meanwhile realising nobody else cares about our lot.

[SUTOL]

6 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Not sure about other examples but the rule is referenced here. https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/5549058/ayr-lachlan-cameron-change-spfl-vote-no/

 

And a number of people, including I think FootballFirst has said that this is a fairly standard practice.

 

Yes it's the Law that you can't withdraw a vote for a resolution after it is cast. Nobody is disagreeing with that. I've posted the direct quote from the Companies act more than once this thread. 

 

From your post I quoted, it seemed to me at least, that you said that asking for Yes and No votes on a resolution was "standard practice".

 

[jock _turd]

Just now, hughesie27 said:

If other teams hadn't responded then I'm sure they would have got a phonecall too.

 

I'm thinking straight. I'm thinking about what the evidence and the facts are and what the SPFL can say to justify their actions. Phoning Dundee after the vote is easily explained by the SPFL. Whether the Judge asked for evidence of the conversation is ankther thing.

 

Get tae ya arsehole if the vote still to be cast was meaningless... and they knew it was Dundee why they contact them? Think again you are making an arse of yourself 

[David McCaig]

Just now, busby1985 said:

Dundee United obviously confident that our case will be patched. Looks like they’ve agreed a deal to bring in Steve McLaren. Can’t imagine he’ll be coming to manage in the Scottish championship. 

Hearts obviously confident their case will be successful.  Looks like they've agreed deals for Robbie Neilson/Craig Gordon. Can't imagine they'll be coming to manage/play in the Scottish Championship.

[David McCaig]

1 minute ago, SUTOL said:

 

Yes it's the Law that you can't withdraw a vote for a resolution after it is cast. Nobody is disagreeing with that. I've posted the direct quote from the Companies act more than once this thread. 

 

From your post I quoted, it seemed to me at least, that you said that asking for Yes and No votes on a resolution was "standard practice".

 

I can find no precedent of this at all.

[Don Dan]

This is worth a read.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52271406