SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[busby1985]

Just now, David McCaig said:

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.

Our situation is win win tho and both Neilson and Gordon understand that there is a chance they’ll be in the league below. I highly doubt it has been sold to McLaren as there is a chance he’ll be in the championship. 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

6 minutes ago, 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. 

 

The very definition of washed up manager. D Utd are going to crash and burn in spectacular stye I can feel it. Are they really interviewing him or is he just getting his name in the papers like he did with us?

Edited June 29, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[hughesie27]

2 minutes 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 was taking from that article that as a Yes cannot be changed. A No can. If it is actually the case as other have suggested that there shouldn't have been a "No" option then I'm happy to admit I'm wrong. I hope that is the case!

[Riccarton3]

11 minutes ago, The Wrinkly Ninja said:

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.

Why would they say yes can become no but not the other way round?

[hughesie27]

3 minutes ago, jock _turd said:

 

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 

Could you please retype this in English so I can respond to your post please? Try not to call me an arsehole next time. It makes you look like a ****ing child :).

[SUTOL]

1 minute ago, David McCaig said:

I can find no precedent of this at all.

 

The Yes or No vote? 

 

Correct, never heard of it. 

 

Resolutions normally pass on a show of hands at the meeting. You vote for it by raising your hand. You don't 'vote' against it.

 

[David McCaig]

2 minutes ago, busby1985 said:

Our situation is win win tho and both Neilson and Gordon understand that there is a chance they’ll be in the league below. I highly doubt it has been sold to McLaren as there is a chance he’ll be in the championship. 

Pretty naive or desperate from MacLaren if he's not aware of a rather pivotal court case in progress!!

[NANOJAMBO]

31 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.

My point is , once again, the SPFL created a narrative that they are desperately trying to get the cash out to the clubs asap. 

So , either the clubs had 28 days to vote or they didn't - and it is quite clear from the wording of the ballot paper that the   expectation is/was for all clubs to respond by what appears to be a  mutually agreed timeframe   - otherwise , what was the point of putting it on the ballot papers in the first place ?

 

The SPFL want to  have it both ways but it's quite clear they acted in bad faith by getting Dundee to change their mind after the mutually agreed timeline had expired. 

[Салатные палочки]

3 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

The very definition of washed up manager. D Utd are going to crash and burn in spectacular stye I can feel it. Are they really interviewing him or is he just getting his name in the papers like he did with us?

 

I would expect him to be demanding a pretty hefty wedge . 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

1 minute ago, David McCaig said:

Pretty naive or desperate from MacLaren if he's not aware of a rather pivotal court case in progress!!

 

Apparently Jon Daly and Austin McPhee also talking to Utd but hey don't make the headlines. I'd be surprised if this isn't McLaren's agent just using the D Utd vacancy to remind people Steve McLaren is still a thing. If he got the job, I'd be amazed. He'll cost a packet and will want a transfer budget. It would be a very Vlad move.

[SUTOL]

3 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

I was taking from that article that as a Yes cannot be changed. A No can. If it is actually the case as other have suggested that there shouldn't have been a "No" option then I'm happy to admit I'm wrong. I hope that is the case!

 

In normal circumstances you don't do anything to 'vote' against a resolution.

Votes are normally only expressed for a resolution. 

 

It's not a major leap to think that once you have cast/submitted your vote that it can't then be changed. 

Whether it is For or Against a resolution. Once you have voted, you have voted. 

[Gmcjambo]

6 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

This is worth a read.

 

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

 

 

"Documents seen by BBC Scotland also show that a yes vote for the proposal was binding, but a no vote via an abstention, was not."      Interesting the the BBC didn't interpret that you could change a cast vote from no to yes, but you could only do so if you had abstained.  

 

[jock _turd]

Just now, hughesie27 said:

Could you please retype this in English so I can respond to your post please? Try not to call me an arsehole next time. It makes you look like a ****ing child :).

 

You are stating that there was no particular reason why the SPFL contacted DFC about their vote and they would have phoned other clubs? It is blatantly obvious why the vote was crucial to the carrying of the resolution... if it had been meaningless they would not have even bothered would they... oh hello DFC this is the SPFL calling we have not received your vote not that is matters as the resolution outcome has already been decided by the votes already cast but anyway what would you like to vote yes or no ?

I'll stop calling you an arsehole when you stop sending the message you are one!

[Sooperstar]

Nobody knows what they're talking about.

[Don Dan]

2 minutes ago, Gmcjambo said:

 

"Documents seen by BBC Scotland also show that a yes vote for the proposal was binding, but a no vote via an abstention, was not."      Interesting the the BBC didn't interpret that you could change a cast vote from no to yes, but you could only do so if you had abstained.  

 

Playing semantics here but there was no YES or NO. It was Adopt or Reject by indicating in the box below. 

[bawheed]

6 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Could you please retype this in English so I can respond to your post please? Try not to call me an arsehole next time. It makes you look like a ****ing child :).

 

Think that's a bit harsh on Turd, English is obviously not his first language judging from the rest of his or her posts.

[Gmcjambo]

Just now, Dannie Boy said:

Playing semantics here but there was no YES or NO. It was Adopt or Reject by indicating in the box below. 

I know, it's confusing, but that's the only way I can interpret the BBC's comments.   Thinking you could indicate abstentions by not casting a vote or informally through discussions or meetings perhaps?  Either way the BBC have not confirmed you can change a cast no vote - which is in line with quite a number of posters views who seem to have some knowledge of this matter. 

[SUTOL]

6 minutes ago, Gmcjambo said:

 

"Documents seen by BBC Scotland also show that a yes vote for the proposal was binding, but a no vote via an abstention, was not."      Interesting the the BBC didn't interpret that you could change a cast vote from no to yes, but you could only do so if you had abstained.  

 

 

Obviously from the image that Dundee didn't abstain from the voting process.

 

 

[Riccarton3]

1 minute ago, NANOJAMBO said:

My point is , once again, the SPFL created a narrative that they are desperately trying to get the cash out to the clubs asap. 

So , either the clubs had 28 days to vote or they didn't - and it is quite clear from the wording of the ballot paper that the   expectation is/was for all clubs to respond by what appears to be a  mutually agreed timeframe   - otherwise , what was the point of putting it on the ballot papers in the first place ?

 

The SPFL want to  have it both ways but it's quite clear they acted in bad faith by getting Dundee to change their mind after the mutually agreed timeline had expired. 

Just on catch up. My tablet goes back and shows me posts in real time.

 

I'm thinking the SPFL wanted yea and nay votes so that they could  control the outcome. Know who to approach should things go tight should they need to?

[The Wrinkly Ninja]

5 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

Why would they say yes can become no but not the other way round?

 

They said yes can’t become no because that’s the way special resolutions normally work.

 

You send out the resolution.

 

You let the respondent know how they should inform you that they agree.

 

You tell them all that there are no backsies on a yes vote.

 

You wait until you have 75% votes saying yes and you let everyone know that it has passed.

 

If you don’t have 75% after 28 days then it is not passed.

 

This is to avoid having all 42 members round a table. A non response is taken as a hand up for no as it would be if the vote was taken at a table.

 

What a special resolution doesn’t do is ask for a yes or no response. If you ask for a no response then it is like a hand up for no as soon as it is cast. As if you are all round a table. When all votes are cast - the vote ends. The28 day rule does not apply.

 

 

 

[Gmcjambo]

Just now, SUTOL said:

 

Obviously from the image that Dundee didn't abstain from the voting process.

 

 

No,  it was 100% cast and by 5pm as per the requested deadline,   it was more the point about being able to change the vote once cast I was referring to.  However, it does seem unlikely given other posts on this subject.    Hopefully we're on fairly solid ground on the voting issue - let alone the other issues we're all aware off too.

[jock _turd]

Just now, Riccarton3 said:

Just on catch up. My tablet goes back and shows me posts in real time.

 

I'm thinking the SPFL wanted yea and nay votes so that they could  control the outcome. Know who to approach should things go tight should they need to?

 

Already said that in a post an hour ago.

[SUTOL]

3 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

Just on catch up. My tablet goes back and shows me posts in real time.

 

I'm thinking the SPFL wanted yea and nay votes so that they could  control the outcome. Know who to approach should things go tight should they need to?

 

They would know who was against anyway if they just counted the Adopt votes. 

Edited June 29, 2020 by SUTOL
typo

[RobNox]

I'm not a legal expert, but this is my take on events regarding the vote, based on numerous poster's comments and the contents of the ballot paper, as well as the fact we all know what a conniving shyster Doncaster is.

 

The law allows clubs 28 days to respond to the resolution, there is no need to cast a no vote, abstention will be regarded as a vote against.  Once a yes vote has been made, it cannot be withdrawn.

 

Doncaster asked the clubs to respond within 48 hours, if possible, citing the urgency of the situation as the rationale for the request.  However, that request did not remove the right of any club to take longer if they felt they needed to.  That is their legal right.

 

I believe part of the reason for the request to respond so quickly was that it would allow the SPFL to ascertain whether the resolution had been passed, while still giving them the possibility to attempt to influence clubs who had not supported it to change their position.

 

As there is no requirement in law to cast a no vote, then there is no provision made in law that a no vote cannot be withdrawn.   Someone above said that common sense would suggest that the same principle should apply, but we are not dealing in common sense, we are dealing in legal issues.

 

At any time within the 28 day period, a club had the right to vote in favour of the resolution, even if they had previously indicated they were against it, because legally, the resolution only fails once the 28 days are up and there have been insufficient votes in favour.  Asking the clubs to vote yes or no within 48 hours doesn't alter that.

 

As I said up front, just my take on things, and I'm sure someone with far better understanding of the law will point out where I'm talking through my backside, not for the first time on this thread tbf!

[Different Class]

The SPFL may argue that Dundee's No vote wasn't legally significant, as the option of voting No doesn't normally exist in the passing of resolutions. They could argue that the No option was an informal way of clubs making their position known as soon as possible due to the urgent nature of the vote. The SPFL's position was that 28 days was too long to wait for payments to be made to clubs and the league had to be completed one way or another for this to happen. 

 

Rather than the Dundee No vote, it could be the SPFL's conduct afterwards that makes the resolution itself illegal, in that it was effectively amended after all but one members had voted. It could come down to whether the SPFL's post-vote communication with Dundee was sufficient to make the resolution illegal, and if this can be proved.

[David McCaig]

2 minutes ago, Gmcjambo said:

I know, it's confusing, but that's the only way I can interpret the BBC's comments.   Thinking you could indicate abstentions by not casting a vote or informally through discussions or meetings perhaps?  Either way the BBC have not confirmed you can change a cast no vote - which is in line with quite a number of posters views who seem to have some knowledge of this matter. 

The more we discuss and analyse this, you can't help but feel that SPFL  are betting the house on the case going to the SFA... Which it wont.

 

Their whole defence just seems preposterous from claiming no votes don't count, to dodgy calls, to duty of care and even canvassing letters to other clubs!!

 

Hopefully Lord Clark confirms the case falls under his jurisdiction on Wednesday and the SPFL cave by Thursday.

[David McCaig]

4 minutes ago, The Wrinkly Ninja said:

 

They said yes can’t become no because that’s the way special resolutions normally work.

 

You send out the resolution.

 

You let the respondent know how they should inform you that they agree.

 

You tell them all that there are no backsies on a yes vote.

 

You wait until you have 75% votes saying yes and you let everyone know that it has passed.

 

If you don’t have 75% after 28 days then it is not passed.

 

This is to avoid having all 42 members round a table. A non response is taken as a hand up for no as it would be if the vote was taken at a table.

 

What a special resolution doesn’t do is ask for a yes or no response. If you ask for a no response then it is like a hand up for no as soon as it is cast. As if you are all round a table. When all votes are cast - the vote ends. The28 day rule does not apply.

 

 

 

That is my reading of the situation as well.

[Riccarton3]

6 minutes ago, SUTOL said:

 

Obviously from the image that Dundee didn't abstain from the voting process.

 

 

Is that not gold dust?

[Gmcjambo]

Just now, David McCaig said:

The more we discuss and analyse this, you can't help but feel that SPFL  are betting the house on the case going to the SFA... Which it wont.

 

Their whole defence just seems preposterous from claiming no votes don't count, to dodgy calls, to duty of care and even canvassing letters to other clubs!!

 

Hopefully Lord Clark confirms the case falls under his jurisdiction on Wednesday and the SPFL cave by Thursday.

I know - it really doesn't stand up to any level of scrutiny does it?    I'm nervous because of the high stakes and you never know with legal processes, but there is a multitude of sins on one side here, and then extremely reasonable behaviour throughout by the victims - how as it happens are being treated extremely badly also by the majority of SPFL members.    If there is any justice................!

[SUTOL]

2 minutes ago, Gmcjambo said:

No,  it was 100% cast and by 5pm as per the requested deadline,   it was more the point about being able to change the vote once cast I was referring to.  However, it does seem unlikely given other posts on this subject.    Hopefully we're on fairly solid ground on the voting issue - let alone the other issues we're all aware off too.

 

I said earlier today that depending on how the judge rules it could set a precedent for miss-handled votes in the future. 

But thinking about it again, he might not even make mention of it, as it is not what we are looking for a decision from him on. 

It is probably in our petition to show poor process by the SPFL board. 

[jock _turd]

Just now, SUTOL said:

 

They would know who was against anyway of they just counted the Adopt votes. 

 

The thing is normally there would only be an adopt option giving reject meant , for me anyway, that all the clubs felt obliged to cast there vote. Doing it that way allowed the SPFL to select the team from the three who did reject the resolution before the 5pm deadline so it gave them a reason to contact the club who " they say had not returned their vote"... it was a carefully planned setup from the off should there be a need the mechanism was in place!

[Cobblers]

2 minutes ago, RobNox said:

I'm not a legal expert, but this is my take on events regarding the vote, based on numerous poster's comments and the contents of the ballot paper, as well as the fact we all know what a conniving shyster Doncaster is.

 

The law allows clubs 28 days to respond to the resolution, there is no need to cast a no vote, abstention will be regarded as a vote against.  Once a yes vote has been made, it cannot be withdrawn.

 

Doncaster asked the clubs to respond within 48 hours, if possible, citing the urgency of the situation as the rationale for the request.  However, that request did not remove the right of any club to take longer if they felt they needed to.  That is their legal right.

 

I believe part of the reason for the request to respond so quickly was that it would allow the SPFL to ascertain whether the resolution had been passed, while still giving them the possibility to attempt to influence clubs who had not supported it to change their position.

 

As there is no requirement in law to cast a no vote, then there is no provision made in law that a no vote cannot be withdrawn.   Someone above said that common sense would suggest that the same principle should apply, but we are not dealing in common sense, we are dealing in legal issues.

 

At any time within the 28 day period, a club had the right to vote in favour of the resolution, even if they had previously indicated they were against it, because legally, the resolution only fails once the 28 days are up and there have been insufficient votes in favour.  Asking the clubs to vote yes or no within 48 hours doesn't alter that.

 

As I said up front, just my take on things, and I'm sure someone with far better understanding of the law will point out where I'm talking through my backside, not for the first time on this thread tbf!

That’s my take on it,  Even if the Dundee vote had been properly received by the SPFL I assume they still had the option of trying to persuade them to change it for the next 27 days.  No point in them trying to influence the other 2 in the Championship who had voted no.

[Riccarton3]

6 minutes ago, jock _turd said:

 

Already said that in a post an hour ago.

Sorry, mate. Usually good at recapping. Thought I could get away with it.

[David McCaig]

4 minutes ago, RobNox said:

I'm not a legal expert, but this is my take on events regarding the vote, based on numerous poster's comments and the contents of the ballot paper, as well as the fact we all know what a conniving shyster Doncaster is.

 

The law allows clubs 28 days to respond to the resolution, there is no need to cast a no vote, abstention will be regarded as a vote against.  Once a yes vote has been made, it cannot be withdrawn.

 

Doncaster asked the clubs to respond within 48 hours, if possible, citing the urgency of the situation as the rationale for the request.  However, that request did not remove the right of any club to take longer if they felt they needed to.  That is their legal right.

 

I believe part of the reason for the request to respond so quickly was that it would allow the SPFL to ascertain whether the resolution had been passed, while still giving them the possibility to attempt to influence clubs who had not supported it to change their position.

 

As there is no requirement in law to cast a no vote, then there is no provision made in law that a no vote cannot be withdrawn.   Someone above said that common sense would suggest that the same principle should apply, but we are not dealing in common sense, we are dealing in legal issues.

 

At any time within the 28 day period, a club had the right to vote in favour of the resolution, even if they had previously indicated they were against it, because legally, the resolution only fails once the 28 days are up and there have been insufficient votes in favour.  Asking the clubs to vote yes or no within 48 hours doesn't alter that.

 

As I said up front, just my take on things, and I'm sure someone with far better understanding of the law will point out where I'm talking through my backside, not for the first time on this thread tbf!

I think that Lord Clark would view that scenario as being in incredibly bad faith by the SPFL and would cast an extremely dim light on all their other actions.

[Riccarton3]

12 minutes ago, The Wrinkly Ninja said:

 

They said yes can’t become no because that’s the way special resolutions normally work.

 

You send out the resolution.

 

You let the respondent know how they should inform you that they agree.

 

You tell them all that there are no backsies on a yes vote.

 

You wait until you have 75% votes saying yes and you let everyone know that it has passed.

 

If you don’t have 75% after 28 days then it is not passed.

 

This is to avoid having all 42 members round a table. A non response is taken as a hand up for no as it would be if the vote was taken at a table.

 

What a special resolution doesn’t do is ask for a yes or no response. If you ask for a no response then it is like a hand up for no as soon as it is cast. As if you are all round a table. When all votes are cast - the vote ends. The28 day rule does not apply.

 

 

 

Thanks for that description.  I've read it 3 times and get it.

Edited June 29, 2020 by Riccarton3

[kila]

14 minutes ago, RobNox said:

I'm not a legal expert, but this is my take on events regarding the vote, based on numerous poster's comments and the contents of the ballot paper, as well as the fact we all know what a conniving shyster Doncaster is.

 

The law allows clubs 28 days to respond to the resolution, there is no need to cast a no vote, abstention will be regarded as a vote against.  Once a yes vote has been made, it cannot be withdrawn.

 

Doncaster asked the clubs to respond within 48 hours, if possible, citing the urgency of the situation as the rationale for the request.  However, that request did not remove the right of any club to take longer if they felt they needed to.  That is their legal right.

 

I believe part of the reason for the request to respond so quickly was that it would allow the SPFL to ascertain whether the resolution had been passed, while still giving them the possibility to attempt to influence clubs who had not supported it to change their position.

 

As there is no requirement in law to cast a no vote, then there is no provision made in law that a no vote cannot be withdrawn.   Someone above said that common sense would suggest that the same principle should apply, but we are not dealing in common sense, we are dealing in legal issues.

 

At any time within the 28 day period, a club had the right to vote in favour of the resolution, even if they had previously indicated they were against it, because legally, the resolution only fails once the 28 days are up and there have been insufficient votes in favour.  Asking the clubs to vote yes or no within 48 hours doesn't alter that.

 

As I said up front, just my take on things, and I'm sure someone with far better understanding of the law will point out where I'm talking through my backside, not for the first time on this thread tbf!

 

So for the resolution to fail, we'd have to wait the full 28 days? Otherwise why, unusually, put a no vote option on the card?

 

The SPFL made it clear time was of the essence and they could not release any desperately needed funds until this was agreed. So how in such desperate times were clubs meant to reject the resolution and quickly move onto the next option/avenue to explore?

 

The SPFL pressured clubs into this vote happening as quickly as possible and didn't disclose full facts or even suggest alternatives. The Aberdeen statement at the time confirms that.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2020 by kila

[jock _turd]

Just now, Cobblers said:

I believe part of the reason for the request to respond so quickly was that it would allow the SPFL to ascertain whether the resolution had been passed, while still giving them the possibility to attempt to influence clubs who had not supported it to change their position.

 

That sounds terrible to be honest. Not that you have said it but the actual notion that one club where were told they had the casting vote were in a position to bargain with the board who set out the resolution in the first place... a privilege no other club had and we do still not know what was said to make DFC change what must have been a well reasoned decision against the resolution to then suit the board's agenda... would a court accept such a morally corrupt act? 

[Rods]

12 minutes ago, Cobblers said:

That’s my take on it,  Even if the Dundee vote had been properly received by the SPFL I assume they still had the option of trying to persuade them to change it for the next 27 days.  No point in them trying to influence the other 2 in the Championship who had voted no.

 

I am not sure if I am getting this wrong but the SPFL board Doncaster et al are working on behalf of everyone. So why would they persuade teams to vote in favour of a resolution that clearly damages three teams. I am not sure if there is any company law broken at that point. My understanding is they offer up the resolution and let the 42 teams decide and have no sway either way. Unless of course you have told people its already been decided in a letter to say uefa 6 days prior. What the concern is for the SPFL is do they have the time to get bogged down in a legal fight. We certainly have its not like the league we are being expelled into starts anytime soon.

[Riccarton3]

2 minutes ago, Rods said:

 

I am not sure if I am getting this wrong but the SPFL board Doncaster et al are working on behalf of everyone. So why would they persuade teams to vote in favour of a resolution that clearly damages three teams. I am not sure if there is any company law broken at that point. My understanding is they offer up the resolution and let the 42 teams decide and have no sway either way. Unless of course you have told people its already been decided in a letter to say uefa 6 days prior. What the concern is for the SPFL is do they have the time to get bogged down in a legal fight. We certainly have its not like the league we are being expelled into starts anytime soon.

Hasn't it already been said that they view lobbying clubs as acceptable?

[Kiwidoug]

If we just finish up with £8,000,000, what should we do with it?  How about buying Hibs?  What did Ron splash out to buy them? A lot less than £8m if I remember correctly.  They'll be worth a lot less now of course with all this covid business.

 

If we do buy them, what would we do with them.  Probably take a couple of players.  Sell the farm.  Use the Giro for training.

 

Ron would bite our hand off to get shot.

[Rods]

3 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

Hasn't it already been said that they view lobbying clubs as acceptable?

 

Ah okay I may have missed that point.

[Whatsthefuture]

14 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

The more we discuss and analyse this, you can't help but feel that SPFL  are betting the house on the case going to the SFA... Which it wont.

 

Their whole defence just seems preposterous from claiming no votes don't count, to dodgy calls, to duty of care and even canvassing letters to other clubs!!

 

Hopefully Lord Clark confirms the case falls under his jurisdiction on Wednesday and the SPFL cave by Thursday.

I have just read through around 20 pages and what seems blatantly apparent is points being highlighted in the pages of KB if highlighted by our QC may just lead to clarification questions from Lord Clark to the, who why and when.
 

How was the SPFL QCs risk recommendation evaluated by the board 

 

How was the voting structure prepared in a rushed manner that has proven to have misrepresented the SPFLs objectives. 
 

Why was the Dundee email just not resent when the conversation to clarify it had not been received 

 

CoS is about points of law and will ensure these  has not been broken or misrepresented 

 

[Cobblers]

6 minutes ago, Rods said:

 

I am not sure if I am getting this wrong but the SPFL board Doncaster et al are working on behalf of everyone. So why would they persuade teams to vote in favour of a resolution that clearly damages three teams. I am not sure if there is any company law broken at that point. My understanding is they offer up the resolution and let the 42 teams decide and have no sway either way. Unless of course you have told people its already been decided in a letter to say uefa 6 days prior. What the concern is for the SPFL is do they have the time to get bogged down in a legal fight. We certainly have its not like the league we are being expelled into starts anytime soon.

I’m not an expert but it was their proposal that they wanted the clubs to vote for and they were recommending acceptance.  It’s not unusual therefore for them to try to persuade people to vote in favour of their proposal.  Not sure why they didn’t try as hard to get reconstruction through though.

[Gambo]

46 minutes ago, Sooperstar said:

Nobody knows what they're talking about.

Which is a good thing imo as by the sound of things the SPFL defence/reply on Wednesday is going to be all over the place causing in fighting amonst the clubs.

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

Less than 48 hours to if not end the misery at least give us an idea of what is legal and what is not. 

[Rods]

1 minute ago, Cobblers said:

I’m not an expert but it was their proposal that they wanted the clubs to vote for and they were recommending acceptance.  It’s not unusual therefore for them to try to persuade people to vote in favour of their proposal.  Not sure why they didn’t try as hard to get reconstruction through though.

 

I jsut find it odd that I percieve them to be impartial maybe more down to their fiducury duties rather than company law. I was thinking we were going that way as we mention other options not being put forward ie they only wanted one option and forced it through.

[Cobblers]

5 minutes ago, Rods said:

 

I jsut find it odd that I percieve them to be impartial maybe more down to their fiducury duties rather than company law. I was thinking we were going that way as we mention other options not being put forward ie they only wanted one option and forced it through.

I still think their is an issue about them acting in the best interests of all their members which they clearly haven’t in the case of us and PT.

Edited June 29, 2020 by Cobblers

[Riccarton3]

7 minutes ago, Rods said:

 

Ah okay I may have missed that point.

Don't take that as gospel. I'm sure someone said it in response probably to the bullying/coercion talk. Around that time. Can't be sure it was one of the Board. If it would be anyone, Gray

[Hagar the Horrible]

2 minutes ago, Gambo said:

Which is a good thing imo as by the sound of things the SPFL defence/reply on Wednesday is going to be all over the place causing in fighting amonst the clubs.

I still think the basis for their defence is to get the courts to return the decision for the SFA to arbitrate. Which is already to throw our appeal out before lord Clark goes for his post case shite. If and its a big if.if that's all they have. Then there are plenty of clubs who will go radge and turn on each other. Anyhow 48 hours and we will know. I still see the SPFL folding if it is settled by the courts. Which will allow for another cover up. 

[Footballfirst]

56 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.

I'm not sure what the standard practice is that I have spoken about.

 

Company Law is clear on written resolutions ..... you seek agreement to the resolution  .... members (shareholders) either agree or they don't vote.  ...... members have 28 days to agree ....... any agreements once made cannot be revoked ..... the resolution will pass once the number of agreements meets the required threshold  ......... If the resolution does not have the requisite number of agreements after 28 days then the resolution will expire.

 

The problem with the SPFL's "written resolution" is that it directly sought either "agree" or "disagree" with a request that votes be submitted within two days if possible.

 

Company Law appears not to have provision or expectation for "no" or "disagree" votes.  The opinion of the PT QC was that the SFPL cannot use "yes votes cannot be be revoked, but no votes can" argument. He states that Dundee's vote should have been accepted as soon as it was sent and as a result the resolution failed.

 

I don't know if there are any precedents 1) for No votes to be submitted or 2) for No votes to be revoked. If there are no precedents then it will be a matter of law for Lord Clarke to determine.

 

Rangers QC does not focus on whether or not the vote should have stood, but the conversation between Doncaster and Nelms at 17:39 and what assurances if any were given.  He suggests that inferences can reasonably be made that something was offered.in return for a Yes vote. He states:

 

(j) On 13.4.20, SPFL's counsel, in the Dundee vote opinion, recorded that he had been provided with a brief summary of the 17.39 conversation which said, at the end:

 

"[Mr Doncaster] discussing the possibility of league reconstruction with [Mr Nelms], following approval of the resolution, as outlined in the SPFL Board's briefing note."

 

Counsel was aware that DFC may have been considering changing its vote. He noted Mr Doncaster's reference to league reconstruction, in the 17.39 conversation, and warned that if there were representations about league reconstruction beyond that made to other members in the circular and DFC changed its vote as a result, then there was a risk the affairs of SPFL would be conducted in a manner which was unfairly prejudicial to the interests of other members (see §§2(e) & 14).