SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[sac]

Disclosing the partial results of a ballot publicly before all papers have been returned is unethical to say the least, & would only be done for the sole reason of trying to influence those yet to submit their ballot paper.

 

To then start phoning round those yet to cast their vote prior to the 5pm “If possible” time frame, by telling one that “their vote didn’t count” & and ultimately the other that they had the deciding vote which then led to a period of pausing while they put their foot on the ball whilst they entered into a period of discussion/negotiation with Doncaster in full view of everyone, which resulted in a change of their original voting preference.

 

Yes your Honour that really did happen.

[hughesie27]

6 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

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).

Thanks for clarifying that FF!

[Sooperstar]

21 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.

That would be very pleasing.

[SMJ_1874]

3 hours ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

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.

Is there a copy of our petition that’s been posted on here? If so, I haven’t read it yet and wouldn’t mind if someone can direct me to the correct page that it’s been posted. 
Thanks 

SJ

[hughesie27]

Just now, Saughton Jambo said:

Is there a copy of our petition that’s been posted on here? If so, I haven’t read it yet and wouldn’t mind if someone can direct me to the correct page that it’s been posted. 
Thanks 

SJ

I think I seen someone say it was on 1333 earlier. In that region ànyway.

[Jambo314]

10 minutes ago, sac said:

Disclosing the partial results of a ballot publicly before all papers have been returned is unethical to say the least, & would only be done for the sole reason of trying to influence those yet to submit their ballot paper.

 

To then start phoning round those yet to cast their vote prior to the 5pm “If possible” time frame, by telling one that “their vote didn’t count” & and ultimately the other that they had the deciding vote which then led to a period of pausing while they put their foot on the ball whilst they entered into a period of discussion/negotiation with Doncaster in full view of everyone, which resulted in a change of their original voting preference.

 

Yes your Honour that really did happen.

And that's just ONE of the reasons that Doncaster won't want all this exposed in court.

Edited June 29, 2020 by Jambo314

[After The Watershed]

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

[kila]

1 minute ago, Saughton Jambo said:

Is there a copy of our petition that’s been posted on here? If so, I haven’t read it yet and wouldn’t mind if someone can direct me to the correct page that it’s been posted. 
Thanks 

SJ

 

 

On 19/06/2020 at 18:34, David McCaig said:

Petition of Heart of Midlothian Football Club and another P -20 Petition 3.pdf 206.63 kB · 781 downloads

 

 

[Aussie Jambo]

My face catching up on all the goss. 

[Skiba]

35 minutes ago, Kiwidoug said:

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.

Then raze it to the ground and build flats on it

[Diadora Van Basten]

13 minutes ago, Saughton Jambo said:

Is there a copy of our petition that’s been posted on here? If so, I haven’t read it yet and wouldn’t mind if someone can direct me to the correct page that it’s been posted. 
Thanks 

SJ

https://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=50668

[HMFC01]

4 minutes ago, Aussie Jambo said:

My face catching up on all the goss. 

 

You look like a constipated fish.  

[SUTOL]

21 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

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).

 

Hi FF, I've snipped the first part of you post to concentrate on this last part.

The bit in I've put in bold, is "he" the SPFL QC? 

 

And, is that snippet from the Rangers dossier? 

If so is it available to view online?

 

👍

[OTT]

27 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

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).

 

Sounds like Lord Clarke will get to determine a precedent if he determines it falls under the purview of the COS. 

 

 There seems something inherently dishonest about the way that the SPFL went about their business. Releasing the results before all had been counted seemed a strange decision to say the least (could it be argued this was to influence votes yet to come in? Cormack pretty much proves that was the agend (vote doesn't matter)) Either way, it seemed to elevate Dundee's position, considering the agreement they had with PT and ICT I don't think its a stretch to assume that conversations had with the SPFL between the vote cock up and them changing their vote are very relevant to the discussion, was it bribery? Getting Nelms and Doncaster on the stand would be interesting. Lying on the stand is incredibly serious and keeping them straight (even more so with 2 or more people is near impossible).

 

Edit: So, I can't see the court taking a very high view of the SPFL where such shady activity has clearly went on. 

Edited June 29, 2020 by OTT

[Aussie Jambo]

2 minutes ago, HMFC01 said:

 

You look like a constipated fish.  

Well spotted😂 I haven’t been eat my prunes recently. 

[true-jambo]

1 hour 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. 

Or they're confident reconstruction will follow us winning reinstatement, which of course they firmly against😘

[Footballfirst]

11 minutes ago, SUTOL said:

 

Hi FF, I've snipped the first part of you post to concentrate on this last part.

The bit in I've put in bold, is "he" the SPFL QC? 

 

And, is that snippet from the Rangers dossier? 

If so is it available to view online?

 

👍

Yes.  It's taken from the Rangers QC's opinion dated 4th May. It forms part of  the Rangers dossier.  I was sent a copy in pdf format but it is image, rather than text based meaning that it's a big file (in fact 2 big files).

 

I've used an OCR converter to extract the QC's opinion from the dossier so the attached file may look a bit odd and has multiple spelling or formatting errors.

 

 

2020-05-04 Rangers QC Opinion.docx

Edited June 29, 2020 by Footballfirst

[SUTOL]

6 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Yes.  It's taken from the Rangers QC's opinion dated 4th May. It is from the Rangers dossier.  I was sent a copy in pdf format but it is image, rather than text based meaning that it's a big file (in fact 2 big files).

 

I've used an OCR converter to extract the QC's opinion from the dossier so the attached file may look a bit odd and has multiple spelling or formatting errors.

 

 

2020-05-04 Rangers QC Opinion.docx 129.65 kB · 1 download

 

 

Thanks

 

I'll have a read through that later. 

 

[Riccarton3]

So, there had already been briefing notes re reconstruction that Nelms had access to like everyone else and we are to believe a reminder of this was enough to change the club's position.

[Jambof3tornado]

41 minutes ago, sac said:

Disclosing the partial results of a ballot publicly before all papers have been returned is unethical to say the least, & would only be done for the sole reason of trying to influence those yet to submit their ballot paper.

 

To then start phoning round those yet to cast their vote prior to the 5pm “If possible” time frame, by telling one that “their vote didn’t count” & and ultimately the other that they had the deciding vote which then led to a period of pausing while they put their foot on the ball whilst they entered into a period of discussion/negotiation with Doncaster in full view of everyone, which resulted in a change of their original voting preference.

 

Yes your Honour that really did happen.

All sounds unbelievable doesnt it.

 

Yet we know thats how it went down.

[Footballfirst]

1 minute ago, SUTOL said:

 

 

Thanks

 

I'll have a read through that later. 

 

Be aware that legal privilege may apply to the document, although I don't see a reference in the actual text of that extract.

[RobNox]

59 minutes ago, kila said:

 

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.

 

 

 

There was a no vote option, but the SPFL also pointed out that there was no need to vote no, an abstention would be deemed as a no vote.  That's presumably because there is no legal requirement to vote against a resolution, not voting for it is enough.  Just like there was no need to respond in any way within 48 hours.

 

Time was of the essence, so the SPFL requested that clubs respond within 48 hours and presumably put in the no vote option so that clubs responded either way, rather than assume if a club didn't respond within 48 hours, that was a no vote.

 

I believe the SPFL thought the vote would be in favour of the resolution, and likewise if it had been a resounding no vote, they could have moved on to look at other options.  It's the fact it came down to a single vote in the Championship, which appears to have subsequently been changed, that opens up the conspiracy theories.

 

Anyway, this is all just my take on things and the much better informed @Footballfirst has a very good post above, which in relation to the no vote supports my take that the law doesn't specifically address this issue, so either there is a precedent that can be followed, or the judge will have to set a precedent, assuming this is even a material part of our case.

[Jambo-Fox]

1 hour ago, David McCaig said:

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.

I’m sure your right! However he will have to

make a decision as to whether the slippery twosome (Doncaster & MacKenzie) were ‘bad faith’ on the right or wrong side of the law.

Sadly I fear on this point (& this point alone) he will rule on the former.

[Lone Striker]

7 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

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

 

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

Ok - calm down.  I wasn't asking about relevance to court, but wondered why you even care what Keef or any other weegie scribbler writes. If it's about Hearts, it's p1sh.  Have a laugh, bit of banter about Keef, then ignore it - it's still p1sh.  In the middle of our current struggle, surely the law and HMFC should be the only things to take seriously ?

 

[TheBigO]

I'm not a judge. Gasp. Really though. But...

 

Here's surely how the Dundee vote change bullshit needs looked at.

 

Clubs were asked to vote yes or no. Some voted yes, some voted no. If no votes went missing, when would the result have been declared? At 5pm, or on receipt of the final vote, whichever came first, is the answer.

 

Now, it looks likely there was no legality in changing a vote, but that is almost irrelevant and would only really be relevant had that happened with a vote which was changed BEFORE the rest of the votes came in. Dundee changed their vote AFTER the ballot had ended. It doesnt matter that it was in the spam folder.

 

The SPFL, to reduce the time frame from 28 to 2 days, asked expressly for nos and yeses. On receipt of the last vote in, the ballot was concluded.

 

Done.

 

Oh, and the resolution itself was also full of half truths and omissions. We have them by the balls.

 

 

[Diadora Van Basten]

 

Yes.  It's taken from the Rangers QC's opinion dated 4th May. It is from the Rangers dossier.  I was sent a copy in pdf format but its image, rather than text based meaning that it's a big file (in fact 2 big files).

 

I've used an OCR converter to extract the QC's opinion from the dossier so the attached file may look a bit odd and has multiple spelling or formatting errors.

 

 

2020-05-04 Rangers QC Opinion.docx 129.65 kB · 1 download

I am surprised that more of that information is not included in our petition. The behaviour of Doncaster has been misleading and denied clubs vital information required to make the vote.

[SUTOL]

7 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Be aware that legal privilege may apply to the document, although I don't see a reference in the actual text of that extract.

 

It shall go no further. 

 

🙊

[Footballfirst]

Another word of caution re Wednesday is that I'd expect Lord Clarke to give a degree of latitude to the SPFL Board's decision making in light of the exceptional circumstances brought about by the Covid crisis.

 

While Company Law may be sacrosanct, I don't think Lord Clarke will seek to undermine questionable decisions made in haste by the SPFL Board, as long as they can show good faith and intentions. It will be up to the QC(s) representing Hearts/PT to demonstrate otherwise.

[DETTY29]

45 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

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).

'Once agreements have been made they cannot be revoked'

 

I'd read that as your agreement is yes or no if you formally vote within 28 days and cannot be revoked whether you vote on day 1 or day 27.99?

 

I can't imagine me being able to contact the Registrar asking for my 'no' vote to be revoked because I voted too early as I hadn't read the circular or resolution properly.

 

But as you say if no precedent, Lord Clark may have to set one.

 

[Dagger Is Back]

50 minutes ago, sac said:

Disclosing the partial results of a ballot publicly before all papers have been returned is unethical to say the least, & would only be done for the sole reason of trying to influence those yet to submit their ballot paper.

 

To then start phoning round those yet to cast their vote prior to the 5pm “If possible” time frame, by telling one that “their vote didn’t count” & and ultimately the other that they had the deciding vote which then led to a period of pausing while they put their foot on the ball whilst they entered into a period of discussion/negotiation with Doncaster in full view of everyone, which resulted in a change of their original voting preference.

 

Yes your Honour that really did happen.

 

Trying really hard here not to be too bullish about our petition, we're Jambos and how many times have we been kicked, but if that applied to any other situation, you'd be more than justified in crying foul.  It is absolutely stinking

[HMFC01]

24 minutes ago, Aussie Jambo said:

Well spotted😂 I haven’t been eat my prunes recently. 

 

  2 more days to go , then we might all be relieved, hopefully. 

[Rods]

4 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Another word of caution re Wednesday is that I'd expect Lord Clarke to give a degree of latitude to the SPFL Board's decision making in light of the exceptional circumstances brought about by the Covid crisis.

 

While Company Law may be sacrosanct, I don't think Lord Clarke will seek to undermine questionable decisions made in haste by the SPFL Board, as long as they can show good faith and intentions. It will be up to the QC(s) representing Hearts/PT to demonstrate otherwise.

Would you not say this is the reason we brought in other suggestions to light in our submission? Essentially we agree their had to be something quick but just not the unfair resolution that was railroaded through.

[DETTY29]

13 minutes ago, TheBigO said:

I'm not a judge. Gasp. Really though. But...

 

Here's surely how the Dundee vote change bullshit needs looked at.

 

Clubs were asked to vote yes or no. Some voted yes, some voted no. If no votes went missing, when would the result have been declared? At 5pm, or on receipt of the final vote, whichever came first, is the answer.

 

Now, it looks likely there was no legality in changing a vote, but that is almost irrelevant and would only really be relevant had that happened with a vote which was changed BEFORE the rest of the votes came in. Dundee changed their vote AFTER the ballot had ended. It doesnt matter that it was in the spam folder.

 

The SPFL, to reduce the time frame from 28 to 2 days, asked expressly for nos and yeses. On receipt of the last vote in, the ballot was concluded.

 

Done.

 

Oh, and the resolution itself was also full of half truths and omissions. We have them by the balls.

 

 

I'd tend to agree.

 

Can't remember exactly but the SPFL received all but 3 votes.

 

One was Hearts, which got stuck at our end or wasn't sent.  And so what we had another 26 days to send our no vote in not that it would have made any difference.

 

The other from a L1-L2 club didn't matter because the resolution passed from their end.

 

As long as Dundee hadn't voted, they still had another 26 days to do so if they wanted and could continue to lobby or be lobbied as they saw fit. 

 

But they did vote and their vote was 'No'

Edited June 29, 2020 by DETTY29

[RobNox]

24 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Sounds like Lord Clarke will get to determine a precedent if he determines it falls under the purview of the COS. 

 

 There seems something inherently dishonest about the way that the SPFL went about their business. Releasing the results before all had been counted seemed a strange decision to say the least (could it be argued this was to influence votes yet to come in? Cormack pretty much proves that was the agend (vote doesn't matter)) Either way, it seemed to elevate Dundee's position, considering the agreement they had with PT and ICT I don't think its a stretch to assume that conversations had with the SPFL between the vote cock up and them changing their vote are very relevant to the discussion, was it bribery? Getting Nelms and Doncaster on the stand would be interesting. Lying on the stand is incredibly serious and keeping them straight (even more so with 2 or more people is near impossible).

 

Edit: So, I can't see the court taking a very high view of the SPFL where such shady activity has clearly went on. 

 

That's the two I'd be looking to call to the stand if this makes it to court.  Although, if we get past Wednesday, I doubt it will proceed to court

 

Doncaster knows that facing a QC in front of a law lord is a whole different matter than spraffing shite on Sportsound, when the only people likely to challenge you have their mikes turned off.  He will not be able to bullshit his way through this, and as you say, he dare not lie.

 

If we get a result on Wednesday, then I expect he'll be trying to broker a solution that avoids going to court.  I would imagine that the prospect of us being awarded substantial compensation if we win the case might focus the minds of some of those who voted against reconstruction to perhaps reconsider their decision.  After all, the precedent has already been set that clubs are allowed to change their minds in this process.

[SMJ_1874]

52 minutes ago, kila said:

 

 

 

 

 

43 minutes ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

https://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=50668 206.63 kB · 803 downloads

Thanks guys it’s appreciated. Some  bedtime reading for me. Does anyone know if there will be a link or stream from court on Wednesday? 
Thanks in advance 

SJ

[Gilberts Fridge]

8 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Another word of caution re Wednesday is that I'd expect Lord Clarke to give a degree of latitude to the SPFL Board's decision making in light of the exceptional circumstances brought about by the Covid crisis.

 

While Company Law may be sacrosanct, I don't think Lord Clarke will seek to undermine questionable decisions made in haste by the SPFL Board, as long as they can show good faith and intentions. It will be up to the QC(s) representing Hearts/PT to demonstrate otherwise.

 

 

That's my concern that we are in unprecedented times with the virus and it may be why Ann jumped through as many hoops as possible to show we did everything in upmost good faith.

 

Whilst we are talking about company law and votes, we never got the published vote for the indicative vote, only that there was insufficient votes in favour. Surely if the same voting regulations were in force as were for the initial vote ending the season, then any no vote or abstention could be legally converted to a yes up to 28 days later.

 

[Footballfirst]

4 minutes ago, Rods said:

Would you not say this is the reason we brought in other suggestions to light in our submission? Essentially we agree their had to be something quick but just not the unfair resolution that was railroaded through.

Obviously, Hearts/Partick will want to show as many flaws in the SPFL's plans and actions as they can, in order to demonstrate that they were unfairly prejudiced.

 

One thing that might be important are the minutes of SPFL Board meetings around the relevant period. That should show details of everything that was discussed, agreed or rejected.  I hope that Hearts/Partick will ask for these to be disclosed. (I assume that they would be able to get copies from Stewart Roberson in ant event.)

[BelgeJambo]

16 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Another word of caution re Wednesday is that I'd expect Lord Clarke to give a degree of latitude to the SPFL Board's decision making in light of the exceptional circumstances brought about by the Covid crisis.

 

While Company Law may be sacrosanct, I don't think Lord Clarke will seek to undermine questionable decisions made in haste by the SPFL Board, as long as they can show good faith and intentions. It will be up to the QC(s) representing Hearts/PT to demonstrate otherwise.

Being paid 388k a year?

[Footballfirst]

2 minutes ago, Gilberts Fridge said:

 

 

That's my concern that we are in unprecedented times with the virus and it may be why Ann jumped through as many hoops as possible to show we did everything in upmost good faith.

 

Whilst we are talking about company law and votes, we never got the published vote for the indicative vote, only that there was insufficient votes in favour. Surely if the same voting regulations were in force as were for the initial vote ending the season, then any no vote or abstention could be legally converted to a yes up to 28 days later.

 

That was just an "indicative vote", not an EGM or Written resolution, so the Company Law restrictions did not apply.  Had the indicative vote been supported by more clubs, then it may have proceeded to an EGM vote.

[SUTOL]

5 minutes ago, Gilberts Fridge said:

 

Whilst we are talking about company law and votes, we never got the published vote for the indicative vote, only that there was insufficient votes in favour. Surely if the same voting regulations were in force as were for the initial vote ending the season, then any no vote or abstention could be legally converted to a yes up to 28 days later.

 

 

There were no voting regulations as such in force, as it was an "indicative" vote. If the indication was that there would be enough votes for that resolution to pass, or at least be close then having the indicative vote would enable the board to reduce the amount of time for the actual vote from 28 days to 7.

(I think that's what they said)

[DETTY29]

7 minutes ago, Saughton Jambo said:

 

Thanks guys it’s appreciated. Some  bedtime reading for me. Does anyone know if there will be a link or stream from court on Wednesday? 
Thanks in advance 

SJ

I can't see the initial hearing being so.

 

Kezia Dugdale v. Stewart Campbell appeal was streamed but only to journalists.

[RobNox]

6 minutes ago, Gilberts Fridge said:

 

 

That's my concern that we are in unprecedented times with the virus and it may be why Ann jumped through as many hoops as possible to show we did everything in upmost good faith.

 

Whilst we are talking about company law and votes, we never got the published vote for the indicative vote, only that there was insufficient votes in favour. Surely if the same voting regulations were in force as were for the initial vote ending the season, then any no vote or abstention could be legally converted to a yes up to 28 days later.

 

 

That wasn't even a proper vote though, it wasn't formally put to the clubs as a resolution to vote on, where presumably the normal rules would apply.  It was just sounding out the clubs on whether or not they supported it to determine whether it was worth putting it to a formal vote.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

3 hours 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

Seriously, who fecking cares? Not us.

[Bazzas right boot]

8 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

Is that Limmy?

 

Ehhh? 

[SMJ_1874]

8 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

I can't see the initial hearing being so.

 

Kezia Dugdale v. Stewart Campbell appeal was streamed but only to journalists.

Maybe we can get some IT/hackers to infiltrate and get this online. Would be compelling viewing to say the least 

[wavydavy]

2 hours ago, Dannie Boy said:

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

 

Dundee voted to Reject which is different to an abstention is the point though.

[OTT]

19 minutes ago, RobNox said:

 

That's the two I'd be looking to call to the stand if this makes it to court.  Although, if we get past Wednesday, I doubt it will proceed to court

 

Doncaster knows that facing a QC in front of a law lord is a whole different matter than spraffing shite on Sportsound, when the only people likely to challenge you have their mikes turned off.  He will not be able to bullshit his way through this, and as you say, he dare not lie.

 

If we get a result on Wednesday, then I expect he'll be trying to broker a solution that avoids going to court.  I would imagine that the prospect of us being awarded substantial compensation if we win the case might focus the minds of some of those who voted against reconstruction to perhaps reconsider their decision.  After all, the precedent has already been set that clubs are allowed to change their minds in this process.

 

This is something I'm thinking about... Don't fold a winning hand. Its something I've saw mentioned before in relation to the early 2000s and negotiations with the OF/Sky or something. Effectively the 'other 10' had them and yet folded allowing the OF their way. 

 

If we have a clear run at scorching the earth, I'm not against us doing it. Scottish football has been a broken organisation for well over 20 years with no appetite to change. If this is the rod that breaks the camels back then I'm quite content for us to wield it. Going all the way could force a total rethink of how Scottish football is governed and a serious discussion about the people running it. I shouldn't need to say it, but Doncaster has failed on so many occasions to bring in commercial income or show any degree of leadership and I'm at a loss on how Maxwell is head of the SFA. No experience doing anything similar. CEO at Partick qualifies you to run the nations football association? **** right off. In no industry would either of these men have risen to the level they are at. Its indicative of how dysfunctional Scottish football governance has been for years. Theres no goals, theres no accountability, its just failure and mediocrity thats handsomely rewarded for some godforsaken reason. 

[wavydavy]

51 minutes ago, RobNox said:

 

There was a no vote option, but the SPFL also pointed out that there was no need to vote no, an abstention would be deemed as a no vote.  That's presumably because there is no legal requirement to vote against a resolution, not voting for it is enough.  Just like there was no need to respond in any way within 48 hours.

 

Time was of the essence, so the SPFL requested that clubs respond within 48 hours and presumably put in the no vote option so that clubs responded either way, rather than assume if a club didn't respond within 48 hours, that was a no vote.

 

I believe the SPFL thought the vote would be in favour of the resolution, and likewise if it had been a resounding no vote, they could have moved on to look at other options.  It's the fact it came down to a single vote in the Championship, which appears to have subsequently been changed, that opens up the conspiracy theories.

 

Anyway, this is all just my take on things and the much better informed @Footballfirst has a very good post above, which in relation to the no vote supports my take that the law doesn't specifically address this issue, so either there is a precedent that can be followed, or the judge will have to set a precedent, assuming this is even a material part of our case.

 

So why did they not remove the part about having 28 days to reply? They just said they would like a reply within 48 hours. 

[wavydavy]

13 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

This is something I'm thinking about... Don't fold a winning hand. Its something I've saw mentioned before in relation to the early 2000s and negotiations with the OF/Sky or something. Effectively the 'other 10' had them and yet folded allowing the OF their way. 

 

If we have a clear run at scorching the earth, I'm not against us doing it. Scottish football has been a broken organisation for well over 20 years with no appetite to change. If this is the rod that breaks the camels back then I'm quite content for us to wield it. Going all the way could force a total rethink of how Scottish football is governed and a serious discussion about the people running it. I shouldn't need to say it, but Doncaster has failed on so many occasions to bring in commercial income or show any degree of leadership and I'm at a loss on how Maxwell is head of the SFA. No experience doing anything similar. CEO at Partick qualifies you to run the nations football association? **** right off. In no industry would either of these men have risen to the level they are at. Its indicative of how dysfunctional Scottish football governance has been for years. Theres no goals, theres no accountability, its just failure and mediocrity thats handsomely rewarded for some godforsaken reason. 

 

He is there because a certain powerful individual wanted him to be there in a similar way that Petrie got there. You scratch my back and I scratch yours type of deal.

Edited June 29, 2020 by wavydavy

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

Another word of caution re Wednesday is that I'd expect Lord Clarke to give a degree of latitude to the SPFL Board's decision making in light of the exceptional circumstances brought about by the Covid crisis.

 

While Company Law may be sacrosanct, I don't think Lord Clarke will seek to undermine questionable decisions made in haste by the SPFL Board, as long as they can show good faith and intentions. It will be up to the QC(s) representing Hearts/PT to demonstrate otherwise.

That's fair, but given they obtained QC advice on a course of action, anything made with that advice in mind can and should be open to question. That is not acting in haste.