SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[DETTY29]

1 hour 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.

Your first two paragraphs make an 'underhand' common sense from SPFL point of view.

 

Once a vote is cast, it is cast.  A non vote - abstention is the equivalent of a no, but only after day 28.

 

They wanted all the Yes votes in by 48 hours but also wanted to know who needed worked on to make sure the resolution passed eventually.

 

They are actively encouraging NO intenders not to bother and if short on having resolution passed, do intense lobbying from 48hour+ to day 28 if need be.

 

Edit - the process and legal text is no doubt same as any other company resolution so are they doing anything wrong?

 

 

Edited June 29, 2020 by DETTY29

[Arthur Morgan]

9 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

Is that Limmy?

 

Indeed it is.

[Hackney Hearts]

3 hours ago, Riccarton3 said:

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?

 

This is exactly what they were doing. It's just another of the many aspects of the resolution that scream "we are going to make this pass, by hook or by crook".

 

The SPFL specify that a YES vote can't be changed. That begs the question - why not say the same about a NO vote? For the obvious reason that it allows them to bribe/bully any NO-voters if the need arises. The whole process is blatantly agenda driven, and the antithesis of acting in good faith towards all member clubs.

[J.T.F.Robertson]

3 hours 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. 

 

Whatever the court outcome, I can't believe their promotion will be nullified. (and I'm not a lawyer)

 

 

[JamboAl]

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.

The law is the law.  He may conclude/understand that they acted in good faith but IMHO that is insufficient grounds to find them "innocent".  If he did I suspect an appeal would follow.

[JimmyCant]

2 hours 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.

Personally I think Wednesday will entail a debate and decision as to whether this proceeds in the COS or the judge may decide to refer the parties to the available arbitration processes. SFA followed by CAS. First big hurdle for our QC and it’s 50-50 IMO. I’m sure that’s what the SPFL are pinning their hopes on.

[RobNox]

1 hour ago, wavydavy said:

 

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. 

 

I don't think they could have removed that, they couldn't have legally done so.  They just requested that clubs post their vote within 48 hours hoping to get a quick resolution if enough clubs voted in favour.  It would have been within any club's right to refuse to respond within 48 hours and tell the SPFL they were still considering the situation and had 28 days to make their decision.

[Ethan Hunt]

2 hours 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.

I can’t see how that should be the case. This was not a government deciding on critical policy decisions that affected the health and economy of a country. It was a football body who could have done what lots of other football bodies did, take the time to assess the situation and undertake meaningful consultation with member clubs and relevant stakeholders. Nobody was going to die as a result of football games being suspended.

 

The haste with which the SPFL took the decisions they did should be one of the things under scrutiny, why the rush, especially given that numerous club Chairman are quoted as saying they weren’t properly consulted and didn’t have sufficient time to read and discuss the briefing material with their respective boards prior to the vote.

 

The whole situation was rushed through and that was driven entirely by the SPFL board.

[NANOJAMBO]

2 hours 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.

It won't be difficult to drive a cart & horses through that idea given  the document attachment clearly demonstrates the SPFL board were only going to entertain recon after all the dirty stuff had been put to bed. 

That document never mentions recon as a panacea and it specifically says, essentially, recon is a disaster waiting to happen so avoid at all costs. 

They followed their QCs advice to the letter and didn't ever seriously consider recon. It's weird that the QC advised the Board on a "battle plan"  they thought could be defended in court but didn't suggest recon as a way of staying OUT of court. 

[kawasakijambo]

16 hours ago, SectionDJambo said:

You don’t have to have any doubts about me. I use the phrase “Hearts people” to encompass all of us, whether we go to games or don’t. It is in no way designed to be dismissive of people, with a love of Hearts, who can’t go to games for geographical, health or financial  reasons. I’m just old fashioned, in that I’ve always used the term supporters, rightly or wrongly, for guys who actually put money into the club or go to support the team home and away. I’ll call us all “fans” from now on, to avoid any upset.

I have to say, this has been a first for me, having anyone have doubts about me being a Hearts fan, and it doesn’t feel nice. 

I apologize, I made a mistake.

 

It's saughton jambo I have serious doubts about. He comes on on here slavering pish for months now. Not one word he has ever said has come to fruition.

Edited June 30, 2020 by kawasakijambo

[Ethan Hunt]

2 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

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.)

Oh I do hope these minutes are some of fifteen or so sets that were never agreed.

[hughesie27]

1 minute ago, kawasakijambo said:

I apologize, I made a mistake.

 

It's saughton jambo I have serious doubts about. He comes on on here slavering pish for months now. Not one word he has ever said has come to fruition.

SJ's credentials are more solid than 99% of those on this board.

[RobNox]

53 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

Your first two paragraphs make an 'underhand' common sense from SPFL point of view.

 

Once a vote is cast, it is cast.  A non vote - abstention is the equivalent of a no, but only after day 28.

 

They wanted all the Yes votes in by 48 hours but also wanted to know who needed worked on to make sure the resolution passed eventually.

 

They are actively encouraging NO intenders not to bother and if short on having resolution passed, do intense lobbying from 48hour+ to day 28 if need be.

 

Edit - the process and legal text is no doubt same as any other company resolution so are they doing anything wrong?

 

 

 

Precisely the point I was trying to make, but you make it more succinctly.  Find out who the no voters are before it's too late to sway them to change their position.  

[bawheed]

19 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

Personally I think Wednesday will entail a debate and decision as to whether this proceeds in the COS or the judge may decide to refer the parties to the available arbitration processes. SFA followed by CAS. First big hurdle for our QC and it’s 50-50 IMO. I’m sure that’s what the SPFL are pinning their hopes on.

 

At best they, the SPFL board, are  culpable of neglect to three or more of their members.

[kawasakijambo]

4 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

SJ's credentials are more solid than 99% of those on this board.

 

4 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

SJ's credentials are more solid than 99% of those on this board.

I have my doubts, time will tell.

[graygo]

2 minutes ago, kawasakijambo said:

 

I have my doubts, time will tell.

 

You're wrong, very wrong.

[Ethan Hunt]

8 minutes ago, RobNox said:

 

Precisely the point I was trying to make, but you make it more succinctly.  Find out who the no voters are before it's too late to sway them to change their position.  

Find out who the no voters are, then ‘lose’ the vote of the no voter you are most likely to have success in swaying you mean.

[SectionDJambo]

3 minutes ago, kawasakijambo said:

I apologize, I made a mistake.

 

It's saughton jambo I have serious doubts about. He comes on on here slavering pish for months now. Not one word he has ever said has come to fruition.

I think he’s just been unlucky. There’s so much misinformation and double dealing going around, that it must be hard for anybody to know exactly what is going on, when so many of us are eager for opinion and encouraging news.

Some of these clubs look to be saying one thing, to each other, and doing another. You only need to see the carry on with Dundee back in the beginning, when they assured their WhatsApp group that they would vote against the SPFLs Good Friday  motion, which they seem to have done, only to then go back on what they assured the other clubs they would do.

Even the SPFL board don’t seem to know what’s going on, shown by Doncaster thinking the indicative vote would be close, only for it to be anything but. Maybe they’re telling lies too.

At least Wednesday will give us some degree of certainty of how this sorry affair is going to pan out.

Thanks for the apology. It’s appreciated.

[Ethan Hunt]

4 minutes ago, kawasakijambo said:

 

I have my doubts, time will tell.

You‘ll be waiting a long, long, time then.

[RobNox]

9 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

I can’t see how that should be the case. This was not a government deciding on critical policy decisions that affected the health and economy of a country. It was a football body who could have done what lots of other football bodies did, take the time to assess the situation and undertake meaningful consultation with member clubs and relevant stakeholders. Nobody was going to die as a result of football games being suspended.

 

The haste with which the SPFL took the decisions they did should be one of the things under scrutiny, why the rush, especially given that numerous club Chairman are quoted as saying they weren’t properly consulted and didn’t have sufficient time to read and discuss the briefing material with their respective boards prior to the vote.

 

The whole situation was rushed through and that was driven entirely by the SPFL board.

We could also point to the fact that football has now resumed in many countries, including England.  So what, or more pertinently who, drove our footballing authorities to close the season early?

[J.T.F.Robertson]

3 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

You're wrong, very wrong.

 

I'll chuck another "very" in there.

 

[RobNox]

1 minute ago, Ethan Hunt said:

Find out who the no voters are, then ‘lose’ the vote of the no voter you are most likely to have success in swaying you mean.

 

Yes, it seems such an amazing coincidence that the only vote that appeared to go astray was from a club in the only division where the vote appeared to have gone against the resolution, and the only no voter in that division who might be open to some 'gentle persuasion'.

[Ethan Hunt]

2 minutes ago, RobNox said:

We could also point to the fact that football has now resumed in many countries, including England.  So what, or more pertinently who, drove our footballing authorities to close the season early?

And that the SPFL took QC legal advice that set the route for their actions. Legal advice they would have appeared to have followed to the letter.

[Hungry hippo]

12 minutes ago, kawasakijambo said:

 

I have my doubts, time will tell.

 

I didn't think anyone doubted SJ's motives. He couldn't be any more open and honest.

[Ethan Hunt]

7 minutes ago, RobNox said:

 

Yes, it seems such an amazing coincidence that the only vote that appeared to go astray was from a club in the only division where the vote appeared to have gone against the resolution, and the only no voter in that division who might be open to some 'gentle persuasion'.

I’ve called this whole episode many things but have yet to use the term farce. Given the definition it is probably the most apt description-

 

farce

/fɑːs/

noun

a comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations.

 

If you didn’t laugh, you’d cry.

[JyTees]

31 minutes ago, kawasakijambo said:

I apologize, I made a mistake.

 

It's saughton jambo I have serious doubts about. He comes on on here slavering pish for months now. Not one word he has ever said has come to fruition.

 

Off the chart mental. Take a nap or something mate.

[RobNox]

2 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

I’ve called this whole episode many things but have yet to use the term farce. Given the definition it is probably the most apt description-

 

farce

/fɑːs/

noun

a comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations.

 

If you didn’t laugh, you’d cry.

 

I would agree, the whole sorry episode seems farcical to me.  There was, in my opinion, a relatively easy way to resolve things without unduly disadvantaging individual clubs, and that was reconstruction.

[Riccarton3]

I wouldn't call it a farce. That gives it a 'light'feel, random. This is dark. Machiavellian. 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Riccarton3

[RobNox]

Just now, Riccarton3 said:

I wouldn't call it a farce. That gives it a 'light'feel. This is dark. Machiavellian. 

 

You are correct, farce makes it sound like an Oscar Wilde play, or Brian Rix dropping his trousers.  Machiavellian seems far more appropriate, far more devious and underhand.

[Riccarton3]

Unlike a psychopath, the Machiavellian keeps a close eye on his or her reputation

[RobNox]

For some reason, after mentioning Oscar Wilde in my previous post I started to imagine Neil Doncaster in an Oscar Wilde novel.

 

The importance of being Neil didn't seem to work, and it's a play not a novel anyway, but the Picture of Neil Doncaster is perfect.  He's a dick who has a picture in his attic of himself as a teenager, and still wears the same haircut and has the same skin complexion.

[Riccarton3]

One for the road: unethical behaviour is acceptable, often necessary, to achieve goals or protect political position

[graygo]

4 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

One for the road: unethical behaviour is acceptable, often necessary, to achieve goals or protect political position

 

But illegal behaviour is not.

[Riccarton3]

5 minutes ago, RobNox said:

For some reason, after mentioning Oscar Wilde in my previous post I started to imagine Neil Doncaster in an Oscar Wilde novel.

 

The importance of being Neil didn't seem to work, and it's a play not a novel anyway, but the Picture of Neil Doncaster is perfect.  He's a dick who has a picture in his attic of himself as a teenager, and still wears the same haircut and has the same skin complexion.

There is certainly a bit of the narcissist about Neil. I wonder who could have flattered him so.

[RobNox]

11 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

There is certainly a bit of the narcissist about Neil. I wonder who could have flattered him so.

 

Perhaps his Uncle Peter, of the Lawell side of the family.  I've heard he flatters Neil dreadfully.

[Bickfest]

9 hours ago, SUTOL said:

 

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. 

Yup. And the Rules form part of the contract between the clubs, each of them, and the SPFL. Which in turn may mean that, once it has started, the rules of the competition cannot be changed by an ordinary, special or written company resolution. It may require the agreement of ALL parties to change the rules in order to be valid.

[GorgieRules22]

4 hours ago, kawasakijambo said:

I apologize, I made a mistake.

 

It's saughton jambo I have serious doubts about. He comes on on here slavering pish for months now. Not one word he has ever said has come to fruition.

I’ll back Saughton Jambo up here and I can tell you that pretty much everything he has told me has come about.

 

When I read your nonsense it’s as clear as day there’s only one person spouting pish.

 

 

Apologize.....r u 8 year old 😄

[John Findlay]

7 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

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.)

Were the SPFL not negligent in that they were very bad at minuting meetings, as in none were taken when meetings were in situation? Was common practise for minutes to be written upto days after meetings took place?

Which leaves the minutes upto interpretation shall we say.

[John Findlay]

4 hours ago, RobNox said:

 

You are correct, farce makes it sound like an Oscar Wilde play, or Brian Rix dropping his trousers.  Machiavellian seems far more appropriate, far more devious and underhand.

Alla The Borgias.

[Dazo]

Another thing that doesn’t add up for me for those that are adamant that a no vote can be changed and there was no deadline. Why didn’t the spfl phone every no voting club lobbying for them to change ?

[SUTOL]

6 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Another thing that doesn’t add up for me for those that are adamant that a no vote can be changed and there was no deadline. Why didn’t the spfl phone every no voting club lobbying for them to change ?

 

Do you think they would be able to convince Partick to relegate themselves? 

[Dazo]

Just now, SUTOL said:

 

Do you think they would be able to convince Partick to relegate themselves? 

were they only ones who voted no ? 

[Sooperstar]

I've only been skimming through the thread of late, so forgive me if I have picked things up wrongly.

 

There seems to be a suggestion that in normal shareholder votes for resolutions only yes votes are required and that to vote no you simply abstain.

 

In this case the SPFL asked for votes within 48 hours, due to their perceived urgency of the situation. On the voting slip they gave the option of both yes and no.

 

Could the SPFL argue that actually, there is no such thing in law as a no vote for a shareholders resolution and that in this case the no option on the voting slip simply allowed them to not have to wait 28 days to find out whether or not the resolution would pass? They had asked for votes within 48 hours, but without the no option they would only have received votes from clubs voting yes. They might have only received, say, 10 of these votes but they couldn't then declare the resolution as having failed because there was still 26 days for enough clubs to vote yes.

 

Could they claim that actually the no option wasn't a 'vote' as such but just an indication? Which would mean that Dundee and indeed the other clubs who 'voted' no, had never actually voted in legal terms.

 

Clearly the above does not change how irregular the whole process seems to have been. Not to mention the announcing of partial results from an unfinished vote.

[Fluorescent Adolescent]

3 minutes ago, Dazo said:

were they only ones who voted no ? 

Us?

 

The other leagues didn’t matter as they’d had the required numbers in each.

[Dazo]

4 minutes ago, Fluorescent Adolescent said:

Us?

 

The other leagues didn’t matter as they’d had the required numbers in each.

No in the championship. Generally can’t remember who voted no in that league. Was Dundee the only club who voted no with nothing at stake ?

Edited June 30, 2020 by Dazo

[Fluorescent Adolescent]

1 minute ago, Dazo said:

No in the championship. Generally can’t remember who voted no in that league. 

Inverness.

[Seymour M Hersh]

8 hours ago, Saughton Jambo said:

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

 

Probably not the best way forward. 

[milky_26]

20 minutes ago, Dazo said:

were they only ones who voted no ? 

inverness voted no as well

[John Findlay]

1 minute ago, milky_26 said:

inverness voted no as well

Partick Thistle

[David McCaig]

9 hours 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.

Sorry for being pedantic, but it's Lord Clark (Alistair) not Lord Clarke (Matthew Gérard).