SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Fozzyonthefence]

40 minutes ago, Dazo said:

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 ?

Yes that’s correct.  No way Partick would change their vote as it meant them getting demoted.  And no way ICT would either as they were 2nd and stood to be benefit from any reconstruction.

 

The resolution had already passed in the Premiership and Leagues 1 and 2 so the only relevant vote was the Dundee one irrespective of whether the SPFL didn’t realise it had actually been cast or if they really knew it had but thought they could persuade them to change it. 

[Ethan Hunt]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53177235

 

Oh look, Northampton Town won the League Two play off at an empty Wembley.

 

Why did they EFL still have play offs despite calling the league again?

 

Lucky for two SPFL board members that they decided to scrap the play offs with their clubs (Hamilton and Brechin) sitting in relegation play off spots.

[SMJ_1874]

7 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.

Rodent alert! Need rentokil in to clear this place. There’s only  one slavering pish in that statement 

[Victorian]

4 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53177235

 

Oh look, Northampton Town won the League Two play off at an empty Wembley.

 

Why did they EFL still have play offs despite calling the league again?

 

Lucky for two SPFL board members that they decided to scrap the play offs with their clubs (Hamilton and Brechin) sitting in relegation play off spots.

 

All part of the implied covenant of corruption that was prevalent.   Imo.

 

Celtic got what they wanted.   Others were looked after.

[The Merse]

10 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

Yes that’s correct.  No way Partick would change their vote as it meant them getting demoted.  And no way ICT would either as they were 2nd and stood to be benefit from any reconstruction.

 

The resolution had already passed in the Premiership and Leagues 1 and 2 so the only relevant vote was the Dundee one irrespective of whether the SPFL didn’t realise it had actually been cast or if they really knew it had but thought they could persuade them to change it. 

It really is quite unbelievable that the most important and the most ‘gettable’ vote is the one that went ‘missing’.

 

Wouldnt surprise me if they got the ICT and Partick ones and put a blocker on incoming emails from Dundee.

 

 

[Beast Boy]

9 hours ago, Lone Striker said:

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 ?

 

Been a while since someone suggested calming down to another poster interfacing with a screen somewhere else, with zero indication as to their mood.

 

Bit in bold, it was posted on the thread, and pretty much everyone who commented did exactly this. I’m more confused as to why people take issue with people giving their opinions on posted content? I mean it’s there to be commented on. 🤷‍♂️

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

10 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. 

What do you think the most likely scenario;

 

The judge has tipped United the wink that Hearts will lose, or;

 

Doncaster has told them that should we win then reconstruction is a shoe-in?

[wavydavy]

7 hours ago, RobNox said:

 

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.

Do their rules not state that no reply is taken as a rejection and even though they asked in Dundee's case they should have allowed anyone who had not replied up to the 28 days.? I know they wanted the vote concluded within 48 hours if possible but that is different to must do!,

 

Does it say in their rules that they can contact clubs to try and persuade them to vite a particular way or that their vote does not matter?

[wavydavy]

18 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

All part of the implied covenant of corruption that was prevalent.   Imo.

 

Celtic got what they wanted.   Others were looked after.

It would just be a coincidense that these two clubs happen to be on the SPFL Board?

[kila]

7 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

It would just be a coincidense that these two clubs happen to be on the SPFL Board?

Well it could be argued the board and their respective clubs were all safe and covered by the resolution they came up with, so didn’t feel a need to make any effort to address the expelled teams.

 

Had a board member’s club been in a relegation spot then without a doubt reconstruction would’ve been tied to the original resolution.

 

This board are not fit for purpose. The whole setup is not fit for purpose.

[WorldChampions1902]

20 minutes ago, The Merse said:

It really is quite unbelievable that the most important and the most ‘gettable’ vote is the one that went ‘missing’.

 

Wouldnt surprise me if they got the ICT and Partick ones and put a blocker on incoming emails from Dundee.

 

 

Did we ever get to the bottom of the technical failures used by the SPFL in their defence?. Something about the SPFL email server firewall blocking delivery of the Dundee email reaching the relevant SPFL email inbox because it contained a .pdf attachment voting slip. But another club claimed to have emailed their vote using a .pdf file which arrived successfully.

 

Something still stinks there. I hope our lawyers have sought some sound technical advice on this point as it will still have mileage potentially.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

10 hours 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 think there may be a difference between trying to persuade someone to vote a particular way and getting them to change their vote after it's been cast.

[wavydavy]

6 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

I think there may be a difference between trying to persuade someone to vote a particular way and getting them to change their vote after it's been cast.

Yes it is acceptable to let the members know what the board think is the best route to take for what they think is the best allround solution in their covering letter or guidance notes. However to actively try and persuade a club to change an already submitted vote is surely not right by anyones rules?

[DETTY29]

@jambogirlglasgow

@Footballfirst

 

 

This is the link to the current status for court hearings.

 

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/current-business/court-rolls

 

Is our case considered an Outer House hearing so media can request to dial in and listen to the audio hearing?

Edited June 30, 2020 by DETTY29

[Borders Jambo]

9 hours 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. 

Excellent post.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

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.

Would this not be seen as an excuse for getting it wrong rather than changing the fact that it was wrong (if it is found to be wrong)? In other words, it might absolve the board from any actions over their incompetence (again if found to have acted improperly) but not have any effect on the legality/correctness of the procedure, itself, so not affecting the outcome of the case.

[Deevers]

8 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

Would this not be seen as an excuse for getting it wrong rather than changing the fact that it was wrong (if it is found to be wrong)? In other words, it might absolve the board from any actions over their incompetence (again if found to have acted improperly) but not have any effect on the legality/correctness of the procedure, itself, so not affecting the outcome of the case.

Exactly - wrong is wrong not matter what. The judge will reach a determination in law, nothing else.

[Hagar the Horrible]

I dont think we should just focus on the events surrounding the Dundee vote?  @16:30pm  Cormack confirmed he had a call from Donkey who stated that his vote was not required as they had enough votes from the top 12 to see it passed, what donkey neglected to state was the status of the voting from the championship, which at that time had not gained enough support.  Thus the motion had failed!   Hense the reason Aberdeen voted for the investigation!

 

If the Aberdeen vote truly was not required then why did Donkey agree to Cormacks demands?  So Aberdeen changed their intended No vote to a Yes vote?   but here is the crux of my point? I am sure on the BBC he stated that Aberdeen voted at 17:01?  Thus at 17:00 2 Yes votes were not yes votes?  They accepted the Aberdeen vote after the time restriction and chased after the Dundee vote,  But also Aberdeen voted after Dundee by the same mechanism yet their vote was not held in quarantine?  Aberdeen voted on a diferent resolution from the other 41?

 

Just to clarify at 17:00  there was NOT an 81% majority

[busby1985]

1 hour ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

What do you think the most likely scenario;

 

The judge has tipped United the wink that Hearts will lose, or;

 

Doncaster has told them that should we win then reconstruction is a shoe-in?

Doncaster isn’t that smart haha. 

[Riccarton3]

The SPFL can slip between arrogant manipulators to the daft laddie as it suits. 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Riccarton3

[NANOJAMBO]

10 hours 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. 

Because they're covering their arses. They're using the "28 days" as a reason for saying they were contacting the club to get this done quickly  ie on the one hand 28 days suggests no interference when in facit was absolutely the opposite. It was direct interference because they were absolutely not intending to take 28 days to get this done. 

 

The logic of the whole scenario just doesn't make sense to me : clubs had up to 28 days TO CAST A VOTE.

But unless all clubs physically cast a vote (whether yes or no) how would the board know what was happening - that's why this is different from normal resolutions  : a club would HAVE to physically cast a vote (for or against) so that the Board would know the votes were in. Otherwise the board would have to wait until the 28 days had lapsed. In a time when they wanted to get this done as quickly as possible. 

 

That's why I think they asked for a "no" vote too, so they knew all the voting intentions were in otherwise they HAVE to wait until the 28 days are up because you have no way of knowing who was not in favour (unless all clubs votes have been accounted for) . Asking for "no" votes was not a mistake, 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2020 by NANOJAMBO

[Rods]

1 minute ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

I dont think we should just focus on the events surrounding the Dundee vote?  @16:30pm  Cormack confirmed he had a call from Donkey who stated that his vote was not required as they had enough votes from the top 12 to see it passed, what donkey neglected to state was the status of the voting from the championship, which at that time had not gained enough support.  Thus the motion had failed!   Hense the reason Aberdeen voted for the investigation!

 

If the Aberdeen vote truly was not required then why did Donkey agree to Cormacks demands?  So Aberdeen changed their intended No vote to a Yes vote?   but here is the crux of my point? I am sure on the BBC he stated that Aberdeen voted at 17:01?  Thus at 17:00 2 Yes votes were not yes votes?  They accepted the Aberdeen vote after the time restriction and chased after the Dundee vote,  But also Aberdeen voted after Dundee by the same mechanism yet their vote was not held in quarantine?  Aberdeen voted on a diferent resolution from the other 41?

 

Just to clarify at 17:00  there was NOT an 81% majority

 

I am hoping that is out fallback position. 

 

You would imagine Doncaster etc wont want this sort of stuff coming out at the COS it would be the end of his job. 

 

If the judge rules its not to be arbitrated by the SFA we have effectively won as the SPFL will fold and either offer us compensation or reinstate us in our rightful place.

[noskillson]

13 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. 

Well,. I think this is a move to increase pressure by spfl cabal and go for compensation should hearts case succeed.... Dundee et Al showing commitment to new status and will suffer increased loss

[Hagar the Horrible]

I would say I am a good few pages further into the manual when it comes to criminal law, but like every other enthusiastc amatuer on here, corprate law is the dark arts, therefor is there anybody able to clarify the SPFL defence?

 

It just reads like their solitary defence is that the SFA should artibrate?  I am sure we will argue that is a fit up and a fait acompli.

 

So my question is to those better read so far on this subject?  If Lord Clark states that the CoS should hear the case, then as the SPFL have offered up no other defence, he can rule immediatly in the same manner as the SPFL not responding within the timescale allocated?  or:

further question they wont now be able to submit further answers?  were they using the sole answer as a delay to fabricate a defence?

[jock _turd]

There is gathering concern that the court will, for some reason, direct a matter of company law to a football association to arbitrate. To me, someone who has no knowledge of legal matters, It would not make any sense at all to do this . If I was a shareholder who had the same issues I would expect my complaint to be dealt with by an authority who had the knowledge and powers to right the wrongs I felt where done to me... not be pushed back to the very people who had wronged me in the first instance. It is very plain to see that the SFA and the SPFL are quite clearly linked in thinking and attitude. Now I have heard it said that it would not be the SFA but an independent panel put together by ... the SFA ! Why should we put through that when a court of law is an independent authority which has the necessary experience and powers to correct any wrong doing that may have occurred?  

[DETTY29]

16 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

I dont think we should just focus on the events surrounding the Dundee vote?  @16:30pm  Cormack confirmed he had a call from Donkey who stated that his vote was not required as they had enough votes from the top 12 to see it passed, what donkey neglected to state was the status of the voting from the championship, which at that time had not gained enough support.  Thus the motion had failed!   Hense the reason Aberdeen voted for the investigation!

 

If the Aberdeen vote truly was not required then why did Donkey agree to Cormacks demands?  So Aberdeen changed their intended No vote to a Yes vote?   but here is the crux of my point? I am sure on the BBC he stated that Aberdeen voted at 17:01?  Thus at 17:00 2 Yes votes were not yes votes?  They accepted the Aberdeen vote after the time restriction and chased after the Dundee vote,  But also Aberdeen voted after Dundee by the same mechanism yet their vote was not held in quarantine?  Aberdeen voted on a diferent resolution from the other 41?

 

Just to clarify at 17:00  there was NOT an 81% majority

I'm sure companies with committed votes (outside of AGM-EGM) will announce if resolutions have been passed once they receive threshold, irrespective of time period as yes votes received.

 

So in a straight 75% of 42 scenario he probably could have announced publicly where the SPFL were ahead of even the 48 hour deadline, as long as he had a committed yes.

 

But Id imagine the intricacies of the SPFL 3 tier voting procedure means he should have kept stoom....? 

[jr ewing]

1 minute ago, jock _turd said:

There is gathering concern that the court will, for some reason, direct a matter of company law to a football association to arbitrate. To me, someone who has no knowledge of legal matters, It would not make any sense at all to do this . If I was a shareholder who had the same issues I would expect my complaint to be dealt with by an authority who had the knowledge and powers to right the wrongs I felt where done to me... not be pushed back to the very people who had wronged me in the first instance. It is very plain to see that the SFA and the SPFL are quite clearly linked in thinking and attitude. Now I have heard it said that it would not be the SFA but an independent panel put together by ... the SFA ! Why should we put through that when a court of law is an independent authority which has the necessary experience and powers to correct any wrong doing that may have occurred?  

Court for Arbitration would make more sense. Duty of care after all. 

[Gulf Jambo]

5 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

I would say I am a good few pages further into the manual when it comes to criminal law, but like every other enthusiastc amatuer on here, corprate law is the dark arts, therefor is there anybody able to clarify the SPFL defence?

 

It just reads like their solitary defence is that the SFA should artibrate?  I am sure we will argue that is a fit up and a fait acompli.

 

So my question is to those better read so far on this subject?  If Lord Clark states that the CoS should hear the case, then as the SPFL have offered up no other defence, he can rule immediatly in the same manner as the SPFL not responding within the timescale allocated?  or:

further question they wont now be able to submit further answers?  were they using the sole answer as a delay to fabricate a defence?

 

I am no lawyer. 

But I think it will be a delay tactic in a way. 

Possibly to try and get the threat of the interdict away if delayed far enough. 

 

They will try this Arbitration defense. 

If it fails then will appeal to the judge for more time to answer the petition in full? 

 

But the judge may be able to say they should have used the time already possibly? 

 

Or that the fact they said they had already got a QC opinion before the case started (Les Gray's quote in the petition) could work against them as well. 

[Jambo314]

59 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

@jambogirlglasgow

@Footballfirst

 

 

This is the link to the current status for court hearings.

 

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/current-business/court-rolls

 

Is our case considered an Outer House hearing so media can request to dial in and listen to the audio hearing?

I emailed them, below is their reply ...

 

There is both media and public access to this case. Those requesting media access must provide proof that they are a bona fide journalist.

 

[Hagar the Horrible]

1 minute ago, DETTY29 said:

I'm sure companies with committed votes (outside of AGM-EGM) will announce if resolutions have been passed once they receive threshold, irrespective of time period as yes votes received.

 

So in a straight 75% of 42 scenario he probably could have announced publicly where the SPFL were ahead of even the 48 hour deadline, as long as he had a committed yes.

 

But Id imagine the intricacies of the SPFL 3 tier voting procedure means he should have kept stoom....? 

But its the three teir voting system, the Championship at that instance in time had voted against it, so why tell aberdeen their vote was not needed as it passed, when in fact it failed,  I think the Dundee lost vote had been read and moved into the spam folder.

 

But the SPFL make such a big issue out of the 81% ratio when it was obtailned on a lie and cohertion

[DETTY29]

2 minutes ago, Jambo314 said:

I emailed them, below is their reply ...

 

There is both media and public access to this case. Those requesting media access must provide proof that they are a bona fide journalist.

 

And your follow up question....

 

 

[Hagar the Horrible]

3 minutes ago, Jambo314 said:

I emailed them, below is their reply ...

 

There is both media and public access to this case. Those requesting media access must provide proof that they are a bona fide journalist.

 

so how can we access the public link, and did the SPFL agree to this?

[jock _turd]

Just now, jr ewing said:

Court for Arbitration would make more sense. Duty of care after all. 

 

I don't even see it that way! What power do CAS over the laws of the UK? Why go to associations for them to construct a court of arbitration when we have gone to the court that can deal with our complaints... our complaints are based in two sections of company laws which as detailed in the petition we submitted to the court. If the law lord does reject the petition he will surely have to say it is on the grounds that he does not think that company law has been breached?

[Lovecraft]

3 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

But its the three teir voting system, the Championship at that instance in time had voted against it, so why tell aberdeen their vote was not needed as it passed, when in fact it failed,  I think the Dundee lost vote had been read and moved into the spam folder.

 

But the SPFL make such a big issue out of the 81% ratio when it was obtailned on a lie and cohertion

 

That can 100% be confirmed or denied by checking the mail server logs.

 

 

[Hagar the Horrible]

where is Thommo from Channel 4 when you need him

[Shanks]

41 minutes ago, jonnothejambo said:

 

England playing football, finishing leagues and playoffs and all with s much higher rate of Covid-19.

 

Scottish football ripping itself apart at the seams all to give Celtic their title, and to persecute a few other teams with relish. 

 

Says it all really. 

Yea it’s a total joke. 
 

We had to shut the league down early as we couldn’t afford to play games behind closed doors so had to call it as it is........ but we can afford to start the season up behind closed doors.

 

Wish Scottish football would just **** off and die. 

[Gambo]

1 hour ago, wavydavy said:

It would just be a coincidense that these two clubs happen to be on the SPFL Board?

Now that would cause a shitstorm............in any other country.

[Bazzas right boot]

6 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

But its the three teir voting system, the Championship at that instance in time had voted against it, so why tell aberdeen their vote was not needed as it passed, when in fact it failed,  I think the Dundee lost vote had been read and moved into the spam folder.

 

But the SPFL make such a big issue out of the 81% ratio when it was obtailned on a lie and cohertion

 

Correct,, but tbh it won't be the last vote achieved by lies. 

Pretty common on all walks of life. 

[Jambo314]

5 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

so how can we access the public link, and did the SPFL agree to this?

I've sent a follow up email to ask how.

[Hagar the Horrible]

I dont do SMSM  but has any individual identified any other bad PR story from todays Rhedtops

[Hagar the Horrible]

1 minute ago, Jambo314 said:

I've sent a follow up email to ask how.

good stuff, I would hate to rely on twitter from the BBC

[Nookie Bear]

11 minutes ago, Jambo314 said:

I emailed them, below is their reply ...

 

There is both media and public access to this case. Those requesting media access must provide proof that they are a bona fide journalist.

 

That counts Jackson out then. 

[Bazzas right boot]

14 minutes ago, Gulf Jambo said:

 

I am no lawyer. 

But I think it will be a delay tactic in a way. 

Possibly to try and get the threat of the interdict away if delayed far enough. 

 

They will try this Arbitration defense. 

If it fails then will appeal to the judge for more time to answer the petition in full? 

 

But the judge may be able to say they should have used the time already possibly? 

 

Or that the fact they said they had already got a QC opinion before the case started (Les Gray's quote in the petition) could work against them as well. 

 

Depends I think, we outlined the companies act 2006,  if the judge feels there is a case there then it will stay in in the civil courts, it's not a sporting matter. 

Restriction of trade and the competition Act 1998 are also the route we are going down. 

 

We are trying to take it out of the sporting arena as outlined in our petition, if the judge agrees no chance he will bounce it back, however he may feel we have no case under the companies act or others and bounce it back like the board wants. That is their argument. 

 

It's really who he judges to be more correct at this stage, us or them. 

[David McCaig]

22 minutes ago, jock _turd said:

There is gathering concern that the court will, for some reason, direct a matter of company law to a football association to arbitrate. To me, someone who has no knowledge of legal matters, It would not make any sense at all to do this . If I was a shareholder who had the same issues I would expect my complaint to be dealt with by an authority who had the knowledge and powers to right the wrongs I felt where done to me... not be pushed back to the very people who had wronged me in the first instance. It is very plain to see that the SFA and the SPFL are quite clearly linked in thinking and attitude. Now I have heard it said that it would not be the SFA but an independent panel put together by ... the SFA ! Why should we put through that when a court of law is an independent authority which has the necessary experience and powers to correct any wrong doing that may have occurred?  

 

And a potentially precedent setting case of Company Law as well.  How to legislate for a written resolution when a specific ‘reject’ option is placed on the ballot paper.

 

Lord Clark’s legal background is one of academia, I think he will be rubbing his hands with glee at the opportunity to get stuck into this case.

[graygo]

21 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

I'm sure companies with committed votes (outside of AGM-EGM) will announce if resolutions have been passed once they receive threshold, irrespective of time period as yes votes received.

 

So in a straight 75% of 42 scenario he probably could have announced publicly where the SPFL were ahead of even the 48 hour deadline, as long as he had a committed yes.

 

But Id imagine the intricacies of the SPFL 3 tier voting procedure means he should have kept stoom....? 

 

That's my understanding, they don't need to wait till everyone has voted as some on here are saying, they can call the resolution passed as soon as they have enough yes votes. 

[Fire_At_The_Disco]

We will win, they tell lies

Hibs and the rest of the horrible wankers will die

 

I had a dream.......

[RENE]

34 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

I would say I am a good few pages further into the manual when it comes to criminal law, but like every other enthusiastc amatuer on here, corprate law is the dark arts, therefor is there anybody able to clarify the SPFL defence?

 

It just reads like their solitary defence is that the SFA should artibrate?  I am sure we will argue that is a fit up and a fait acompli.

 

So my question is to those better read so far on this subject?  If Lord Clark states that the CoS should hear the case, then as the SPFL have offered up no other defence, he can rule immediatly in the same manner as the SPFL not responding within the timescale allocated?  or:

further question they wont now be able to submit further answers?  were they using the sole answer as a delay to fabricate a defence?

I asked that a couple of days ago Hagar.  Surely if the only defence is it should be referred to SFA and Lord Clark says it shouldn't  then we have won the case.

[graygo]

21 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

But its the three teir voting system, the Championship at that instance in time had voted against it, so why tell aberdeen their vote was not needed as it passed, when in fact it failed,  I think the Dundee lost vote had been read and moved into the spam folder.

 

But the SPFL make such a big issue out of the 81% ratio when it was obtailned on a lie and cohertion

 

Not according to the SPFL it hadn't and even if they admitted receiving all the votes then they would argue that clubs had 28 days to change their vote.

Not saying that I agree with them.

 

 

[Hagar the Horrible]

1 minute ago, graygo said:

 

That's my understanding, they don't need to wait till everyone has voted as some on here are saying, they can call the resolution passed as soon as they have enough yes votes. 

There was no point in time before the 5pm deadline that the motion had passed,  Donkey had declared it passed before 5pm?  Told Aberdeen at 16:30 it had passed at 16:39 Dundee hit send, and at that point it had formally failed?  At 17:00 the voting had closed, the motion failed?  at 17:01 Aberdeen voted Yes on assurancies granted! at 17:17 the Dundee vote was erhmm found not to have been cast, Dundee informed, somehow after an incentified call?  Dundee were assesing their vote?  At 17:39, their vote was found.  Tell Ann we are sorry?  17:40 John Nelms goes into lockdown

 

And then there was the robust negotiations between clubs

[upgotheheads]

Not knowing the actual voting numbers, could it be that the Aberdeen vote no longer being required was predicated on the Dundee vote being either a no vote or an abstention. This is something Doncaster could (should) not have known officially at the time because  Dundee still had the opportunity to vote given the 28 day deadline.

As far as the SPFL were concerned, at 5 pm on the day of the Aberdeen conversation, the issue was still live because they had not received the Dundee vote (according to them).

 

Essentially this would suggest that the SPFL new that Dundee had voted against suspension and were determined to deny receiving it or to get Dundee to change it. 

 

Apologies if the point I'm making is not clear but frankly the whole issue makes my head spin.

Edited June 30, 2020 by upgotheheads