SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Dazo]

Does it matter if Dundee were aware of the voting ? If this was at a shareholders meeting and a show of hands were asked for then everyone would have been aware. I don’t think the votes had to be private so I’m not sure getting sidetracked with that issue is worth it. 

[Zico]

5 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Does it matter if Dundee were aware of the voting ? If this was at a shareholders meeting and a show of hands were asked for then everyone would have been aware. I don’t think the votes had to be private so I’m not sure getting sidetracked with that issue is worth it. 

To use your analogy, everyone showed their hands, except Doncaster ‘missed’ Dundee’s hand not being raised. Then he took them into a separate room for an hour and Dundee came back into the room to say they’d changed their mind and they were actually raising their hand, which meant the vote passed. 
 

I’d say it’s relevant. 

[wavydavy]

2 hours ago, jambodoug said:

My real worry is that regardless of what happens tomorrow, Doncaster is still seeking "absolute power".

 

If he does get that mandate from all clubs, what would stop him changing the rules (as he may then be able to do without any vote) to say that promotion from Championship, League 1 and League 2 can't happen unless a full league campaign is completed in those leagues?

 

That is undoubtedly his aim and with the pricks that run the majority of the clubs in this country he is liable to get the support he needs.

[Spellczech]

14 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Does it matter if Dundee were aware of the voting ? If this was at a shareholders meeting and a show of hands were asked for then everyone would have been aware. I don’t think the votes had to be private so I’m not sure getting sidetracked with that issue is worth it. 

Agreed, and lobbying for votes is expected from anyone who is particularly invested in the outcome. We know ICT were talking to Dundee. As far as we know nobody was bribed or blackmailed for their vote. The only question is why the SPFL appeared to say that loans or advances were not possible only prize money, so season needed curtailed...I still think the real reason was Celtic wanting their title and they cleverly only curtailed lower leagues originally which hod this, and the second vote which actually confirmed Celtics title became a cakewalk...

Edited June 30, 2020 by Spellczech

[Dazo]

8 minutes ago, Zico said:

To use your analogy, everyone showed their hands, except Doncaster ‘missed’ Dundee’s hand not being raised. Then he took them into a separate room for an hour and Dundee came back into the room to say they’d changed their mind and they were actually raising their hand, which meant the vote passed. 
 

I’d say it’s relevant. 

It might be relevant to you but that doesn’t mean it broke any rules and probably why it isn’t something we are pursuing through the courts. It certainly wasn’t within the spirit of the resolution but that’s about it. 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Dazo

[Clerry Jambo]

Not bad figures considering the shambles:

 

 

 

 

Barry Anderson

 

@BarryAnderson_

·

52m

 

Outstanding response from Scottish football fans buying season tickets amid job losses and no clarity on when they can return to stadiums: Rangers have sold 40,000+, Celtic 30,000+ (unconfirmed), Hibs 9,000+, Hearts 7,000+, Aberdeen 6,500+, Dundee Utd 4,000+.

 

#Scotland

 

[Dazo]

2 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Agreed, and lobbying for votes is expected from anyone who is particularly invested in the outcome. We know ICT were talking to Dundee. As far as we know nobody was bribed or blackmailed for their vote. The only question is why the SPFL appeared to say that loans or advances were not possible only prize money, so season needed curtailed...

Yep plenty clubs all speaking to each other making pacts on which way they were voting. Dundee May have turned out to be a bunch of ***** but that isn’t the issue. The SPFl as they bad guys in this. 

[Gmcjambo]

21 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Does it matter if Dundee were aware of the voting ? If this was at a shareholders meeting and a show of hands were asked for then everyone would have been aware. I don’t think the votes had to be private so I’m not sure getting sidetracked with that issue is worth it. 

 

Dundee have confirmed it mattered.  They were treated differently and put in the unique position of effectively having a casting vote. This left them open to undue influence or bribary.....and being able to hold the process to ransom by taking 26 days to revote when there was real time pressure financially.  In the end they took 5 days but thought they could use the situation to their advantage.     A show of hands vote means you may well get a sense of who is voting 'in the moment' but everyone is treated the same and its all done and dusted. This was highly unethical,  a complete sham of a process but whether it was against company law,  I don't know. 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Gmcjambo

[RENE]

16 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Does it matter if Dundee were aware of the voting ? If this was at a shareholders meeting and a show of hands were asked for then everyone would have been aware. I don’t think the votes had to be private so I’m not sure getting sidetracked with that issue is worth it. 

 

Yes if does matter.  Helms said I think on the Sunday that when he was told his vote hadn't  'arrived' he realised he had a the power to change things.  So he then told the SPFL to ignore first vote.  If he hadn't been told his vote wasn't in, he wouldn't  have changed his mind and the proposal would have been rejected.

[Dazo]

1 minute ago, RENE said:

 

Yes if does matter.  Helms said I think on the Sunday that when he was told his vote hadn't  'arrived' he realised he had a the power to change things.  So he then told the SPFL to ignore first vote.  If he hadn't been told his vote wasn't in, he wouldn't  have changed his mind and the proposal would have been rejected.

I never questioned the issue of the vote landing or not. I’m just saying the process normally allows for lobbying so in terms of our case it is irrelevant. If you want to go Round in circles over something that doesn’t help us one bit bash on. 

[Dazo]

7 minutes ago, Gmcjambo said:

 

Dundee have confirmed it mattered.  They were treated differently and put in the unique position of effectively having a casting vote. This left them open to undue influence or bribary.....and being able to hold the process to ransom by taking 26 days to revote when there was real time pressure financially.  In the end they took 5 days but thought they could use the situation to their advantage.     A show of hands vote means you may well get a sense of who is voting voting 'in the moment' but everyone is treated the same and its all done and dusted. This was highly unethical,  a complete sham of a process but whether it was against company law,  I don't know. 

Sp you don’t know if it broke the rules but you think it matters ? Let’s be clear anything that hasn’t broke the rules is at this stage a complete irrelevance to me. As I’ve said above of you want to angst over it bash on, I’d rather spend my time discussing the actual things that will help us in court. A time will come when those individual clubs who have been part of this process who have harmed us can be dealt with. 

[Bazzas right boot]

2 hours ago, The Wrinkly Ninja said:

 

I think McKenzie will be. It’s his articles and resolution that are being scrutinised.

 

He will be the fall guy for Doncaster I reckon.

 

 

The promoted clubs will be floating in thier own shite if it goes forward. 

 

Every other club has shown they will throw another to the dogs if it suits. 

 

I have a dream... 

 

Demotion/ promotion is reversed. 

We beat hibs in the sc sf. 

We sign Shankland for a a paltry release clause. 

I'd need to be hooked up to a drip to maintain fluid levels. 

 

If we then started the season well and won the sc I'd spontaneously combust. 

 

 

 

[NANOJAMBO]

15 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Agreed, and lobbying for votes is expected from anyone who is particularly invested in the outcome. We know ICT were talking to Dundee. As far as we know nobody was bribed or blackmailed for their vote. The only question is why the SPFL appeared to say that loans or advances were not possible only prize money, so season needed curtailed...I still think the real reason was Celtic wanting their title and they cleverly only curtailed lower leagues originally which hod this, and the second vote which actually confirmed Celtics title became a cakewalk...

And the reason for that second vote  was because ND was awaiting the response (ie agreement) from UEFA to cancel the Scottish leagues because they didn't want to do anything that would put Celtic's CL spot in jeopardy. 

Edited June 30, 2020 by NANOJAMBO

[One five]

23 minutes ago, Clerry Jambo said:

Not bad figures considering the shambles:

 

 

 

 

Barry Anderson

 

@BarryAnderson_

·

52m

 

Outstanding response from Scottish football fans buying season tickets amid job losses and no clarity on when they can return to stadiums: Rangers have sold 40,000+, Celtic 30,000+ (unconfirmed), Hibs 9,000+, Hearts 7,000+, Aberdeen 6,500+, Dundee Utd 4,000+.

 

#Scotland

 

Hate those tossers fester rd twats selling more than us but we will sell more than they f•••••s once we know what league we are paying in😎

[HMFC01]

7 hours 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.

 

I reckon they could have crammed in afew playoffs games before the August league commencement.  The playoff matches should have been considered.  If they moan about needing friendlies, they can stick that idea.

 

Congrats' to Keith Curle though 👍  He's done well as a manager.

[pettigrewsstylist]

This is starting to resemble what happens when the wee laddies aren't clever enough to join all their lies up and the parents catch them out 😂😂

Wonder if the penny has dropped that this is the Court of Session we are in now and who it is asking the questions. 

[Gmcjambo]

7 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Sp you don’t know if it broke the rules but you think it matters ? Let’s be clear anything that hasn’t broke the rules is at this stage a complete irrelevance to me. As I’ve said above of you want to angst over it bash on, I’d rather spend my time discussing the actual things that will help us in court. A time will come when those individual clubs who have been part of this process who have harmed us can be dealt with. 

The SPFL's QC has a view, or at least an argument that is different to our QC's.    I don't know what the determination about actual legal judgements will be anymore than you.  I was putting forward my view that the voting process is an issue that I expect will be part of our case, and rightly so - Dundee were the one club treated in this way,  and the one club that then changed a critical vote.  It's clear from our petition that the voting process is an issue they want to discuss - under the section 'The Dundee Rejection Vote'.  If you think that's being 'angsty' that's up to you.  If you don't want to discuss this because you feel it's not going to be a point that helps us in court,  then that's also up to you but not sure why you have been then.   

[HMFC01]

2 minutes ago, pettigrewsstylist said:

This is starting to resemble what happens when the wee laddies aren't clever enough to join all their lies up and the parents catch them out 😂😂

Wonder if the penny has dropped that this is the Court of Session we are in now and who it is asking the questions. 

 

Yeah, I wonder which of them will grass the other up first!  "He made me do it!,  He told me what to say!"

[Lovecraft]

33 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Agreed, and lobbying for votes is expected from anyone who is particularly invested in the outcome. We know ICT were talking to Dundee. As far as we know nobody was bribed or blackmailed for their vote. The only question is why the SPFL appeared to say that loans or advances were not possible only prize money, so season needed curtailed...I still think the real reason was Celtic wanting their title and they cleverly only curtailed lower leagues originally which hod this, and the second vote which actually confirmed Celtics title became a cakewalk...

They were determined to get through the calling of the league for Celtic in case UEFA forced everyone to void their seasons.

 

It has all been about Celtic and their 9iar from day one.

 

 

[Dazo]

4 minutes ago, Gmcjambo said:

The SPFL's QC has a view, or at least an argument that is different to our QC's.    I don't know what the determination about actual legal judgements will be anymore than you.  I was putting forward my view that the voting process is an issue that I expect will be part of our case, and rightly so - Dundee were the one club treated in this way,  and the one club that then changed a critical vote.  It's clear from our petition that the voting process is an issue they want to discuss - under the section 'The Dundee Rejection Vote'.  If you think that's being 'angsty' that's up to you.  If you don't want to discuss this because you feel it's not going to be a point that helps us in court,  then that's also up to you but not sure why you have been then.   

Of course the voting process is flawed that’s only reason we are in court. You are confusing issues, I’m only saying Dundee being aware of who voted isn’t an issue and doesn’t seem to be part of our case. 

[pettigrewsstylist]

11 minutes ago, HMFC01 said:

 

Yeah, I wonder which of them will grass the other up first!  "He made me do it!,  He told me what to say!"

Indeed. I suspect it will be just at that point we are offered our first settlement. 

Nobody really wants to hear it except us.

[Bickfest]

40 minutes ago, Dazo said:

It might be relevant to you but that doesn’t mean it broke any rules and probably why it isn’t something we are pursuing through the courts. It certainly wasn’t within the spirit of the resolution but that’s about it. 

But if the persuasion was actually unlawful or untra vires, surely it is something that should be pursued, no? Only way to find out is to keep it on the agenda and seek all the relevant evidence.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

28 minutes ago, Gmcjambo said:

 

Dundee have confirmed it mattered.  They were treated differently and put in the unique position of effectively having a casting vote. This left them open to undue influence or bribary.....and being able to hold the process to ransom by taking 26 days to revote when there was real time pressure financially.  In the end they took 5 days but thought they could use the situation to their advantage.     A show of hands vote means you may well get a sense of who is voting 'in the moment' but everyone is treated the same and its all done and dusted. This was highly unethical,  a complete sham of a process but whether it was against company law,  I don't know. 

I think that in the case like this, where the shareholders voting are also competitors bound by a rule that says they must 'act in good faith' towards each other, then changing an already cast vote, in a way that does irreparable harm to other clubs/shareholders, must surely break that rule. It's debatable whether or not the whole process constituted 'acting in good faith' but to encourage a club to, and to allow itself to be encouraged to, change a vote inflicting such overwhelming harm could never be considered 'good faith' towards those you are bound to always act in good faith.

[Gmcjambo]

6 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Of course the voting process is flawed that’s only reason we are in court. You are confusing issues, I’m only saying Dundee being aware of who voted isn’t an issue and doesn’t seem to be part of our case. 

I'm not confusing issues - you are splitting hairs.    In any event this is a forum for opinions - I have no issue with yours.

[Hagar the Horrible]

Thats another thing for me, If relegation was legal, then those clubs in the play-off spots could have been in those play-offs and they could have been done and dusted before the league started, as well as for Cove and Brora

 

Still less than 24 hours before the biggest game in recent history, It could be 3 clubs gutted v 3 clubs looking at the SPFL disapointed and lied to,  And hibs fans asking for 8999 season ticket refunds?

[JimmyCant]

13 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Of course the voting process is flawed that’s only reason we are in court. You are confusing issues, I’m only saying Dundee being aware of who voted isn’t an issue and doesn’t seem to be part of our case. 

The voting process and the Dundee 'issue' in particular are just one of the points of attack we have. Of more importance I would suggest is that the SPFL board lied about 'end of season' having to happen before clubs could get money. Hopefully we can prove thats not true. Prove that alone and we are just about there. Add to this that the board dismissed all other proposals and encouraged a rushed voting window of 48 hours. No time to debate or discuss or raise issues, just vote yes or no and do it quickly. Then of course there is the Dundee issue and literally dozens of other wee bits and pieces which taken together, add up to our case that relegation was unfair, unneccessary, contrary to the rules, illegal as far as the Companies act is concerned. Highly damaging to us financially. We dont have to prove or even mention every little thing that went on. If we can't make much of the Dundee issue there is plenty of other wrongs we can point to. We will never prove what was said or offered to Dundee, if anything, thats a secret thats not coming out.

Edited June 30, 2020 by JimmyCant

[One five]

3 minutes ago, Lovecraft said:

They were determined to get through the calling of the league for Celtic in case UEFA forced everyone to void their seasons.

 

It has all been about Celtic and their 9iar from day one.

 

 

That is exactly why they wanted the league to end ASAP so cmeltic get there tainted trophy, I have just gave up on Scottish football now they are all just f•••wits . 
I'll go to tynecastle like I’ve done since  I hung up my own boots  but I  just can't be arsed with the way it's all run , I just hope we burn the lot of them corrupted unbalanced sons of a bitches to ashes. 
 

yeah I am still raging!!!!!

[Cruickie's Moustache]

For whats its worth we have a three pronged attack.

 

The Dundee vote is the weakest argument, IMHO, being they technically had the right to reconsider up to the 28 days.

 

However, if it gets beyond tomorrow and not kicked out of the CoS, Lord Clark may take a view on the voting fiasco as part of the bigger picture of the second argument that the SPFL didn't have the power to do what they did and went about it in a manner that resulted in an unfair and prejudicial result for the petitioners. I'm a bit more confident on this strand of the petition.

 

The strongest argument I think we have is that there was potentially other ways the SPFL , as a company, could have been found to pay out monies and also to deal with any over or underpayment had the season got restarted or had to be called.  I noted the other day there was mention of teams getting a 'kick start' type payment in August. £660k was the figure for  the Premiership teams. £66k to the championship and presumably a meagre sum for the lower divisions. Any adjustments with regard to final 2019/20 payments could have easily been resolved just four months later (by altering the payments mentioned above) or spread across future payout dates.

 

The conflation of monies and final positions just ended up with a rushed and ill informed decision being made. Once the cash was in the bank very few were giving a hoot about potential reconstruction plans  to 'do no harm' to fellow members. 

 

As a PS, the gulf in monies being offered in 2020/21 also goes someway to justifying our £8m starter point for compensation. 

[heatonjambo]

Well, I’m able to dial into to tomorrows hearing!!!

 

yipee!!!

[Hagar the Horrible]

1 minute ago, heatonjambo said:

Well, I’m able to dial into to tomorrows hearing!!!

 

yipee!!!

pray tell how

[heatonjambo]

I applied too the court of sessions by email and been given a dial in code etc from a Ms Louise Cranston!

[milky_26]

4 minutes ago, heatonjambo said:

Well, I’m able to dial into to tomorrows hearing!!!

 

yipee!!!

neil, is that you?

[Bazzas right boot]

5 minutes ago, heatonjambo said:

Well, I’m able to dial into to tomorrows hearing!!!

 

yipee!!!

 

Keep the match day thread updated please. 

😂😂

[Stupid Sexy Flanders]

4 minutes ago, Cruickie's Moustache said:

For whats its worth we have a three pronged attack.

 

The Dundee vote is the weakest argument, IMHO, being they technically had the right to reconsider up to the 28 days.

 

However, if it gets beyond tomorrow and not kicked out of the CoS, Lord Clark may take a view on the voting fiasco as part of the bigger picture of the second argument that the SPFL didn't have the power to do what they did and went about it in a manner that resulted in an unfair and prejudicial result for the petitioners. I'm a bit more confident on this strand of the petition.

 

The strongest argument I think we have is that there was potentially other ways the SPFL , as a company, could have been found to pay out monies and also to deal with any over or underpayment had the season got restarted or had to be called.  I noted the other day there was mention of teams getting a 'kick start' type payment in August. £660k was the figure for  the Premiership teams. £66k to the championship and presumably a meagre sum for the lower divisions. Any adjustments with regard to final 2019/20 payments could have easily been resolved just four months later (by altering the payments mentioned above) or spread across future payout dates.

 

The conflation of monies and final positions just ended up with a rushed and ill informed decision being made. Once the cash was in the bank very few were giving a hoot about potential reconstruction plans  to 'do no harm' to fellow members. 

 

As a PS, the gulf in monies being offered in 2020/21 also goes someway to justifying our £8m starter point for compensation. 

 

There's another point that I must not be understanding properly as it seems like a huge issue to me but isn't really being mentioned: the refunds having to be paid to BT Sport/Sky/BBC. 

 

The SPFL claimed this wasn't an issue because it simply wasn't true, then days later they were paying £2.5m to BT Sport. They blatantly lied about it, unless I've completely misunderstood the situation. 

[Sarah O]

2 minutes ago, heatonjambo said:

I applied too the court of sessions by email and been given a dial in code etc from a Ms Louise Cranston!

You going to live stream it?

[Diadora Van Basten]

Just now, Sarah O said:

You going to live stream it?

Periscope 

[heatonjambo]

Guys,

 

the email i got is  extremely strict regarding what i can an cannot do.

 

like pass the dial in number,  I cant tweet proceedings Etc.

 

im happy to provide some updates on here if possible,.

 

can the legal bods like Jambo66 provide a key list of things to listen out for?

 

cheers

[gov]

6 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

9 minutes ago, heatonjambo said:

Well, I’m able to dial into to tomorrows hearing!!!

 

yipee!!!

 

LIVE STREAAAAAAM!!!!🥳🥳

[Guest ToqueJambo]

20 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

Thats another thing for me, If relegation was legal, then those clubs in the play-off spots could have been in those play-offs and they could have been done and dusted before the league started, as well as for Cove and Brora

 

Still less than 24 hours before the biggest game in recent history, It could be 3 clubs gutted v 3 clubs looking at the SPFL disapointed and lied to,  And hibs fans asking for 8999 season ticket refunds?

 

[jambogirlglasgow]

7 hours 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?

Yes 

[Tiger]

Just now, heatonjambo said:

Guys,

 

the email i got is  extremely strict regarding what i can an cannot do.

 

like pass the dial in number,  I cant tweet proceedings Etc.

 

im happy to provide some updates on here if possible,.

 

can the legal bods like Jambo66 provide a key list of things to listen out for?

 

cheers

 

 

I'd suggest not supplying any updates on here based on the detail highlighted below.......

 

Although not physically attending court, those dialling in are subject to the same rules as if they were present in Court. Anyone failing to obey or respect the authority of the Court may be subject to Contempt of Court proceedings. In particular, those accessing a hearing:

·         must not record or store the proceedings

·         must not broadcast the proceedings

·         must not, during the course of a hearing, comment on the proceedings using live texted based communications (such as Twitter).

 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

4 minutes ago, Stupid Sexy Flanders said:

 

There's another point that I must not be understanding properly as it seems like a huge issue to me but isn't really being mentioned: the refunds having to be paid to BT Sport/Sky/BBC. 

 

The SPFL claimed this wasn't an issue because it simply wasn't true, then days later they were paying £2.5m to BT Sport. They blatantly lied about it, unless I've completely misunderstood the situation. 

 

No it does seem like they ended the league early to give clubs money (1.8m between them) but ending the league early meant they owed 2.5m to Bt Sport. So the decision actually seems to have cost clubs 800k.

[Hagar the Horrible]

7 minutes ago, heatonjambo said:

I applied too the court of sessions by email and been given a dial in code etc from a Ms Louise Cranston!

then its best you have dual monitors and keep this thread up to date or a dead leg with be forthcoming:-)😀

[Whatsthefuture]

2 minutes ago, gov said:

 

LIVE STREAAAAAAM!!!!🥳🥳

The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service retain the copyright of live audio recordings of Court proceedings. Although you are welcome to listen to the proceedings, the re-use, capture, re-editing or redistribution of the material in any form is not permitted. You should be aware that any such use could attract liability for breach of copyright or defamation, in addition to the possibility of contempt of court proceedings.

[Hagar the Horrible]

OK so the second the bailiff says all stand at the end, you tell the result, I am sure its best you dont get a contempt charge  but a score of 1-0 to us etc is ok

[heatonjambo]

Here you go to show I’m not talking Cr@p

 

 

[Hungry hippo]

4 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

No it does seem like they ended the league early to give clubs money (1.8m between them) but ending the league early meant they owed 2.5m to Bt Sport. So the decision actually seems to have cost clubs 800k.

 

I'd say it cost the clubs £2.5m. The only difference they happened to receive a separate £1.8m earlier than they would have.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

Just now, Hungry hippo said:

 

I'd say it cost the clubs £2.5m. The only difference they happened to receive a separate £1.8m earlier than they would have.

 

Yes, good point. But the actual decision that was taken with the explicit aim of saving the clubs from financial hardship actually piled more financial hardship on them all, not just us Thistle and Stranraer. No need for an inquiry though....

[NANOJAMBO]

14 minutes ago, Stupid Sexy Flanders said:

 

There's another point that I must not be understanding properly as it seems like a huge issue to me but isn't really being mentioned: the refunds having to be paid to BT Sport/Sky/BBC. 

 

The SPFL claimed this wasn't an issue because it simply wasn't true, then days later they were paying £2.5m to BT Sport. They blatantly lied about it, unless I've completely misunderstood the situation. 

From my reading of the SPFL legal advice - their QC thought they were covered by two contractual clauses (one being force majeure) so no repayments would be due but that doesn't seem to have worked out quite as planned. 

[Jambos56]

Petrie stepping down temporarily  on health grounds