SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[The Treasurer]

4 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

I could have said the Dundee United /Raith /Cove case in 20 minutes. 

Not if you were on £200 per hour

[PhoenixHearts]

2 minutes ago, mitch41 said:

Honestly 

 

No.

[Riccarton3]

3 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

I could have said the Dundee United /Raith /Cove case in 20 minutes. 

Even the Court's pish. If that seriously what has been said, surprised at the complexity? Really?

[Footballfirst]

5 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

The judge asked QC for SPFL,  if SPFL had already applied to SFA for arbitration or was this this to be treated as a/the  request. The QC didn't know !! Clearly QC for DUFC etc is making that case. 

 

Personally (I'm not a lawyer) I find it odd the 3 clubs are engaging a QC to make the case the SPFL should have been doing (the case for arbitration). 

I agree entirely.

[Cruyff]

Who is Hearts QC BTW? 

[OTT]

Just now, Allowayjambo1874 said:

Dundee United QC discusses promotion and relegation then asks the court to 'use common sense'.

 

Fall of chair moment.

 

 

 

Common sense is to send them back down and put do no harm back to the top of the table. They can then argue for reconstruction which they were dead against a month ago. 

 

The SPFL have created a bloody mess. 

[jambogirlglasgow]

1 minute ago, Cruyff said:

Thanks for clarifying. I thought this was just going to be a quick chat with the judge, everyone puts their tuppence in and the judge makes the call within the two hour slot.

Never thought it would be a three day snooze fest. 

 

You seriously thought that?!! 
It’s a complex legal argument. 🤷🏼‍♀️

[bean counter]

Half Time I'm off for a pie

[5-1Jambo]

9 minutes ago, Harry Potter said:

Ooops☹️

Webex call shouldn't cost you anything. The court pays for the service. 

[1874s_Kin]

2 minutes ago, Hector Riva said:

 

Was it a Timex watch?

I see what you did there 😄 (Showing your age Hector!)

[Footballfirst]

Just now, Cruyff said:

Who is Hearts QC BTW? 

 

David Thomson I think, the QC who wrote Partick's legal opinion

[Sarah O]

When's the highlights going to be on telly?

[Riccarton3]

4 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Nope. He was quick to jump on DUFC QC blaming HMFC for the potential lack of time to get this done (Hearts delayed for 2 months)- the judge jumped in and reminded him there had been talk of recon. The judge is switched on. 

I bloody hope so

[Boyces beard]

Here are the costs for calling the 020 number, sorry if already posted.

 

Summary of 020 numbers

UK telephone numbers starting with 020 area codes are generally registered to new numbers in the capital city of London by default, however there can be exceptions. Calls to these numbers are only free if you have inclusive minutes remaining on your mobile tariff or you have a free landline calls bundle. Otherwise you have to pay an access charge to your provider followed by a per-minute rate, note that these charges may be higher for mobile customers therefore you should consider phoning 020 numbers from a landline handset if you have run out of minutes.

 

Minimum cost of calling 020 numbers on UK networks

• Lowest 020 call charges for EE customers: you will have to pay 30p plus a 44p access charge if calling from a pay as you go mobile. Alternatively EE landline customers can call 020 numbers for just 12.5p plus a 20p connection fee.
• Phoning 020 numbers on O2 Pay & Go will cost you 30p per minute plus a one-off access fee of 30p.
• Minimum cost of calling 020 numbers on Vodafone: you will pay 11.5p per minute (19p access fee) if you use your landline, alternatively if you phone London numbers from a Vodafone pay as you go handset you will pay 30p to connect the call followed by 30p per minute thereafter

[NANOJAMBO]

18 minutes ago, Jambos_1874 said:

So when do we actually get a ruling one way or the other? When will we definitvely know that we get compensation, retain Premiership status etc?

At the start the judge said he might have to give his ruling tomorrow - but that was before the DUFC QC started (and he isn't finished )  I think it will be next week before we hear. 

[wavydavy]

10 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

How the **** can they argue that it is unfair to promote or relegate due to smaller number of games yet they’ve done precisely that?! What’s the point in even playing or fans paying to watch this coming season if they do that?

 

I know but that is their way of thinking. It's ok to do this to us but we are the bad boys for complaining. Now they are saying if this virus pops up again next season or any time in the future we want the power to stop relegation promotion which is basically what should have happened in the first place.

[Cruyff]

Just now, jambogirlglasgow said:

You seriously thought that?!! 
It’s a complex legal argument. 🤷🏼‍♀️

Aye!

 

I thought the judge would have read the petitions, already had his opinion and he would have asked questions to the QC's to clarify things, then made a decision. That's what I thought a hearing was. 

 

I thought the whole arguments thing was reserved for an actual trial. 

[Anything2]

7 minutes ago, Last Laff said:

You mean they’ve been given a stolen watch and complaining they shouldn’t give it back as it was almost theres anyway. 

Yeah, they accepted the watch in good faith not realising that it was stolen goods. However they did know it was stolen and actually voted on whether it should be stolen in the first place. 

[ScoPo]

I don't see how the argument for arbitration holds up when Hearts made repeated efforts to find a solution prior to legal action. 

 

 

[Cruyff]

3 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

David Thomson I think, the QC who wrote Partick's legal opinion

Thanks 👍 

[5-1Jambo]

1 minute ago, NANOJAMBO said:

At the start the judge said he might have to give his ruling tomorrow - but that was before the DUFC QC started (and he isn't finished )  I think it will be next week before we hear. 

Judge said at the end that this case was more complex than first thought and told everyone he is only available tomorrow afternoon and Friday. This would suggest it's going to go on for the rest of the week. 

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Don't know if it's allowed, but I'd love to hear our QC ask the judge, perhaps as his final point, why it might be that while Hearts and PT want the case heard in the CoS, where they consider they will receive a fairer hearing/justice, the SPFL should want it passed to the SFA? And could it be that they, the SPFL, have cause to think that the SFA, with whom they have a very close relationship, is where they have a better chance of winning rather than in a court presided over by his Lordship?

 

I'm sure Lord Clark knows exactly why the SPFL want it moved, but I think it would be good to raise the point to ensure it becomes a factor in his deliberations.

 

Of course, it might not be considered good form to raise such a suggestion in court, but if it's allowed, it does seem to me to be a point worth making.

[kingantti1874]

Still think it will be compensation, I think with Doncaster and Mulraney on the SFA board it will extremely easy to argue that forum cannot arbiter a position as complex as this

[jambogirlglasgow]

5 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

Aye!

 

I thought the judge would have read the petitions, already had his opinion and he would have asked questions to the QC's to clarify things, then made a decision. That's what I thought a hearing was. 

 

I thought the whole arguments thing was reserved for an actual trial. 

Fair enough! I’m not saying I knew how long it would take but it’s a fairly lengthy petition with a number of legal points and it’s worth a lot of money to the parties. Even deciding the forum to hear it was always going to take time. Everything in court takes ages. Bloody lawyers! 

[NANOJAMBO]

3 minutes ago, ScoPo said:

I don't see how the argument for arbitration holds up when Hearts made repeated efforts to find a solution prior to legal action. 

 

 

Which the judge was already aware of.

The DUFC QC has spent all morning trashing the Hearts case and insisted that Hearts are "contractually bound" to go to arbitration both by their SPFL & SFA membership. 

 

What will be VERY interesting to hear is why Hearts don't want to go to arbitration. Apparently all they've said (that's been mentioned in court today) is that "it's likely to be impractical" - and the DUFC QC said this was only about getting it done on time ie before the new season starts. 

[JamboGraham]

Possibly a silly question but is it even possible for arbitration to be a realistic resolution to this situation?

 

Surely by its nature arbitration requires parties to want to meet (or be willing to meet) somewhere on middle ground? Win/Lose is relegation/or not, arbitration (compromise) would be compensation? Both of which the SPFL are challenging?

 

Surely by that nature the COS is the only suitable place to resolve this as the impacted parties are requiring a winner and a loser?

Edited July 1, 2020 by JamboGraham

[NANOJAMBO]

4 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

Don't know if it's allowed, but I'd love to hear our QC ask the judge, perhaps as his final point, why it might be that while Hearts and PT want the case heard in the CoS, where they consider they will receive a fairer hearing/justice, the SPFL should want it passed to the SFA? And could it be that they, the SPFL, have cause to think that the SFA, with whom they have a very close relationship, is where they have a better chance of winning rather than in a court presided over by his Lordship?

 

I'm sure Lord Clark knows exactly why the SPFL want it moved, but I think it would be good to raise the point to ensure it becomes a factor in his deliberations.

 

Of course, it might not be considered good form to raise such a suggestion in court, but if it's allowed, it does seem to me to be a point worth making.

That's what's been going through my mind as I was listening to the DUFC QC. 

[NANOJAMBO]

1 minute ago, JamboGraham said:

Possibly a silly question but is it even possible for arbitration be a realistic resolution to this situation?

 

Surely by its nature arbitration requires parties to want to meet (or be willing to meet) somewhere on middle ground? Win/Lose is relegation/or not, arbitration (compromise) would be compensation? Both of which the SPFL are challenging?

 

Surely by that nature the COS is the only suitable place to resolve this as the impacted parties are requiring a winner and a loser?

According to the DUFC QC , Hearts don't even have a choice : their membership of the SPFL & the SFA requires this, it's a contractual obligation. 

[Jambos_1874]

11 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

At the start the judge said he might have to give his ruling tomorrow - but that was before the DUFC QC started (and he isn't finished )  I think it will be next week before we hear. 

Ok, thanks. I am not optimistic about our chances but keen to get a conclusion soon so we can move on.

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, JamboGraham said:

Possibly a silly question but is it even possible for arbitration be a realistic resolution to this situation?

 

Surely by its nature arbitration requires parties to want to meet (or be willing to meet) somewhere on middle ground? Win/Lose is relegation/or not, arbitration (compromise) would be compensation? Both of which the SPFL are challenging?

 

Surely by that nature the COS is the only suitable place to resolve this as the impacted parties are requiring a winner and a loser?

 

Hearts case at Artibration - don't relegate us. 

 

SFA panel - okay, we agree knowing SPFL have that power 

[Riccarton3]

2 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Which the judge was already aware of.

The DUFC QC has spent all morning trashing the Hearts case and insisted that Hearts are "contractually bound" to go to arbitration both by their SPFL & SFA membership. 

 

What will be VERY interesting to hear is why Hearts don't want to go to arbitration. Apparently all they've said (that's been mentioned in court today) is that "it's likely to be impractical" - and the DUFC QC said this was only about getting it done on time ie before the new season starts. 

So, they have no positive thing to say about arbitration, no suggestion of how a compromise could be reached or imagined. Just a mantra that it is the route as per rules. It offers no belief that arbitration will succeed

[Mr Elwood P]

13 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

Aye!

 

I thought the judge would have read the petitions, already had his opinion and he would have asked questions to the QC's to clarify things, then made a decision. That's what I thought a hearing was. 

 

I thought the whole arguments thing was reserved for an actual trial. 

A trial is criminal law this is a civil court action.

[willie wallace]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cC1Do4B-H3ovVytUrQxc63jRomsE5hqI/view?usp=drivesdk

 

Half time at court.Hearts on the right.

 

[jambogirlglasgow]

3 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

That's what's been going through my mind as I was listening to the DUFC QC. 

It’s likely that the answer to that is that it’s the SPFL’s position that it’s not about what they’d like but that it’s a requirement of the rules that they go to arbitration. (Though of course it is what they’d like) 

[Koolkeith]

Just think of it like a game of cricket.  No idea how many runs the opposition got, but we're still to bat.

[Dacok56]

16 minutes ago, jambo3tevie said:

Here are the costs for calling the 020 number, sorry if already posted.

 

Summary of 020 numbers

UK telephone numbers starting with 020 area codes are generally registered to new numbers in the capital city of London by default, however there can be exceptions. Calls to these numbers are only free if you have inclusive minutes remaining on your mobile tariff or you have a free landline calls bundle. Otherwise you have to pay an access charge to your provider followed by a per-minute rate, note that these charges may be higher for mobile customers therefore you should consider phoning 020 numbers from a landline handset if you have run out of minutes.

 

Minimum cost of calling 020 numbers on UK networks

• Lowest 020 call charges for EE customers: you will have to pay 30p plus a 44p access charge if calling from a pay as you go mobile. Alternatively EE landline customers can call 020 numbers for just 12.5p plus a 20p connection fee.
• Phoning 020 numbers on O2 Pay & Go will cost you 30p per minute plus a one-off access fee of 30p.
• Minimum cost of calling 020 numbers on Vodafone: you will pay 11.5p per minute (19p access fee) if you use your landline, alternatively if you phone London numbers from a Vodafone pay as you go handset you will pay 30p to connect the call followed by 30p per minute thereafter

Just checked my Virgin latest charges on line. Coming up as a £0.00 twice. (I've dialled in and out twice as had a work thing to deal with!)

[manaliveits105]

If these spanners vote to give spfl powers to stop relegation/promotion in future covid situations today it should immediately be brought to judges attention - case over

The fact that they are even considering it after voting against it should show him the kind of selfish lowlife that is involved here .

 

[BASIL_HEARTS]

Mclaren turning down the Dundee United job. Maybe because they are gonna be in the championship? 

[upgotheheads]

When is it likely to restart?

[Ainsley Harriott]

should these threads not be locked during the court proceedings. People are providing commentary which is a complete breach of court rules.

[JimmyCant]

27 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

This is curious. Like the judge has been on the moon. Christ, this is not some wee case, . How did he think it would pan out? Surprised at the complexity? Wait til! He heard the petitioners. What is his preparation? Would it not make sense to restrict the presentations to an allotted time? Get a sense of how the participants are likely to operate?

I think its better that the judge seemingly has little knowledge or interest in football. Clearly no bias can come into play. It takes as long as it takes. We'll get our full say before any decision is made, however long that takes. Patience required here.

[Gilberts Fridge]

Would I be correct in thinking that being last to address the court is beneficial to us in that a) our legal team can assess the case being put forward by the defendant QCs and amend our own before we address the court and b) whilst the judge should be impartial, its a human trait that the last person to be heard most likely gets their views considered more strongly.

 

Or am I just clutching at straws.

[chrisyboy7]

1 minute ago, Gilberts Fridge said:

Would I be correct in thinking that being last to address the court is beneficial to us in that a) our legal team can assess the case being put forward by the defendant QCs and amend our own before we address the court and b) whilst the judge should be impartial, its a human trait that the last person to be heard most likely gets their views considered more strongly.

 

Or am I just clutching at straws.

Nope its a good thing

[gator]

3 minutes ago, BASIL_HEARTS said:

Mclaren turning down the Dundee United job. Maybe because they are gonna be in the championship? 

I imagine he is still collecting a pay cheque from many of his former employers!

[Italian Lambretta]

1 minute ago, Gilberts Fridge said:

Would I be correct in thinking that being last to address the court is beneficial to us in that a) our legal team can assess the case being put forward by the defendant QCs and amend our own before we address the court and b) whilst the judge should be impartial, its a human trait that the last person to be heard most likely gets their views considered more strongly.

 

Or am I just clutching at straws.

Will our QC even be heard today if the SPFL one waffles on the rest of the afternoon to waste more time?

 

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

I did wonder last night why folk were getting excited about this 

[Mikey1874]

4 minutes ago, Dacok56 said:

Just checked my Virgin latest charges on line. Coming up as a £0.00 twice. (I've dialled in and out twice as had a work thing to deal with!)

 

Someone said it's free - court pay. 

[hibsarepants]

Just now, Gilberts Fridge said:

Would I be correct in thinking that being last to address the court is beneficial to us in that a) our legal team can assess the case being put forward by the defendant QCs and amend our own before we address the court and b) whilst the judge should be impartial, its a human trait that the last person to be heard most likely gets their views considered more strongly.

 

Or am I just clutching at straws.

No, definitely to our benefit.  Our QC will be aware of the arguments / case law being used by the other side and will be doing homework along with the legal team to counter argue. 

[Jamboelite]

35 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

The motions before the court today were that the case go to arbitration (DU/Raith/Cove) and the the case be sisted (SPFL), hence it is those parties who will speak first.

 

Hearts/PT substantive claim is not up for discussion today.

But we do get an opportunity to challenge their motion which as someone points out going last isnt a bad thing.

 

Unless its the end of the day and the judge has sacked it.

 

Even if it goes to arbitration and we get told tough is there anything stopping us taking it back to court?

 

What i mean is the judge looking to see if it needs to go there first because its in the rules of association and then if that doesnt resolve the issue it could be brought to the CofS, or is he looking with a view to see if it has any merits to be a CofS case regardless of whether it goes to arbitration or not?

Edited July 1, 2020 by Jamboelite

[Harry Potter]

25 minutes ago, Sarah O said:

When's the highlights going to be on telly?

lol.