SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Jambo-Fox]

47 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

They were not voted out of anything.

THeir ruling body found them guilty of an offence for which rules existed, they were found in breach of those rules by the existing processes and were punished in line with those rules.

Man City were found to have breached the rules and were pulled up accordingly.

Its totally different.

Totally correct! And Hearts haven’t broken any rules. The rules that Hearts ‘signed up to’ were changed 

[David McCaig]

7 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

David Thomson will get torn in about them today. Their arguments that this is a footballing decision will be blown out of the water. 

 

There would be a delicious irony if the flawed vote was the decisive factor in seeing this case head to COS rather than arbitration.

 

You have to wonder what the SPFL Board were thinking, by not cancelling the vote and running the exercise again in compliance with Company Law?  

 

I’m also assuming that if the judge states that this is not a footballing dispute, the SFA rule book and threats of expulsion disappear into the ether.

Edited July 2, 2020 by David McCaig

[AndrewB]

Have we had a round of "look what the redtops say today?"

Seems they are only concentrating on "we could be kicked out of the SPFL."

 

Said it earlier, there needs to be serious reform of the Blazerocracy.  This all needs swept away.  

[David McCaig]

Just now, AndrewB said:

Have we had a round of "look what the redtops say today?"

Seems they are only concentrating on "we could be kicked out of the SPFL."

 

Said it earlier, there needs to be serious reform of the Blazerocracy.  This all needs swept away.  

 

Assuming Lord Clark reads the newspapers, I don’t see any headlines predicting draconian retribution being detrimental to our case.

 

It was an unfathomably classless and prejudicial statement by Gerry Moynihan.

[doctor jambo]

1 minute ago, Jambo-Fox said:

Totally correct! And Hearts haven’t broken any rules. The rules that Hearts ‘signed up to’ were changed 

Quite, the "rules" were really clear- 38 games, playoffs, pyramid system, relegations and so on.

The SPFL and SFA ignored all of that- their own rules for the competitions and decided to "wing it" .

They voted us out of a tournament against their own rules and this breached our rights to participate in said tournament as laid out in the rules

[One five]

17 minutes ago, bean counter said:

 

 

Yes but the access code has changed

 

The code for today is 137 926 2679

Yeah mate I’ve got it 👍it was boring yesterday listening to that twat from United blaber on and on  but hopefully be better today for us 🤞

[Hagar the Horrible]

Aberdeen are hopefull they will get 7500 fans into Pitodrie at the end of September, where are the extra fans coming from?

[wavydavy]

53 minutes ago, vegas-voss said:

I think if Covid comes back and halts playing again then quite a  clubs will have a lot more to worry about than SPFL status as they will effectively end up ****ed.Hibs , Aberdeen for exame struggling just now just imagine another 3 months with no games from say November they will be goosed.

 

True but that is not really the point I was making it is about them trying to barr us from getting back up anytime soon.

[Cruyff]

Just now, David McCaig said:

 

There would be a delicious irony if the flawed vote was the decisive factor in seeing this case head to COS rather than arbitration.

 

You have to wonder what the SPFL Board were thinking, by not cancelling the vote and running the exercise again in compliance with Company Law?  

They've broken company law and it allowed them to restrict our trade by demoting us, even though their "duty of care" was to ensure no club was punished. 

 

I'd also like to see him go after DU on the fact that they profited from this and voted against the compromise of reconstruction while arguing for arbitration that could lead to reconstruction (obv won't) and also that Hearts delayed the process and should have gone to court earlier. That just smacks of hypocrisy. 

 

He should also point out that Brechin clearly don't apply to his argument that promotion and relegation are footballs "meat and drink". 

[hmfc1984]

5 minutes ago, AndrewB said:

Have we had a round of "look what the redtops say today?"

Seems they are only concentrating on "we could be kicked out of the SPFL."

 

Said it earlier, there needs to be serious reform of the Blazerocracy.  This all needs swept away.  

I suspect they are focusing on this as it's an exciting headline isn't it. Imagine a team the size of hearts actually being kicked out the league. For them to punish us in any way for simply trying to prevent us being harmed is unbelievable when they had ample opportunity to push for a way that harmed no one. 

[Cruyff]

Just now, Hagar the Horrible said:

Aberdeen are hopefull they will get 7500 fans into Pitodrie at the end of September, where are the extra fans coming from?

never a truer word said. 

[wavydavy]

1 hour ago, AndrewB said:

If he refers it back to SFA, when would that panel decide?  I don't know if it is has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

Would it be before Monday (i.e. very quick kangaroo court) or not?  If not, then the SPFL fixtures would need to be held back, surely.

 

As an aside, since there are no fans in stadia, there is absolutely no rush to get these fixtures out.  It is not a normal time.  I know Sky need to know which Rangers match and which Celtic match is on which week, but this could be done, say, 2 weeks in advance - just like the post-split fixtures.

 

They already have their answer which is there is no case to answer.

[David McCaig]

Just now, Cruyff said:

They've broken company law and it allowed them to restrict our trade by demoting us, even though their "duty of care" was to ensure no club was punished. 

 

I'd also like to see him go after DU on the fact that they profited from this and voted against the compromise of reconstruction while arguing for arbitration that could lead to reconstruction (obv won't) and also that Hearts delayed the process and should have gone to court earlier. That just smacks of hypocrisy. 

 

He should also point out that Brechin clearly don't apply to his argument that promotion and relegation are footballs "meat and drink". 

 

Good points, I just wonder whether we should try and keep any footballing references to a minimum and focus primarily on the Corporate angle of governance, non-compliance, witholding of key financial information and subsequent restraint of trade.

[TyphoonJambo]

1 minute ago, Cruyff said:

never a truer word said. 

Must be sheep dog trials going on u guess. 

[Cruyff]

Just now, David McCaig said:

 

Good points, I just wonder whether we should try and keep any footballing references to a minimum and focus primarily on the Corporate angle of governance, non-compliance, witholding of key financial information and subsequent restraint of trade.

He probably will, you're more learned than I am on these matters.

 

[Ronaldo9]

4 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

Aberdeen are hopefull they will get 7500 fans into Pitodrie at the end of September, where are the extra fans coming from?

They're meant to be close to selling that amount of season tickets. Nothing more than a PR stunt to shift the last 1K or whatever. 

[WorldChampions1902]

9 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

Assuming Lord Clark reads the newspapers, I don’t see any headlines predicting draconian retribution being detrimental to our case.

 

It was an unfathomably classless and prejudicial statement by Gerry Moynihan.

I honestly believe that they will regret that remark.

[Cruyff]

3 minutes ago, TypoonJambo said:

Must be sheep dog trials going on u guess. 

Or a Prostitution auction. 🤷

[DETTY29]

6 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

Aberdeen are hopefull they will get 7500 fans into Pitodrie at the end of September, where are the extra fans coming from?

And Leitch said none before October.

 

 

[DETTY29]

Yesterday seems so long ago.

 

Weren't we also motioning for release of documents?

 

Has this been challenged or not from the SPFL?

[All roads lead to Gorgie]

15 minutes ago, AndrewB said:

Have we had a round of "look what the redtops say today?"

Seems they are only concentrating on "we could be kicked out of the SPFL."

 

Said it earlier, there needs to be serious reform of the Blazerocracy.  This all needs swept away.  

Never thought I would ever say it but the league down south is becoming more attractive by the minute 

 

[WoodstockJag]

  

13 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Quite, the "rules" were really clear- 38 games, playoffs, pyramid system, relegations and so on.

And then more than 4/5 of the members of the company voted to change its rules.

[wavydavy]

1 hour ago, doctor jambo said:

Its not about football.

Its about one company being shafted by other companies, to their extreme financial detriment- not on the sporting field, but in the boardrooms.

The losses stem NOT from completion of a sporting competition, at which point there would be no argument, but the voting out of a competition by rivals with vested interests, arising from a situation for which there were no rules in place by which to do it.

 

Had they not called the league early via a manufactured voting process and allowed the outstanding games to be played then none of this would have been required.

 

They have removed the fairness aspect from yes " Football Clubs"  but they are thriving Businesses who mainly depend on income from many sources outside of gate receipts which are non footballing parts of their business.

 

Lets not forget this is all about their desperation no doubt under pressure from certain factions to award the title to Celtic with no or little regard for the effect that was having on some of thier members.

 

Are they not duty bound to treat all members equally as shareholders?

[TyphoonJambo]

4 minutes ago, WoodstockJag said:

  

And then more than 4/5 of the members of the company voted to change its rules.

Did they though? The vote was more crooked than Harry's tax return. 

[jambo_]

rumour online suggesting hibs are about to make staff redundant - anyone know any details? or is it bullshit?

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

23 minutes ago, AndrewB said:

Have we had a round of "look what the redtops say today?"

Seems they are only concentrating on "we could be kicked out of the SPFL."

 

Said it earlier, there needs to be serious reform of the Blazerocracy.  This all needs swept away.  

Its a cracking headline. 

 

What I would do in their position too

[TyphoonJambo]

1 minute ago, jambo_ said:

rumour online suggesting hibs are about to make staff redundant - anyone know any details? or is it bullshit?

Hows the weather in Peebles today? Old news, its just gathering pace, tick tock. 

Edited July 2, 2020 by TypoonJambo

[wavydavy]

59 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

Borland QC said yesterday, “Promotion and relegation are fundamental parts of football.They are the meat and drink of football”. Albeit he was representing DU et al, how would that statement sit if, after the hearing, the SPFL cancel P & R for season 20-21?

 

Yes exactly that was my point. They have made a number of contradictions whcih I hope Thomson picks up on and highlights.

 

Another being this should be referred to Arbitration which is a panel of retired Judges etc.

[jambo_]

Just now, TypoonJambo said:

Hows the weather in Peebles today? 

 

not as nice as Coin am sure - good tapas in Coin as well 👍

[martoon]

1 hour ago, wavydavy said:

 

 

That may be the case however we would have been looking to come back up in one season but if Doncaster gets his way and we have a resurgance of Covid 19 he wants the power to be able to call the leagues again without promotion or relegation or a vote.

 

That would keep us in the Championship for another season.  I would hope that there is some way that our QC could get this mentioned in his case.

 

Aye, it's a fair point I overlooked, davy. As you say, it's worth mentioning if he can. 

 

The thought of that slimy fecker having that power is not a pleasant one. 

[belburgh]

As mentioned before most of yesterday's hearing was a one side view, today is our viewpoint to the court, keep the faith! 

[wavydavy]

52 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

To glibly say this is a football matter won't wash. It may have done back in the day but this image that the DU QC and others want to portray that There is nothing g to be concerned about 'football' people impacting others is just nonsense. Football people are flawed and completelyunqualified. Feels almost masonic, the urge to keep it in house. Not healthy.

 

If it were that simple then why do they feel the need to have a resident Solicitor there to make up cvomplicated rules and articles to govern the game.

 

It is big business for a lot of the clubs just look at the turnover they have. This is a Business matter. Partcik could be pout out of busness completely by this.

 

Are the SPFL trying their hardest to help them?  Don't think so.

[sac]

25 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

Aberdeen are hopefull they will get 7500 fans into Pitodrie at the end of September, where are the extra fans coming from?

Please no, or I speak some shite will be on to correct you.

[wavydavy]

52 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

We’ve barely even started our submission yet and haven’t touched on why we feel it is a non-footballing dispute.

 

The issue of the flawed vote/resolution actually has the potential to create a very important piece of Company Law precedence... this is the crux of the case and not in any way football related.

 

👍

[willie wallace]

37 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

David Thomson will get torn in about them today. Their arguments that this is a footballing decision will be blown out of the water. 

I am sure he will still be checking  on here on his way up the court steps to make sure he hasn't missed anything.😄

 

[TyphoonJambo]

7 minutes ago, jambo_ said:

 

not as nice as Coin am sure - good tapas in Coin as well 👍

Not wrong bud, bloody hot today though and that dam pool won't clean itself😁😁

[wavydavy]

36 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

Remember when Scottish football and every single Rangers supporter, including swathes of the media, tried to persuade the police and the courts that Duncan Ferguson 'stickin' the heid oan' John McStay during a football match was a 'football matter' and should be left to the SFA to adjudicate on. That worked out well for them all, didn't it! Three months, I think it was, he was given to think over the difference between what was, until challenged, considered to be a 'football matter' and what the actual reality of the law was.

 

The Fulham case which was mentioned yesterday was about the players behaviour as I recall and threats to the ref.

[Салатные палочки]

2 minutes ago, sac said:

Please no, or I speak some shite will be on to correct you.

 

 

[MarkDevriesScores4]

“This is a footballing matter” can not be the SPFL’s sole line of defence as it doesn’t hold water. I fully expect them to have a card or 2 up their sleeves. To base their whole defence on what has been heard so far would be idiotic even for the SPFL.

[Seymour M Hersh]

2 hours ago, vegas-voss said:

Pure kangaroo court stuff

 

Here is the SFA list of panel members relaxing prior to being called.

 

 

Edited July 2, 2020 by Seymour M Hersh

[Hagar the Horrible]

4 minutes ago, MarkDevriesScores4 said:

“This is a footballing matter” can not be the SPFL’s sole line of defence as it doesn’t hold water. I fully expect them to have a card or 2 up their sleeves. To base their whole defence on what has been heard so far would be idiotic even for the SPFL.

It is and thay have none and thats all in total and yes

[wavydavy]

56 minutes ago, AndrewB said:

Have we had a round of "look what the redtops say today?"

Seems they are only concentrating on "we could be kicked out of the SPFL."

 

Said it earlier, there needs to be serious reform of the Blazerocracy.  This all needs swept away.  

 

They follow the party line and print what Doncaster wants them to just as they did with switching the argument for us fighting being relegated to stopping Dundee United being promoted.

 

You can see how he manipulates the two main redtops and of course McLennan being an ex Newspaper Editor working for Dermot Desmond will have all the contacts to ably assist.

 

Anyone know how Desmond is getting on with the Money Laundering Case that was brought against him recently?

 

Rietumu, one of Latvia's largest banks, is facing three French court hearings in May 2020 as it appeals a 2017 prosecution for money laundering in France. The bank's majority shareholder is Irish businessman and Celtic FC owner Dermot Desmond.

Edited July 2, 2020 by wavydavy

[Ribble]

12 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

The Fulham case which was mentioned yesterday was about the players behaviour as I recall and threats to the ref.

 

It was about the chairman of the FA acting as an unlicensed agent in the transfer of a player out of fulham

[David McCaig]

9 minutes ago, MarkDevriesScores4 said:

“This is a footballing matter” can not be the SPFL’s sole line of defence as it doesn’t hold water. I fully expect them to have a card or 2 up their sleeves. To base their whole defence on what has been heard so far would be idiotic even for the SPFL.

 

The SPFL aren’t presenting their full defence at this hearing.  They are simply arguing that this is a footballing dispute and therefore the appropriate place for this case to be heard is arbitration as per SPFL/SFA rules.

 

If the SPFL are unsuccessful this goes to a full trial, except it won’t as the SPFL will fold.

 

 

[David McCaig]

1 minute ago, Ribble said:

 

It was about the chairman of the FA acting as an unlicensed agent in the transfer of a player out of fulham

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-507-0366?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1

[Kidd’s Boots]

46 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

There would be a delicious irony if the flawed vote was the decisive factor in seeing this case head to COS rather than arbitration.

 

You have to wonder what the SPFL Board were thinking, by not cancelling the vote and running the exercise again in compliance with Company Law?  

 

I’m also assuming that if the judge states that this is not a footballing dispute, the SFA rule book and threats of expulsion disappear into the ether.

It would also very interesting to hear what advice and direction was given by the Exec to the Board in relation to the flawed vote, and whether it was ever put to them to re-run. Doncaster sounded very comfortable about this when questioned on Sportsound, it may be a different story if he's questioned on the Parliament Square. To your last point, the expectation would be yes, but, this is the could be an association scorned after today, and who knows what they are capable of!!

[wavydavy]

24 minutes ago, weehammy said:

If the SPFL are so keen on arbitration why didn’t they offer this route weeks/months ago rather than plucking it out of the air only after legal proceedings commenced. Likewise, why didn’t the SFA, as governing body, offer to mediate at a much earlier stage?
All we’ve heard for months is a bunch of mouthpieces telling us to ‘take our medicine’.

 

Because Doncaster thought he had it all under control and called Ann Budge's what he thought was a BLUFF.

 

[Cobblers]

3 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

The SPFL aren’t presenting their full defence at this hearing.  They are simply arguing that this is a footballing dispute and therefore the appropriate place for this case to be heard is arbitration as per SPFL/SFA rules.

 

If the SPFL are unsuccessful this goes to a full trial, except it won’t as the SPFL will fold.

 

 

 

If you’re right that’s should be reason enough to justify why it can’t be heard by the SFA.  It’s effectively an admission that they either have things to hide or don’t have the confidence in a genuinely independent view.

[David McCaig]

1 minute ago, Cobblers said:

 

If you’re right that’s should be reason enough to justify why it can’t be heard by the SFA.  It’s effectively an admission that they either have things to hide or don’t have the confidence in a genuinely independent view.

 

The fact that the SPFL have lodged any sort of defence is what the unfair prejudice argument refers to.

[wavydavy]

7 minutes ago, Ribble said:

 

It was about the chairman of the FA acting as an unlicensed agent in the transfer of a player out of fulham

 

Was it. Didn't know that cheers.