SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Lfhearts]

1 hour ago, 1874robbo said:

Sorry if asked already but why did we end up going with the Partick QC?

I would have assumed that we had ours lined up already considering we said we’d go to court whilst Partick couldn’t  afford to at that time.
Was it not practical to have 2 QC or is it not allowed?

Coz he has experience of the set up having lost the last case on a technicality.

[JamboAl]

Reading over the posts I am of the opinion that the following points are relevant

 

- it is a company law dispute.  A football dispute is where the SFA decide all refs shall come from west of Harthill or that Rangers UEFA licence shall be granted.  You cannot appeal.

- Why are they arguing for arbitration now when it was never on the agenda before?  Is it not for panellists to be agreed rather than have the SPFL list?

- Why is relegation/promotion "meat and drink" but doesn't apply to Brechin whose Chairman is on the SPFL Board?

- What is so wrong with a recon (even on a temporary basis) to achieve a "least damage" situation?  If it's because it might  create a fixture jam next season we can legislate in advance to call the league if no issues are in doubt or agree IN ADVANCE to have a PPG resolution if not completed by a given date.  At least everyone knows the score ahead of the game just as we know the 4th team in the Championship can be promoted over the 2nd team by virtue of play-offs.

 

Throw all that into the mix with the dodgy vote, the secret audit, Donkey's letters to get clubs to gang up on us etc etc and it would be difficult for us to come out this without adequate compensation at least, which would bring some clubs to their knees.  Recon would be easier and fairer all round.

 

[GBJambo]

Hope our QC’s WIFI connection is a bit better today! 

[wavydavy]

9 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.

 

 

 

Do you think this would really happen? Would it be a voluntary thing as in close it down and start again or just collapse.

[martoon]

23 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

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

 

 

 

😂

 

Made my old Mum lol. 

Edited July 2, 2020 by martoon

[David McCaig]

2 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

Do you think this would really happen? Would it be a voluntary thing as in close it down and start again or just collapse.

I mean fold as in concede the case and settle out of court.

 

There is no way in hell the SPFL are letting this go to a full trial.

[wavydavy]

14 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

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

 

 

This part from your link is interesting.

 

alleges unfair prejudice to the company's members as a whole (or, at least, some section of the membership of the company) and

[David McCaig]

Just now, wavydavy said:

 

 

This part from your link is interesting.

 

alleges unfair prejudice to the company's members as a whole (or, at least, some section of the membership of the company) and

Although Fulham lost their claim of unfair prejudice, so I’m not sure this was David Thomson’s greatest moment yesterday and one he may have reflected on overnight.

[wavydavy]

1 minute ago, David McCaig said:

Although Fulham lost their claim of unfair prejudice, so I’m not sure this was David Thomson’s greatest moment yesterday and one he may have reflected on overnight.

 

It doesn't mean we would lose though!!

[Steve]

33 minutes ago, willie wallace said:

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.😄

 

 

haha!

[David McCaig]

1 minute ago, wavydavy said:

 

It doesn't mean we would lose though!!

Not at all and its only a tiny part of our submission and even then only relevant if Lord Clark deems this to be a footballing dispute.

 

My concern was that Fulham lost the case and David Thomson stated that he believed this decision was wrong.

[Cruyff]

36 minutes ago, willie wallace said:

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.😄

 

I'm sure he will 😂 

[WorldChampions1902]

8 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

I mean fold as in concede the case and settle out of court.

 

There is no way in hell the SPFL are letting this go to a full trial.

This.

[Ethan Hunt]

2 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

Although Fulham lost their claim of unfair prejudice, so I’m not sure this was David Thomson’s greatest moment yesterday and one he may have reflected on overnight.

The law does sometimes make mistakes.

 

If he is trying to argue a point of law - and he has to argue against the Fulham decision to argue his point - then that’s what he has to do. I see it as a plus that he is prepared to argue against it. The law changes and the circumstances aren’t the same.if he feels he has an argument prepared against it he needs to present that argument.

[wavydavy]

6 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

I mean fold as in concede the case and settle out of court.

 

There is no way in hell the SPFL are letting this go to a full trial.

 

I understand.  With any luck they won't have any choice and it will go to a full trial.

 

Just as an aside if we did settle out of court any offer they make to us and Partick does that have to be voted on by the SPFL?

 

If it does then that could be rather a long drawn out process. Just imagine them all arguing about how much they will have to pay us and voting on it.

 

 

[David McCaig]

38 minutes ago, willie wallace said:

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.😄

 

 

I genuinely marvel at the skills of the QCs to pull together such complex information, much in the same way that even the most mediocre pro footballers are actually bloody good at football relative to the man on the street.

[One five]

2 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

The law does sometimes make mistakes.

 

If he is trying to argue a point of law - and he has to argue against the Fulham decision to argue his point - then that’s what he has to do. I see it as a plus that he is prepared to argue against it. The law changes and the circumstances aren’t the same.if he feels he has an argument prepared against it he needs to present that argument.

I agree in what your saying but he will have to be vey careful a judge does not like the law being questioned.

[wavydavy]

3 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

The law does sometimes make mistakes.

 

If he is trying to argue a point of law - and he has to argue against the Fulham decision to argue his point - then that’s what he has to do. I see it as a plus that he is prepared to argue against it. The law changes and the circumstances aren’t the same.if he feels he has an argument prepared against it he needs to present that argument.

 

This was an Englsh case though although I don't know if the laws differ on this type of case?

[Agentjambo]

What time does hearing start today??

[Clerry Jambo]

1 minute ago, Agentjambo said:

What time does hearing start today??

2pm

[wavydavy]

1 minute ago, Agentjambo said:

What time does hearing start today??

 

2pm

[Agentjambo]

Just now, Clerry Jambo said:

2pm

Cheers

[Agentjambo]

Just now, wavydavy said:

 

2pm

Cheers

 

[David McCaig]

3 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

The law does sometimes make mistakes.

 

If he is trying to argue a point of law - and he has to argue against the Fulham decision to argue his point - then that’s what he has to do. I see it as a plus that he is prepared to argue against it. The law changes and the circumstances aren’t the same.if he feels he has an argument prepared against it he needs to present that argument.

 

I’m sure that everything he says has been fully strategised and we have had other QCs playing the roles of Borland and Moynihan in countering our arguments.

 

Personally, I feel if this deemed to be a footballing dispute, it’s a very hard sell to convince the judge not to go to arbitration.

 

However, I feel the real strength of our case is that it is not a footballing dispute, so therefore arbitration and SPFL rules on court action are inapplicable.

 

This is Company Law with severe failings in corporate governance.   As I’ve said previously there is a precedent setting decision to be made on whether or not the Dundee vote is irrevocable and indeed whether the way in which the vote was presented is legally competent.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Just now, wavydavy said:

 

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

Obviously criminal charges are very different from the civil proceedings we are going through, but I thought I'd just post a wee reminder that 'football matters' are just a construct of people who seem to think that football really is more than a matter of life and death! Or, if not actually above the law, of a law unto itself.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

1 hour ago, Fluorescent Adolescent said:

I’m unfamiliar with the Leeds case. Appealing a points deduction for entering administration?

 

If so...A clear set of rules (footballing) were in place for such events. 15 points deduction?

There were no such parameters in place here for ending the league prematurely.

 

Apologies if I’ve got it wrong re Leeds.

They got 10 points for admin.

 

Then they got an extra 15 points (unprecedented) for exiting admin without a CVA.

 

There was no real mechanism to deal with it so EFL clubs voted in favour of a 15-point penalty.

 

Leeds challenged via arbitration and were smashed out the park by the panel. They didn’t go to court.

[buzzbomb]

20 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

I mean fold as in concede the case and settle out of court.

 

There is no way in hell the SPFL are letting this go to a full trial.

Won’t that be a massive admission of guilt  ..? How does donkey sell the about turn..?

[manaliveits105]

50 minutes ago, willie wallace said:

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.😄

 

Any QC worth his salt dips in and out of JKB regularly 

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Just now, Hagar the Horrible said:

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

I don't think we really know what their defence is as they've not even started to put it to the court. What they have done, and are still trying to do, is to block our attempt to have the matter heard in the Court of Sessions. That may well be their main, or even only, gambit, but what we've heard so far is not their defence of our petition.

[David McCaig]

Just now, buzzbomb said:

Won’t that be a massive admission of guilt  ..? How does donkey sell the about turn..?

 

Probably something like this:

 

In the interests of the game as a whole and in order to ensure the release of critical tv monies to clubs, we have cancelled the relegations of Hearts, Partick and Stranraer.

 

This means that we will run with a temporary structure of 13-10-10-9 next season, reverting back to 12-10-10-10 for the 2021/22 season.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

24 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

I mean fold as in concede the case and settle out of court.

 

There is no way in hell the SPFL are letting this go to a full trial.

That’s a presumption on your part tbf. It’s not that long ago you were telling us the SPFL board would railroad through reconstruction 

[David McCaig]

Just now, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

That’s a presumption on your part tbf. It’s not that long ago you were telling us the SPFL board would railroad through reconstruction 

 

They still might!!  Today is their final chance to avoid a full trial, hats off to Doncaster and the SPFL Board for holding their nerve for so long, but the decision over whether this stays at the COS or is handed over to arbitration is the point at which all bluffing stops.

[gnasher75]

16 minutes ago, Agentjambo said:

What time does hearing start today??

 

Is it the same code as yesterday?

[johnthomas]

29 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

I mean fold as in concede the case and settle out of court.

 

There is no way in hell the SPFL are letting this go to a full trial.

You seem very confident on this . I'd like to assume that is based on legal knowhow/experience ?

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

2 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

They still might!!  Today is their final chance to avoid a full trial, hats off to Doncaster and the SPFL Board for holding their nerve for so long, but the decision over whether this stays at the COS or is handed over to arbitration is the point at which all bluffing stops.

What if no-one is bluffing?

 

And no they won’t. They might get ordered to do it but that’s completely different 

Edited July 2, 2020 by Dusk_Till_Dawn

[David McCaig]

Just now, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

What if no-one is bluffing?

 

Then I’ll be very surprised and SPFL clubs will be very poor on the 1st of August.

[One five]

2 minutes ago, gnasher75 said:

 

Is it the same code as yesterday?

No it’s 137 926 2679

[Hagar the Horrible]

So @2pm we kick off again but with us to bad, so I hope we re-itterate what was stated yesterday, and we keep this going eating up the clock, as the DU QC wanted another 20mins, given that he lasted 2 hours and the SPFL stated he would need a few moments and he lasted 90 mins when he said it would be 30/40 mins.  So I would hope we finish at 15:45 given them limited time to drag it on, as it will look like they are time wasting knowing the fixtures are released Monday.

 

I hope there has been Robust converstations in chambers today, where the SPFL will either offer up considerable parachute payments or better enforce reconstruction so that everybody wins.

[Ethan Hunt]

21 minutes ago, One five said:

I agree in what your saying but he will have to be vey careful a judge does not like the law being questioned.

Certainly not for cases heard in a Scottish court, but for cases heard in an English court, I’m not sure he’d be entirely unhappy about that.

[davieholt]

24 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

The law does sometimes make mistakes.

 

If he is trying to argue a point of law - and he has to argue against the Fulham decision to argue his point - then that’s what he has to do. I see it as a plus that he is prepared to argue against it. The law changes and the circumstances aren’t the same.if he feels he has an argument prepared against it he needs to present that argument.

 

Am I mistaken in thinking that the Fulham decision doesn't set a precedent in Scottish law anyway?

I seem to recall that the proroguing of parliament issue was heard in Scotland as the English courts had no jurisdiction? Sod all to do with this case, of course, but you get my drift

[One five]

1 minute ago, Ethan Hunt said:

Certainly not for cases heard in a Scottish court, but for cases heard in an English court, I’m not sure he’d be entirely unhappy about that.

Fair point mate 

[buzzbomb]

13 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

Probably something like this:

 

In the interests of the game as a whole and in order to ensure the release of critical tv monies to clubs, we have cancelled the relegations of Hearts, Partick and Stranraer.

 

This means that we will run with a temporary structure of 13-10-10-9 next season, reverting back to 12-10-10-10 for the 2021/22 season.

🤞

[Cruyff]

5 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

They still might!!  Today is their final chance to avoid a full trial, hats off to Doncaster and the SPFL Board for holding their nerve for so long, but the decision over whether this stays at the COS or is handed over to arbitration is the point at which all bluffing stops.

Totally agree. If it goes to a CoS trial, there will be an interdict immediately halting the season from beginning. They simply cannot afford that. 

I don't think they can afford compensation either so if it goes to trial I'd assume that the SPFL board will force through reconstruction. 

 

I'd be amazed if they refused to back down if this went to a CoS trial given their only play is Arbitration, conceding the point already that the vote and demotion was dodgy and we at least have the right to challenge it. 

[David McCaig]

2 minutes ago, johnthomas said:

You seem very confident on this . I'd like to assume that is based on legal knowhow/experience ?

 

None whatsoever, other than far too many hours spent reading up on the case.

 

My personal view, is that the original vote was incompetent, flawed and compromised.  The SPFL Board must have know that it needed to be re-run, but in the meantime Rangers had started to raise serious concerns about the accuracy of the financial statements that the SPFL had made.

 

Therefore the SPFL Board made a calculated decision to railroad through the original vote even though they knew that it was unlikely to stand up to legal challenge.  

 

They did this in the belief that none of the 3 affected clubs would strong enough financially to take this to court and were also confident that they could hide behind SPFL/SFA rules and threats.  Even Partick would not have been in court today had it not been for aid from a mysterious benefactor.

 

However, Hearts and Partick both have the courage and the money to take this all the way... the SPFL are now drinking in the last chance saloon prior to a full hearing.

[Cruyff]

4 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

Certainly not for cases heard in a Scottish court, but for cases heard in an English court, I’m not sure he’d be entirely unhappy about that.

Agree. Can't see a Scottish Judge being too happy to hear English Law being rammed down their throat tbh. 

[Drumelzier]

2 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

So @2pm we kick off again but with us to bad, so I hope we re-itterate what was stated yesterday, and we keep this going eating up the clock, as the DU QC wanted another 20mins, given that he lasted 2 hours and the SPFL stated he would need a few moments and he lasted 90 mins when he said it would be 30/40 mins.  So I would hope we finish at 15:45 given them limited time to drag it on, as it will look like they are time wasting knowing the fixtures are released Monday.

 

I hope there has been Robust converstations in chambers today, where the SPFL will either offer up considerable parachute payments or better enforce reconstruction so that everybody wins.

 

I'm hoping that the announcement about the fixtures being announced on Monday may work in our favour with LC, who if 50/50 on a decision

may decide that an early resolution will help all parties.

 

[Hagar the Horrible]

Did I just catch that Prof Jason stated that there would be no fans at football until October, but only pencil that in?  Thats just shot the Sheep statement appart then?

[David McCaig]

2 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

Totally agree. If it goes to a CoS trial, there will be an interdict immediately halting the season from beginning. They simply cannot afford that. 

I don't think they can afford compensation either so if it goes to trial I'd assume that the SPFL board will force through reconstruction. 

 

I'd be amazed if they refused to back down if this went to a CoS trial given their only play is Arbitration, conceding the point already that the vote and demotion was dodgy and we at least have the right to challenge it. 

 

The legal costs payable if they lose will be rising exponentially as well.  Even the pre-trial hearing has already racked up an additional days payment for 3 x QCs and support staff.

[HMFC01]

2 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

of that is the case what about Brechin?

Or Kelty?

Or us, as we were not relegated- we were voted out.

THe meat and drink of football is fair sporting competition- that has not happened- all decisions were done on a vote.

That is NOT football

 

Correct.  42 member clubs play football over a preset of 38 games.  The decision to promote and relegate was a business decision arbitrated by the SPFL through their bullshit resolution.  It's nothing to do with football.  

[Cruyff]

Just now, David McCaig said:

 

The legal costs payable if they lose will be rising exponentially as well.  Even the pre-trial hearing has already racked up an additional days payment for 3 x QCs and support staff.

Probably already cost tens of thousands.