karipidis Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 What are the dial in details for todays session? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamboelite Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 2 minutes ago, David McCaig said: Just to add the court is not currently in session as they are attempting to reboot the broadband!! I dont know why i laughed at this just that it seems like one of those British farce comedies. How do we think this is landing with Lord Clark ? Stronger argument than yesterday ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David McCaig Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Just now, Cruyff said: Thanks David once again. 👍 Did we score there. David Thomson has been excellent today, interesting that Lord Clark has started asking about evidence requirements for full trial, specifically cross-examination of Doncaster and Nelms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle rock Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 6 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said: 👍 ’McCaig Files part 2’! We need a theme song Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gator Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 @David McCaig Cheers for the summary! Any feelings on how this is going? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Beni of Gorgie Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 3 minutes ago, gordiegords said: Just seen some sensational headlines in both the Glasgow rags, “the rebels could be kicked out” as warned by lawyer, was that in yesterday’s hearing? What if we boot out the other 39 instead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Sanchez Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 1 minute ago, karipidis said: What are the dial in details for todays session? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1874robbo Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Totally my thoughts but reading the above post it appears the judge seems to be interjecting into quite a lot our QC is arguing. It wasn’t too forth coming yesterday when the others had their say. was he and I just missed it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruyff Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Just now, David McCaig said: David Thomson has been excellent today, interesting that Lord Clark has started asking about evidence requirements for full trial, specifically cross-examination of Doncaster and Nelms. Good stuff. 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David McCaig Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 1 minute ago, Jamboelite said: I dont know why i laughed at this just that it seems like one of those British farce comedies. How do we think this is landing with Lord Clark ? Stronger argument than yesterday ?? He has started asking about evidence requirements for a full trial, you’d assume if he was minded to sist, he wouldn’t bother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hungry hippo Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Just now, David McCaig said: David Thomson has been excellent today, interesting that Lord Clark has started asking about evidence requirements for full trial, specifically cross-examination of Doncaster and Nelms. Good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Magic Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 10 minutes ago, bobskeldon said: just noticed the opposition are playing with a one armed goalie! One armed goalies lives matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Dongcaster Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Just now, 1874robbo said: Totally my thoughts but reading the above post it appears the judge seems to be interjecting into quite a lot our QC is arguing. It wasn’t too forth coming yesterday when the others had their say. was he and I just missed it? I thought this, but maybe it’s because we only get one shot at it so the judge wants to be clear. Perhaps he will be more involved in when their QC next speaks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David McCaig Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Just now, 1874robbo said: Totally my thoughts but reading the above post it appears the judge seems to be interjecting into quite a lot our QC is arguing. It wasn’t too forth coming yesterday when the others had their say. was he and I just missed it? I think a couple of his interjections have been very positive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gmcjambo Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 3 minutes ago, gordiegords said: Just seen some sensational headlines in both the Glasgow rags, “the rebels could be kicked out” as warned by lawyer, was that in yesterday’s hearing? There was a cheeky comment along this lines. Their headline after today could be "the rebels could be reinstated". Feels like a nonsense we could be kicked out for raising valid issues, on the other hand reinstatement is still on the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karipidis Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 1 minute ago, Rick Sanchez said: Cheers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobskeldon Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 1 minute ago, Vlad Magic said: One armed goalies lives matter. all goalies lives matter! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 7 minutes ago, David McCaig said: Heart of Midlothian/Partick Thistle v SPFL: Day 2 David Thomson QC – Hearts/Partick The effect of Section of 2010 Arbitration Act – the language is clear, unambiguous and speaks for itself. The court does not have a discretion to overlook this language. This seems to be at odds with the position in England and is based on different historical context. Feels that the motion is ill-conceived and that the right to seek a sist depends on the applicant doing neither of the actions stated in 10(1d). To retain the right to seek a sist the respondents must not place substantive answers. Thomson disputed Borland’s argument that they had to give a substantive answer. There is no basis that this could be considered to be a 2-sided dispute. Motions for interim order argued daily without defences being lodged. Therefore argues that the right to seek arbitration has been lost. Any referral to arbitration would lead to valuable time being lost and more importantly the matters raised are of significant public interest and concern. Reference is made to the extraordinary communication made to clubs last week telling them that it was necessary for them to support the SPFL in order to see the papers. Lord Clark highlights that the email from Dundee was received at 4:48pm on the day on question. Does this help in speeding things up.? DT refers to the debacle of the Dundee vote and the public interest in clearing this up. We are entitled to discover the truth of what happened in that episode. Lord Clark: Will evidence, afadavits and witness statements be required? Will witnesses be required to be led. DT – the focus of the petitioners is likely to be on documentary evidence, but cant say for certain there would be no need for cross-examination… particularly the conversations between John Nelms and Neil Doncaster. There would also be an evidence requirement for any compensation demand. Lord Clark: A requirement for evidence and limited cross-examination. DT – Submission 2 No valid arbitration clause is in play. The starting point in any consideration should be the SPFL rules and these are not clear or definitive about arbitration Reliance about SFA disciplinary rule 78 by Moynihan to suggest agreement to arbitration process does no such thing. In the context of the present petition the arbitration provision of article 99 has not been incorporated. Lord Clark – Is there a members agreement amongst clubs to resolve disputes via arbitration. DT – Yes but only under article 99 and this petition is brought as shareholders within the SPFL Ltd. This why this is not a football dispute. Temporary break in proceedings due to Broaband Issues – court not in session Thankyou. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazzas right boot Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 6 minutes ago, David McCaig said: Heart of Midlothian/Partick Thistle v SPFL: Day 2 David Thomson QC – Hearts/Partick The effect of Section of 2010 Arbitration Act – the language is clear, unambiguous and speaks for itself. The court does not have a discretion to overlook this language. This seems to be at odds with the position in England and is based on different historical context. Feels that the motion is ill-conceived and that the right to seek a sist depends on the applicant doing neither of the actions stated in 10(1d). To retain the right to seek a sist the respondents must not place substantive answers. Thomson disputed Borland’s argument that they had to give a substantive answer. There is no basis that this could be considered to be a 2-sided dispute. Motions for interim order argued daily without defences being lodged. Therefore argues that the right to seek arbitration has been lost. Any referral to arbitration would lead to valuable time being lost and more importantly the matters raised are of significant public interest and concern. Reference is made to the extraordinary communication made to clubs last week telling them that it was necessary for them to support the SPFL in order to see the papers. Lord Clark highlights that the email from Dundee was received at 4:48pm on the day on question. Does this help in speeding things up.? DT refers to the debacle of the Dundee vote and the public interest in clearing this up. We are entitled to discover the truth of what happened in that episode. Lord Clark: Will evidence, afadavits and witness statements be required? Will witnesses be required to be led. DT – the focus of the petitioners is likely to be on documentary evidence, but cant say for certain there would be no need for cross-examination… particularly the conversations between John Nelms and Neil Doncaster. There would also be an evidence requirement for any compensation demand. Lord Clark: A requirement for evidence and limited cross-examination. DT – Submission 2 No valid arbitration clause is in play. The starting point in any consideration should be the SPFL rules and these are not clear or definitive about arbitration Reliance about SFA disciplinary rule 78 by Moynihan to suggest agreement to arbitration process does no such thing. In the context of the present petition the arbitration provision of article 99 has not been incorporated. Lord Clark – Is there a members agreement amongst clubs to resolve disputes via arbitration. DT – Yes but only under article 99 and this petition is brought as shareholders within the SPFL Ltd. This why this is not a football dispute. Temporary break in proceedings due to Broaband Issues – court not in session Thanks for summaries. Bit in Bold- or Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccarton3 Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 2 minutes ago, David McCaig said: David Thomson has been excellent today, interesting that Lord Clark has started asking about evidence requirements for full trial, specifically cross-examination of Doncaster and Nelms. What a tease Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David McCaig Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Still waiting on the Session resuming Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartsofgold Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 2 minutes ago, David McCaig said: David Thomson has been excellent today, interesting that Lord Clark has started asking about evidence requirements for full trial, specifically cross-examination of Doncaster and Nelms. That is VERY interesting. Maybe he's thinking ahead and time constraints for the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zakred Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 2 minutes ago, Vlad Magic said: One armed goalies lives matter. Used to be a drummer!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1874robbo Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 2 minutes ago, Neil Dongcaster said: I thought this, but maybe it’s because we only get one shot at it so the judge wants to be clear. Perhaps he will be more involved in when their QC next speaks? Fingers crossed mate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poseidon Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Just now, David McCaig said: Still waiting on the Session resuming Its been back on for 5 mins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjcc Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Thanks @David McCaig for the update. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1874robbo Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 2 minutes ago, David McCaig said: I think a couple of his interjections have been very positive. Total layman here mate so I’ll take your word for it 👍🏻 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Daddy Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 9 minutes ago, David McCaig said: Heart of Midlothian/Partick Thistle v SPFL: Day 2 David Thomson QC – Hearts/Partick The effect of Section of 2010 Arbitration Act – the language is clear, unambiguous and speaks for itself. The court does not have a discretion to overlook this language. This seems to be at odds with the position in England and is based on different historical context. Feels that the motion is ill-conceived and that the right to seek a sist depends on the applicant doing neither of the actions stated in 10(1d). To retain the right to seek a sist the respondents must not place substantive answers. Thomson disputed Borland’s argument that they had to give a substantive answer. There is no basis that this could be considered to be a 2-sided dispute. Motions for interim order argued daily without defences being lodged. Therefore argues that the right to seek arbitration has been lost. Any referral to arbitration would lead to valuable time being lost and more importantly the matters raised are of significant public interest and concern. Reference is made to the extraordinary communication made to clubs last week telling them that it was necessary for them to support the SPFL in order to see the papers. Lord Clark highlights that the email from Dundee was received at 4:48pm on the day on question. Does this help in speeding things up.? DT refers to the debacle of the Dundee vote and the public interest in clearing this up. We are entitled to discover the truth of what happened in that episode. Lord Clark: Will evidence, afadavits and witness statements be required? Will witnesses be required to be led. DT – the focus of the petitioners is likely to be on documentary evidence, but cant say for certain there would be no need for cross-examination… particularly the conversations between John Nelms and Neil Doncaster. There would also be an evidence requirement for any compensation demand. Lord Clark: A requirement for evidence and limited cross-examination. DT – Submission 2 No valid arbitration clause is in play. The starting point in any consideration should be the SPFL rules and these are not clear or definitive about arbitration Reliance about SFA disciplinary rule 78 by Moynihan to suggest agreement to arbitration process does no such thing. In the context of the present petition the arbitration provision of article 99 has not been incorporated. Lord Clark – Is there a members agreement amongst clubs to resolve disputes via arbitration. DT – Yes but only under article 99 and this petition is brought as shareholders within the SPFL Ltd. This why this is not a football dispute. Temporary break in proceedings due to Broaband Issues – court not in session 👍Thanks for that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Interjections come accross as bad, interuptions etc, but in general if you stand your ground and answer confidently its a good thing, Its a human thing, I have been in a case and i was sure the Judge was sleeping, until I was asked a very basic question I was not expecting and tried very hard to anwser in leymans terms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Anyone hear Doncaster's bum squeak? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRY Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Here we go again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Never Let Them Forget Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 It’s back 👍🏼 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughesie27 Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Referee blows the whistle. Play back on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kila Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 And we're back. If further technical issues arise they'll pause for a break and resolve again. Only 49 mins left of today though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMJ_1874 Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 13 minutes ago, Jamboelite said: Whats happening in the Belgium case ? Just another waffle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Fox Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 🤞 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazzas right boot Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 3 minutes ago, 1874robbo said: Totally my thoughts but reading the above post it appears the judge seems to be interjecting into quite a lot our QC is arguing. It wasn’t too forth coming yesterday when the others had their say. was he and I just missed it? Might be normal for the "attacking " QC, he is making the case and may not have reference as it's new ground so the judge will want to keep pace, on point and within context. The judge shouldn't need to ask too much of a defending QC he isn;'t trying to press a issue or break into new territory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackal Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Lord Clark highlights that the email from Dundee was received at 4:48pm on the day on question. Does this help in speeding things up.? If this was the case the original vote was rejected. League couldnt be called and the 3 teams given promotion had no right to be promoted. This may have been discussed but Im not fully up to date with everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle rock Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 12 minutes ago, David McCaig said: Heart of Midlothian/Partick Thistle v SPFL: Day 2 David Thomson QC – Hearts/Partick The effect of Section of 2010 Arbitration Act – the language is clear, unambiguous and speaks for itself. The court does not have a discretion to overlook this language. This seems to be at odds with the position in England and is based on different historical context. Feels that the motion is ill-conceived and that the right to seek a sist depends on the applicant doing neither of the actions stated in 10(1d). To retain the right to seek a sist the respondents must not place substantive answers. Thomson disputed Borland’s argument that they had to give a substantive answer. There is no basis that this could be considered to be a 2-sided dispute. Motions for interim order argued daily without defences being lodged. Therefore argues that the right to seek arbitration has been lost. Any referral to arbitration would lead to valuable time being lost and more importantly the matters raised are of significant public interest and concern. Reference is made to the extraordinary communication made to clubs last week telling them that it was necessary for them to support the SPFL in order to see the papers. Lord Clark highlights that the email from Dundee was received at 4:48pm on the day on question. Does this help in speeding things up.? DT refers to the debacle of the Dundee vote and the public interest in clearing this up. We are entitled to discover the truth of what happened in that episode. Lord Clark: Will evidence, afadavits and witness statements be required? Will witnesses be required to be led. DT – the focus of the petitioners is likely to be on documentary evidence, but cant say for certain there would be no need for cross-examination… particularly the conversations between John Nelms and Neil Doncaster. There would also be an evidence requirement for any compensation demand. Lord Clark: A requirement for evidence and limited cross-examination. DT – Submission 2 No valid arbitration clause is in play. The starting point in any consideration should be the SPFL rules and these are not clear or definitive about arbitration Reliance about SFA disciplinary rule 78 by Moynihan to suggest agreement to arbitration process does no such thing. In the context of the present petition the arbitration provision of article 99 has not been incorporated. Lord Clark – Is there a members agreement amongst clubs to resolve disputes via arbitration. DT – Yes but only under article 99 and this petition is brought as shareholders within the SPFL Ltd. This why this is not a football dispute. Temporary break in proceedings due to Broaband Issues – court not in session Thanks for that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilberts Fridge Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 7 minutes ago, David McCaig said: David Thomson has been excellent today, interesting that Lord Clark has started asking about evidence requirements for full trial, specifically cross-examination of Doncaster and Nelms. Oh please, please, please, please let this happen. It would all be worth it just for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccarton3 Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Please please please let me get what I want.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozi Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 12 minutes ago, gordiegords said: Just seen some sensational headlines in both the Glasgow rags, “the rebels could be kicked out” as warned by lawyer, was that in yesterday’s hearing? The daily record even went as far to say a TOP lawyer, as if we had just hired the first guy we could reach Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walrus Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 From The 4th Official Twitter Just been told that Competition Authority decided that the Pro League’s decision to relegate Waasland-Beveren is justified. This is despite the auditore of Competition Authority saying something completely different last month on two separate occasions. More when I find out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 If this ends in a nil-nil draw, does it go to extra time and penalties, or like the Ryder cup the the current holder retains the cup? Still this is good, and its eating up the clock, if that matters. Is it a points victory or will we get a knockout in the last round? only got on for 5 mins and they axed the feed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo Drifter Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 12 minutes ago, gordiegords said: Just seen some sensational headlines in both the Glasgow rags, “the rebels could be kicked out” as warned by lawyer, was that in yesterday’s hearing? It's bollocks. It's the ultimate sanction according to the SFA rules. Another is a £1 million fine. It would never happen. Even if the SFA/SPFL win they'd waive penalties in order to appear magnanimous. A non-story. Ignore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewB Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 6 minutes ago, Castle rock said: We need a theme song OK, I'll have a go. Based on The X-Files... doo doo doo duh-doo Based on The Rockford Files... nuh nuh na nuh , nuh-nuh nuh-nuh nuh-nuh na-na Spot on, I'll think you'll find. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo Drifter Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Rockford Files for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 2 minutes ago, Walrus said: From The 4th Official Twitter Just been told that Competition Authority decided that the Pro League’s decision to relegate Waasland-Beveren is justified. This is despite the auditore of Competition Authority saying something completely different last month on two separate occasions. More when I find out. that’s not good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kila Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Audio quality is terrible, Hearts QC should call in from a phone instead if his internet is this shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Hope the Judge makes the decision go our way before he finds out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.