SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Zen Jambo]

So did Carole F*****G Baskin do it or not? 

[Heartsmad1874]

Just now, dazinho88 said:

Me too, couldn't be arsed listening to that DU guy again - was painful yesterday. 

 

Roll on 4pm so people can talk about it! 

[rory78]

Does the Hearts QC speak again seems odd that they've been on twice?

[Cruyff]

1 minute ago, bmxweeman said:

Good, someone have a summary ready to read at 1601

I'm sure McCaig files part 3 will be on when the session has ended. 👍 

[Heartsmad1874]

2 minutes ago, Bring Back Paulo Sergio said:

I edited my comment earlier to say it was a clear own goal. Don't have a clue why it was deleted as thats all it said.

Think mods are just being extra careful with posts, they deleted one of mine asking a poster why he thought our case was going back to the SFA without our guy finishing, 15-20 minutes after that post, something big seems to have happened!!!

Edited July 2, 2020 by Heartsmad1874

[maroonlegions]

Hope we are still in the fight after today, only our QC will no. Budge will no also i would imagine, keeping an eye out for any hidden  reactions from Budge..

[HMFSee]

15 minutes ago, Turkishcap said:

Way off topic but seriously every time I think of AB all I see in my mind is Ann Hegarty from the Chase, ND I have this image of the Beast, Mark Labbett, anyone else get this?

Cant unthink it now 😂😂

[heatonjambo]

Is that bingo!!!

[Diadora Van Basten]

Good work by the Mods I have no idea what’s going on 👍

Edited July 2, 2020 by Diadora Van Basten

[gjcc]

1 minute ago, maroonlegions said:

Hope we are still in the fight after today, only our QC will no. Budge will no also i would imagine, keeping an eye out for any hidden  reactions from Budge..

Hidden reaction? I want a full on Beattie if we get to go to court. 

[Ramagio87]

Why did they start so late today?

[Fozzyonthefence]

1 minute ago, Back to 2005 said:

Will they add time on for stoppages? Board about to go up....

 

 

What was that? The Belgium and French cases?

Well the Belgian one certainly isn’t in our favour but that’s a development today that the judge won’t have heard about unless he’s on JKB!

[maroonlegions]

Just now, Diadora Van Basten said:

Good work by the Mods I have no idea what’s going int👍

Lets hope Lord Clarke  does not feel the same way..

[maroonlegions]

Just now, gjcc said:

Hidden reaction? I want a full on Beattie if we get to go to court. 

I meant because of legalities , her not breaching them.

[Sooperstar]

Back at 10 tomorrow for the closing chapters.

[David McCaig]

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

 

No arbitration incorporation unless made clear.

 

Submission 3 – is unfair prejudice arbitrable: Refers to the papers

 

Submission 4  - Article 99.1 does not purport in any sense to refer all disputes to arbitration.  It only says certain disputes ie SFA or Football dispute.

 

Is this a football dispute?  The SPFL is not in any way an associated person.

 

Whilst in one way every dispute could be considered a football dispute, the problem with that argument is that the SPFL’s own rules only refer to disputes of a certain type.

 

This is a company dispute of unfair prejudice brought by shareholders of a company against how the affairs of the limited company, the SPFL have been conducted.

 

Reference again made to the articles involved in the Fulham case and how these are very different to article 99 by the SPFL.

 

Lord Clark: No ruling on motions until he has heard both.

 

Response from Garry Borland QC:

 

DT has referred to article 99, provisions relative to nomination of arbiters, time period, choice of chair and how this may be conducted.  He said there might be significant delay.  DT has added nothing specific to this. He has given no substantive grounds that the arbitration agreement is incapable of being performed.

 

He merely argues that arbitration is a less attractive option.  

 

Article 99.1 provides in terms that it comprises an agreement by parties subject to it, to specified arbitration.  This article is explicitly and arbitration agreement.

 

Article 99.15 the need for prior approval from SFA does not offend public interest, as it does not preclude any party from going to court and is reasonable for any parties seeking arbitration.

 

Lord Clark – refers back to St Johnstone 1965 when a similar precondition existed.

 

GB – similar but different as the SFA were more heavily involved and there was no independent arbitration tribunal.

 

This is no different from other contractual obligations in business life.

 

Therefore 99.15 is legal and enforceable.

 

What would a public hearing achieve? Extensive written submissions already placed

 

Lord Clark – Yesterday Mr Moynihan made reference to the SFA having the power to clubs ‘oot the gemme’ and said this consequence was something he had to consider.

 

GB - Refers back to 10.1(d) of arbitration act and the precedence in English Law and that the respondents have not prejudiced their right to arbitration.  Substantive answers had to be lodged to show that there was a real dispute that fell within remit of arbitration.  The case highlighted by DT (Norwest/Holst) vouches that this is correct. Requirement to demonstrate there is a 2-sided dispute suitable for arbitration.

 

Therefore it is entirely legitimate to provide answers.

 

There is no compelling reason why this should not go to arbitration.

 

On the issue of the clubs saying that they are sueing as shareholders of the SPFL.  Petitioners are contractually obliged to comply with the SPFL rules.

 

Rule B4 of the SPFL rules contractually obliges petitioners to comply with the SFA articles.  The 3 clubs are seeking to enforce the provisions of the SPFL articles.

 

Section 33 of Companies Act 2006, bind the members as if there were covenants on each member

 

Reconvene at 10 tomorrow morning

[GinRummy]

1 minute ago, Ramagio87 said:

Why did they start so late today?

It was when the judge was free. 

[DETTY29]

11 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Every time I join I have to put the 137 926 2679 in twice. 

Just press ##  and you get through ok

[Tokyo Drifter]

7 minutes ago, Zen Jambo said:

So did Carole F*****G Baskin do it or not? 

Easy, tiger ...

[Don Dan]

Lord Clark is now well aware of the Dundee voting farce. He is also aware we could be expelled from the league thanks to the toe curling Weegie parlance referenced yesterday. Two OG’s. in our favour I’d say.

[Zen Jambo]

3 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

Lord Clark – Yesterday Mr Moynihan made reference to the SFA having the power to clubs ‘oot the gemme’ and said this consequence was something he had to consider.

 

 

 

Is this the own goal? 

[Dazo]

Just now, Zen Jambo said:

 

Is this the own goal? 

I don’t think it is, others do. 

[Cruyff]

Thanks @David McCaig

[NANOJAMBO]

2 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

Lord Clark is now well aware of the Dundee voting farce. He is also aware we could be expelled from the league thanks to the toe curling Weegie parlance referenced yesterday. Two OG’s. in our favour I’d say.

That was quite a moment.  Hopefully Moyhihan is reflecting on his mention of this yesterday. 

[heatonjambo]

4 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

 

No arbitration incorporation unless made clear.

 

Submission 3 – is unfair prejudice arbitrable: Refers to the papers

 

Submission 4  - Article 99.1 does not purport in any sense to refer all disputes to arbitration.  It only says certain disputes ie SFA or Football dispute.

 

Is this a football dispute?  The SPFL is not in any way an associated person.

 

Whilst in one way every dispute could be considered a football dispute, the problem with that argument is that the SPFL’s own rules only refer to disputes of a certain type.

 

This is a company dispute of unfair prejudice brought by shareholders of a company against how the affairs of the limited company, the SPFL have been conducted.

 

Reference again made to the articles involved in the Fulham case and how these are very different to article 99 by the SPFL.

 

Lord Clark: No ruling on motions until he has heard both.

 

Response from Garry Borland QC:

 

DT has referred to article 99, provisions relative to nomination of arbiters, time period, choice of chair and how this may be conducted.  He said there might be significant delay.  DT has added nothing specific to this. He has given no substantive grounds that the arbitration agreement is incapable of being performed.

 

He merely argues that arbitration is a less attractive option.  

 

Article 99.1 provides in terms that it comprises an agreement by parties subject to it, to specified arbitration.  This article is explicitly and arbitration agreement.

 

Article 99.15 the need for prior approval from SFA does not offend public interest, as it does not preclude any party from going to court and is reasonable for any parties seeking arbitration.

 

Lord Clark – refers back to St Johnstone 1965 when a similar precondition existed.

 

GB – similar but different as the SFA were more heavily involved and there was no independent arbitration tribunal.

 

This is no different from other contractual obligations in business life.

 

Therefore 99.15 is legal and enforceable.

 

What would a public hearing achieve? Extensive written submissions already placed

 

Lord Clark – Yesterday Mr Moynihan made reference to the SFA having the power to clubs ‘oot the gemme’ and said this consequence was something he had to consider.

 

GB - Refers back to 10.1(d) of arbitration act and the precedence in English Law and that the respondents have not prejudiced their right to arbitration.  Substantive answers had to be lodged to show that there was a real dispute that fell within remit of arbitration.  The case highlighted by DT (Norwest/Holst) vouches that this is correct. Requirement to demonstrate there is a 2-sided dispute suitable for arbitration.

 

Therefore it is entirely legitimate to provide answers.

 

There is no compelling reason why this should not go to arbitration.

 

On the issue of the clubs saying that they are sueing as shareholders of the SPFL.  Petitioners are contractually obliged to comply with the SPFL rules.

 

Rule B4 of the SPFL rules contractually obliges petitioners to comply with the SFA articles.  The 3 clubs are seeking to enforce the provisions of the SPFL articles.

 

Section 33 of Companies Act 2006, bind the members as if there were covenants on each member

 

Reconvene at 10 tomorrow morning

Great summary D Mc

what was your take on the last clarification request from Lord Clarke before we closed for the day.

 

my take it was supportive of our stance.

 

is that correct?

[Castle rock]

4 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

 

No arbitration incorporation unless made clear.

 

Submission 3 – is unfair prejudice arbitrable: Refers to the papers

 

Submission 4  - Article 99.1 does not purport in any sense to refer all disputes to arbitration.  It only says certain disputes ie SFA or Football dispute.

 

Is this a football dispute?  The SPFL is not in any way an associated person.

 

Whilst in one way every dispute could be considered a football dispute, the problem with that argument is that the SPFL’s own rules only refer to disputes of a certain type.

 

This is a company dispute of unfair prejudice brought by shareholders of a company against how the affairs of the limited company, the SPFL have been conducted.

 

Reference again made to the articles involved in the Fulham case and how these are very different to article 99 by the SPFL.

 

Lord Clark: No ruling on motions until he has heard both.

 

Response from Garry Borland QC:

 

DT has referred to article 99, provisions relative to nomination of arbiters, time period, choice of chair and how this may be conducted.  He said there might be significant delay.  DT has added nothing specific to this. He has given no substantive grounds that the arbitration agreement is incapable of being performed.

 

He merely argues that arbitration is a less attractive option.  

 

Article 99.1 provides in terms that it comprises an agreement by parties subject to it, to specified arbitration.  This article is explicitly and arbitration agreement.

 

Article 99.15 the need for prior approval from SFA does not offend public interest, as it does not preclude any party from going to court and is reasonable for any parties seeking arbitration.

 

Lord Clark – refers back to St Johnstone 1965 when a similar precondition existed.

 

GB – similar but different as the SFA were more heavily involved and there was no independent arbitration tribunal.

 

This is no different from other contractual obligations in business life.

 

Therefore 99.15 is legal and enforceable.

 

What would a public hearing achieve? Extensive written submissions already placed

 

Lord Clark – Yesterday Mr Moynihan made reference to the SFA having the power to clubs ‘oot the gemme’ and said this consequence was something he had to consider.

 

GB - Refers back to 10.1(d) of arbitration act and the precedence in English Law and that the respondents have not prejudiced their right to arbitration.  Substantive answers had to be lodged to show that there was a real dispute that fell within remit of arbitration.  The case highlighted by DT (Norwest/Holst) vouches that this is correct. Requirement to demonstrate there is a 2-sided dispute suitable for arbitration.

 

Therefore it is entirely legitimate to provide answers.

 

There is no compelling reason why this should not go to arbitration.

 

On the issue of the clubs saying that they are sueing as shareholders of the SPFL.  Petitioners are contractually obliged to comply with the SPFL rules.

 

Rule B4 of the SPFL rules contractually obliges petitioners to comply with the SFA articles.  The 3 clubs are seeking to enforce the provisions of the SPFL articles.

 

Section 33 of Companies Act 2006, bind the members as if there were covenants on each member

 

Reconvene at 10 tomorrow morning

Much appreciated David. 

[jamboinglasgow]

So just to clarrify what were to two things that people were going Yaaasss and own goal for?

[Benzinho]

1 minute ago, Zen Jambo said:

 

Is this the own goal? 

 

It was the total silence from the DU QC in response that was the most telling part of that. Get the feeling he may not thanks the SPFL QC for that one.

[Rogue Daddy]

Just now, NANOJAMBO said:

That was quite a moment.  Hopefully Moyhihan is reflecting on his mention of this yesterday. 

Can this be construed as ‘bullying’... in court? In front of a judge?

[Durham Jambo]

Having only done some basic legal studies over 20 years ago I can firstly say I'm glad I never became a lawyer.

 

The only thing that seemed really in our favour today was Lord Clark asking about the SFA penalties and if the DUFC QC felt they were something to be taken into account when looking at the legality of the SFA clauses.  As the penalties are draconian (massive fine and expulsion) then surely this means that the SFA rules will be ruled illegal and it won't go to arbitration. 

[Riccarton3]

Just now, NANOJAMBO said:

That was quite a moment.  Hopefully Moyhihan is reflecting on his mention of this yesterday. 

Was it referenced again?

[Don Dan]

5 minutes ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

Good work by the Mods I have no idea what’s going on 👍

I got a rap for a alteration of a Shakespeare quote referencing a point during the hearing. Oops 

[Zen Jambo]

1 minute ago, Dazo said:

I don’t think it is, others do. 

 

OK, cheers. 

[davemclaren]

Still in the balance I think. 

[Poseidon]

IMO its still a draw, both sides have given what they believe to be valid reasons for their stance and quoted cases that back up their reasoning.

 

It literally will come come to one persons interpretation of it all.

[Rods]

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

 

No arbitration incorporation unless made clear.

 

Submission 3 – is unfair prejudice arbitrable: Refers to the papers

 

Submission 4  - Article 99.1 does not purport in any sense to refer all disputes to arbitration.  It only says certain disputes ie SFA or Football dispute.

 

Is this a football dispute?  The SPFL is not in any way an associated person.

 

Whilst in one way every dispute could be considered a football dispute, the problem with that argument is that the SPFL’s own rules only refer to disputes of a certain type.

 

This is a company dispute of unfair prejudice brought by shareholders of a company against how the affairs of the limited company, the SPFL have been conducted.

 

Reference again made to the articles involved in the Fulham case and how these are very different to article 99 by the SPFL.

 

Lord Clark: No ruling on motions until he has heard both.

 

Response from Garry Borland QC:

 

DT has referred to article 99, provisions relative to nomination of arbiters, time period, choice of chair and how this may be conducted.  He said there might be significant delay.  DT has added nothing specific to this. He has given no substantive grounds that the arbitration agreement is incapable of being performed.

 

He merely argues that arbitration is a less attractive option.  

 

Article 99.1 provides in terms that it comprises an agreement by parties subject to it, to specified arbitration.  This article is explicitly and arbitration agreement.

 

Article 99.15 the need for prior approval from SFA does not offend public interest, as it does not preclude any party from going to court and is reasonable for any parties seeking arbitration.

 

Lord Clark – refers back to St Johnstone 1965 when a similar precondition existed.

 

GB – similar but different as the SFA were more heavily involved and there was no independent arbitration tribunal.

 

This is no different from other contractual obligations in business life.

 

Therefore 99.15 is legal and enforceable.

 

What would a public hearing achieve? Extensive written submissions already placed

 

Lord Clark – Yesterday Mr Moynihan made reference to the SFA having the power to clubs ‘oot the gemme’ and said this consequence was something he had to consider.

 

GB - Refers back to 10.1(d) of arbitration act and the precedence in English Law and that the respondents have not prejudiced their right to arbitration.  Substantive answers had to be lodged to show that there was a real dispute that fell within remit of arbitration.  The case highlighted by DT (Norwest/Holst) vouches that this is correct. Requirement to demonstrate there is a 2-sided dispute suitable for arbitration.

 

Therefore it is entirely legitimate to provide answers.

 

There is no compelling reason why this should not go to arbitration.

 

On the issue of the clubs saying that they are sueing as shareholders of the SPFL.  Petitioners are contractually obliged to comply with the SPFL rules.

 

Rule B4 of the SPFL rules contractually obliges petitioners to comply with the SFA articles.  The 3 clubs are seeking to enforce the provisions of the SPFL articles.

 

Section 33 of Companies Act 2006, bind the members as if there were covenants on each member

 

Reconvene at 10 tomorrow morning

 

own goal by Doncaster you love to see it

[heatonjambo]

1 minute ago, Durham Jambo said:

Having only done some basic legal studies over 20 years ago I can firstly say I'm glad I never became a lawyer.

 

The only thing that seemed really in our favour today was Lord Clark asking about the SFA penalties and if the DUFC QC felt they were something to be taken into account when looking at the legality of the SFA clauses.  As the penalties are draconian (massive fine and expulsion) then surely this means that the SFA rules will be ruled illegal and it won't go to arbitration. 

I agree with this, which i think was the point of Lord Clark’s last clarification to Boreland

[1953]

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

 

No arbitration incorporation unless made clear.

 

Submission 3 – is unfair prejudice arbitrable: Refers to the papers

 

Submission 4  - Article 99.1 does not purport in any sense to refer all disputes to arbitration.  It only says certain disputes ie SFA or Football dispute.

 

Is this a football dispute?  The SPFL is not in any way an associated person.

 

Whilst in one way every dispute could be considered a football dispute, the problem with that argument is that the SPFL’s own rules only refer to disputes of a certain type.

 

This is a company dispute of unfair prejudice brought by shareholders of a company against how the affairs of the limited company, the SPFL have been conducted.

 

Reference again made to the articles involved in the Fulham case and how these are very different to article 99 by the SPFL.

 

Lord Clark: No ruling on motions until he has heard both.

 

Response from Garry Borland QC:

 

DT has referred to article 99, provisions relative to nomination of arbiters, time period, choice of chair and how this may be conducted.  He said there might be significant delay.  DT has added nothing specific to this. He has given no substantive grounds that the arbitration agreement is incapable of being performed.

 

He merely argues that arbitration is a less attractive option.  

 

Article 99.1 provides in terms that it comprises an agreement by parties subject to it, to specified arbitration.  This article is explicitly and arbitration agreement.

 

Article 99.15 the need for prior approval from SFA does not offend public interest, as it does not preclude any party from going to court and is reasonable for any parties seeking arbitration.

 

Lord Clark – refers back to St Johnstone 1965 when a similar precondition existed.

 

GB – similar but different as the SFA were more heavily involved and there was no independent arbitration tribunal.

 

This is no different from other contractual obligations in business life.

 

Therefore 99.15 is legal and enforceable.

 

What would a public hearing achieve? Extensive written submissions already placed

 

Lord Clark – Yesterday Mr Moynihan made reference to the SFA having the power to clubs ‘oot the gemme’ and said this consequence was something he had to consider.

 

GB - Refers back to 10.1(d) of arbitration act and the precedence in English Law and that the respondents have not prejudiced their right to arbitration.  Substantive answers had to be lodged to show that there was a real dispute that fell within remit of arbitration.  The case highlighted by DT (Norwest/Holst) vouches that this is correct. Requirement to demonstrate there is a 2-sided dispute suitable for arbitration.

 

Therefore it is entirely legitimate to provide answers.

 

There is no compelling reason why this should not go to arbitration.

 

On the issue of the clubs saying that they are sueing as shareholders of the SPFL.  Petitioners are contractually obliged to comply with the SPFL rules.

 

Rule B4 of the SPFL rules contractually obliges petitioners to comply with the SFA articles.  The 3 clubs are seeking to enforce the provisions of the SPFL articles.

 

Section 33 of Companies Act 2006, bind the members as if there were covenants on each member

 

Reconvene at 10 tomorrow morning

Many thanks DM but unfortunately I'm  still none the wiser about how this is going to end up.

[Chuck Berry]

"Amiens, who is still contesting his relegation to L2, has launched a new application for interim measures before the Council of State"

[Zen Jambo]

1 minute ago, Benzinho said:

 

It was the total silence from the DU QC in response that was the most telling part of that. Get the feeling he may not thanks the SPFL QC for that one.

 

Well fingers crossed, I was not optimistic but sounds like there has been a right clanger there. Time will tell. 

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

Clarky didn't like the threat,  excellent 

[jamboman9]

Feel a bit more confident now than I did yesterday.

Mon the Hearts ❤️🇱🇻🇱🇻

[Jammy T]

Garry Borland?? 🤦🏻

 

Talented enough lawyer but is a construction specialist - not corporate. He will know his way around a contract and the Arbitration act though. 

 

 

Edited July 2, 2020 by Jammy T

[Gmcjambo]

21 hours ago, Newton51 said:

 

Admitted it was received at 450. Said that was not In doubt

Apologies @Newton51,  you were bang on yesterday and I missed it.    Judge brought it up today reconfirming that the SPFL did state that vote was received at 448!   Received, not sent.   Interestingly he asked Thompson if this might speed things up.      No idea why this wasn't a big story yesterday as its evidence that the SPFL blatently lied to all member.    ND should not survive this irrespective of where this case goes.   Felt like a positive moment today with judge calling it out and asking about potential affidavits and cross examination. 

[Jambos1983]

The easy option for the judge here is to punt this off to the SFA and go about his weekend and on to the next case. Let's hope he's not one to go for the easy option

[bawheed]

18 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

This guy is painful worse the Peston on a bad day.

What guy home or away

[David McCaig]

Just now, heatonjambo said:

I agree with this, which i think was the point of Lord Clark’s last clarification to Boreland

The key things for me were Lord Clark openly talking about evidence requirements for a full hearing and the fact that he is clearly fully cognisant of Moynihan’s “oot the gemme” comment.

[RENE]

David McCaig I salute you.  Great summary.  Roll on tomorrow am. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

4 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Still in the balance I think. 

 

Indeed mostly due to nobody knowing what his Lordship is thinking

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 minute ago, David McCaig said:

The key things for me were Lord Clark openly talking about evidence requirements for a full hearing and the fact that he is clearly fully cognisant of Moynihan’s “oot the gemme” comment.

 

Are you a Stenographer?  Great job by the way.