SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Cruyff]

14 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

We are not fussed about reconstruction only reinstatement. Who cares what happens to United? 

This. 

[Dougster]

Hi all

 

My first post. 
 

Like everyone I’m following the court proceedings with great interest.  One comment from Lord Clark that struck me yesterday was him stating “this was a complex case....”

 

If that’s his view, is that not reason enough to hear this case in the CoS due to the admitted complex nature rather than send to arbitration?

[1971fozzy]

They want arbitration because they don’t want it all out in public and the likes of Nelms, Doncaster etc cited to court. Which is (I would imagine) a big part of why we do.  I am hoping that it goes to court now to be honest.  

[Jambo66]

14 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

May have been mentioned but a part of Mr Thomson's argument which he stressed is that the case cannot be sisted because the SPFL and Dundee United etc made detailed replies. 

 

If he is correct then that's a big argument in favour of court.

I tend to agree. I don't think it stops the court from sending it to arbitration, but it certainly means the court is under no legal duty to send it to arbitration.

[Whatsthefuture]

36 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Could it be a strategy? Choke up and stretch out proceedings?

 

I assume there is a belief that once fixtures are out then reinstatement is no longer an option?

If Lord Clark continues this within CoS I presume Borland drops out ?

[One five]

2 minutes ago, Dougster said:

Hi all

 

My first post. 
 

Like everyone I’m following the court proceedings with great interest.  One comment from Lord Clark that struck me yesterday was him stating “this was a complex case....”

 

If that’s his view, is that not reason enough to hear this case in the CoS due to the admitted complex nature rather than send to arbitration?

Yep that was my thought as well👍

[kila]

2 minutes ago, Dougster said:

Hi all

 

My first post. 
 

Like everyone I’m following the court proceedings with great interest.  One comment from Lord Clark that struck me yesterday was him stating “this was a complex case....”

 

If that’s his view, is that not reason enough to hear this case in the CoS due to the admitted complex nature rather than send to arbitration?

 

He mentioned the complexity of the case again today I'm sure.

 

Hopefully things are going in our favour and arbitration is thrown out.

 

[WorldChampions1902]

1 minute ago, Dougster said:

Hi all

 

My first post. 
 

Like everyone I’m following the court proceedings with great interest.  One comment from Lord Clark that struck me yesterday was him stating “this was a complex case....”

 

If that’s his view, is that not reason enough to hear this case in the CoS due to the admitted complex nature rather than send to arbitration?

He also mentioned “the complexities” (of the case) again today, which made me think that is twice in two days. So is he forming an opinion that this is too complex for arbitration?  That is what I was starting to think?

 

Time will tell.

[ScoPo]

Here are the disputes to which Article 99 of the SFA Articles of Association apply.

 

 

 

99.6 A “Scottish FA Dispute” in this Article 99 shall be any dispute or difference (with the exception of a matter 
which falls within the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session, and with the exception of any matter
for which the Judicial Panel or tribunals appointed therefrom have jurisdiction under these Articles) with
the Scottish FA.

99.7 A “Football Dispute” in this Article 99 shall be a dispute between or among members and/or any 
associated person(s) arising out of or relating to Association Football (with the exception of a matter which 
falls within the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session, and with the exception of any matter for
which the Judicial Panel or tribunals appointed therefrom have jurisdiction under these Articles).

 

 

So am I right that 99.6 clearly doesn't apply?  Our dispute is not with the SFA.

 

 

 

If so, then to 99.7.

 

A football dispute between members or members and associated persons.

 

 

What is an associated person?

 

Well 99.5 tells us it is defined as in Article 1.1

 

 

"means an association which is in full membership of the Scottish FA, 
other than an Affiliated National Association;"

 

 

Is the SPFL an association in full membership of the SFA?

 

I can't find anything definite on that.  

 

 

[1971fozzy]

1 minute ago, kila said:

 

He mentioned the complexity of the case again today I'm sure.

 

Hopefully things are going in our favour and arbitration is thrown out.

 

yes he did mention it again towards the very end

[NANOJAMBO]

48 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

We could really be doing with dispensing with the “members” and “clubs” shite forever.

these are companies. End of. Commercial entities with employees, contracts, shares and so on.

The pretence over the amateur thing should be swept away .

 

 

It's interesting you should raise this because Moynihan (for the SPFL) yesterday was at great pains to play down the idea there were real shareholders involved (in the SPFL) whereas Hearts QC emphasised that this was about a dispute between shareholders in the SPFL and how the SPFL runs its business affairs. And as shareholders Hearts were entitled to go to the courts. 

[Jambo66]

Just now, Whatsthefuture said:

If Lord Clark continues this within CoS I presume Borland drops out ?

Definitely not 😁. Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers are in this big time. 

 

Whatever we think about the SPFL and the who is pulling the strings, it actually makes no difference to them who wins and who loses. The SPFL will carry on administering league football until the clubs decide otherwise.

 

Of course, we are all rightly excited by the prospect of getting Doncaster on the stand and that may yet happen.

 

However, for Dundee United Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers, they might not be promoted after all. They will definitely continue the fight. If they lose, they'll be picking up some of our costs directly as well.

 

Just think, it could all have been so different for them if they had supported reconstruction...

[Riccarton3]

19 minutes ago, Newton51 said:

 

I thought it would have been a game changer yesterday but papers didn't pick it up. 

 

Today was a mixed day. Some good moments and bad. Could go either way. Annoying hw much time the united QC spoke for

Are they saying now  the vote wasn't in quarantine? 

 

 

[Jambo-Fox]

1 hour ago, doctor jambo said:

Lord Clark May be considering the wisdom of us going in front of the SFA when they could listen to us, then expel us from the league for having the temerity to ask Lord Clark to hear us our fairly

Or he could be thinking that if we don’t go to the SFA (in the first instance) they are more likely and more justified to expel us!

[Deevers]

1 minute ago, Jambo-Fox said:

Or he could be thinking that if we don’t go to the SFA (in the first instance) they are more likely and more justified to expel us!

I think any attempt to expel us and Patrick would see the mother of all court cases - one that would blow the game here out of the water.  The SFA will want this over and done with quickly now and with the minimum of fuss one way or the other.

[8skacel8]

Would I be correct in saying, that If this goes to court it would be Lord Clark who would see it through the duration?

[Abiola Dauda]

The below two images are intersting.

[graygo]

7 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

Are they saying now  the vote wasn't in quarantine? 

 

 

 

I think they are saying "look we'll admit we got it at 16:48 if it means we can stop talking about it and just move on"

[neilnunb]

9 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

 

However, for Dundee United Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers, they might not be promoted after all. If they lose, they'll be picking up some of our costs directly as well.

 

 

Sounds delightful.

 

🤞

 

[Whatsthefuture]

4 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

Definitely not 😁. Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers are in this big time. 

 

Whatever we think about the SPFL and the who is pulling the strings, it actually makes no difference to them who wins and who loses. The SPFL will carry on administering league football until the clubs decide otherwise.

 

Of course, we are all rightly excited by the prospect of getting Doncaster on the stand and that may yet happen.

 

However, for Dundee United Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers, they might not be promoted after all. They will definitely continue the fight. If they lose, they'll be picking up some of our costs directly as well.

 

Just think, it could all have been so different for them if they had supported reconstruction...

Thanks Jambo66. I seen the initial jumping in from the 3 being a blocker to Hearts/PT taking this forward in CoS. The defence for the 3.  I believe are in cohorts with SPFL  and are trying to push this to arbitration so they have an influence over proceeding. I would suggest that our application for continuing ( if successful) at CoS will set a realisation that the tide is about to turn. They know and the majority of others know within the clubs wrongdoing has happened. Should we proceed the panic will ensue

[Riccarton3]

4 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

I think they are saying "look we'll admit we got it at 16:48 if it means we can stop talking about it and just move on"

The quarantine aspect is huge, though. It allowed a narrative for Dundee to be contacted when there was no case to do so if they saw it before 5. That vote needs forensic analysis in all of this. 

Edited July 2, 2020 by Riccarton3

[CJGJ]

1 hour ago, PhoenixHearts said:

Anyone else that listened in absolutely bored to tears by this Dundee Utd clown?

 

We've had about 6 hours or so of this and he's somehow managed to take up almost 50% of that time to himself talking the case to death.

 

In the 3+ hours he has been waffling on, he's basically just been repeating the same thing over and over.

Reminds me of that Ed Miliband interview were he just keeps answering questions with the exact same pre-written statement with the words in a different order. 

 

Bore off, Boreland.

 

For a case that was supposed to be between us and the SPFL, this guy hasn't half sucked up all the oxygen out of the room.

Remember they (the three clubs) are going to be helped by 'two major clubs'..no idea who they would be,  should this case go further

[NANOJAMBO]

1 hour ago, PhoenixHearts said:

Anyone else that listened in absolutely bored to tears by this Dundee Utd clown?

 

We've had about 6 hours or so of this and he's somehow managed to take up almost 50% of that time to himself talking the case to death.

 

In the 3+ hours he has been waffling on, he's basically just been repeating the same thing over and over.

Reminds me of that Ed Miliband interview were he just keeps answering questions with the exact same pre-written statement with the words in a different order. 

 

Bore off, Boreland.

 

For a case that was supposed to be between us and the SPFL, this guy hasn't half sucked up all the oxygen out of the room.

All part of the SPFL plan to support the narrative that it's a football dispute between clubs : Which it clearly is not. If ND had managed to get more clubs to his intended pile-on just imagine how bad it would have been. 

 

[kila]

I wonder if the fact so many of us were dialling in shows there is a public interest in this case and that strengths the argument for it to be kept at the CoS.

 

 

[Tokyo Drifter]

41 minutes ago, Newton51 said:

 

I thought it would have been a game changer yesterday but papers didn't pick it up. 

 

Today was a mixed day. Some good moments and bad. Could go either way. Annoying hw much time the united QC spoke for

Today's EN report on the website mentions it (the 4:48 detail)

[Tokyo Drifter]

8 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

The quarantine aspect is huge, though. It allowed a narrative for Dundee to be contacted when there was no case to do so if they saw it before 5. That vote needs forensic analysis in all of this. 

So basically the SPFL is lying.

[Jambo66]

11 minutes ago, Whatsthefuture said:

Thanks Jambo66. I seen the initial jumping in from the 3 being a blocker to Hearts/PT taking this forward in CoS. The defence for the 3.  I believe are in cohorts with SPFL  and are trying to push this to arbitration so they have an influence over proceeding. I would suggest that our application for continuing ( if successful) at CoS will set a realisation that the tide is about to turn. They know and the majority of others know within the clubs wrongdoing has happened. Should we proceed the panic will ensue

FWIW, I think that the whole point of the clubs and SPFL trying to get it to arbitration is not because they necessarily think they will win there. I think it is a further kicking of the can down the road.

 

What that does is effectively removes reinstatement from the agenda. Arguments about compensation might go on for months. In the mindset of the SPFL, anything that postpones the point at which they need to take their heads out of the sand.

 

If this stays in the CoS, it will probably be all over in time for the new season.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Jambo66
Kind of a crucial word missed out 😮

[Riccarton3]

6 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

All part of the SPFL plan to support the narrative that it's a football dispute between clubs : Which it clearly is not. If ND had managed to get more clubs to his intended pile-on just imagine how bad it would have been. 

 

You think back on that and no  club did anything or did they but were then discouraged ? Was Doncaster only trying to make the petitioners think.again? Certainly got a reaction.That needs looked at too and was brought up today

Edited July 2, 2020 by Riccarton3

[graygo]

12 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

The quarantine aspect is huge, though. It allowed a narrative for Dundee to be contacted when there was no case to do so if they saw it before 5. That vote needs forensic analysis in all of this. 

 

Yep, my point is they think by admitting that they received it there will be no need to look into it further. They are wrong.

[NANOJAMBO]

5 minutes ago, kila said:

I wonder if the fact so many of us were dialling in shows there is a public interest in this case and that strengths the argument for it to be kept at the CoS.

 

 

Funnily enough I was thinking about that yesterday. 

[kila]

19 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

The quarantine aspect is huge, though. It allowed a narrative for Dundee to be contacted when there was no case to do so if they saw it before 5. That vote needs forensic analysis in all of this. 

 

The whole quarantine thing confirms that the no vote would've meant the resolution failing.

 

Otherwise why make such a fuss over not receiving it? The SPFL could've simply said "there are still 28 days remaining for no voters to change their mind." The fact they didn't must be significant.

 

 

Edited July 2, 2020 by kila

[Bazzas right boot]

Just now, kila said:

 

The whole quarantine thing confirms that the no vote would've meant the resolution failing.

 

Otherwise why make such a fuss over not receiving it? The SPFL could've simply said "there are still 28 days remaining for no voters to change their mind." The fact they didn't must be significant.

 

 

I agree, but is it illegal and a matter for the CoS or just incompetence? 

[Riccarton3]

4 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Yep, my point is they think by admitting that they received it there will be no need to look into it further. They are wrong.

You'd like to think so. Admission now could be to protect their Deloitte investigation. If that is deemed flawed with further probing, well, where do you go ?

Edited July 2, 2020 by Riccarton3

[kila]

Just now, Smith's right boot said:

I agree, but is it illegal and a matter for the CoS or just incompetence? 

 

Well the SPFL need to confirm what route they would have gone down had Dundee's vote been recorded correctly at the time it was sent and received.

 

[NANOJAMBO]

3 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

You think back on that and no  club did anything or did they but we're then discouraged ? Was Doncaster only trying to make the petitioners think.again? Certainly got a reaction.That needs looked at too and was brought up today

ND couldn't influence the petitioners : it was already too late for that. I simply think he wanted to reinforce the perception that it was a "football issue" by getting the clubs involved but as we could see after today - it' about a dispute between two shareholders and  the SPFL Ltd and how the SPFL Lts runs its business affairs.

 

It was very illuminating to see NDs plans for a pile-on used by Hearts QC as a justification for a trial in the public interest.  I'm sure ND wasn't expecting that. 

[russ]

7 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

I agree, but is it illegal and a matter for the CoS or just incompetence? 

Common law fraud in Scotland is the wilful act of gaining a practical result by false pretence. You decide .

[ScoPo]

I think Hearts/Partick have a very strong case.  I don't see the complexity either. 

 

Quite simply, does the SFA have jurusdiction in a dispute between the companies that are Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle and the company that is the SPFL (a separate legal entity from the clubs)?

 

Reading Article 99 of the SFA Articles, I don't think that they do.   

 

Don't you find it interesting that the narrative in the media building up to this was Hearts/Partick vs the other clubs.

 

Smoke and mirrors.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

9 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

I agree, but is it illegal and a matter for the CoS or just incompetence? 

The only way we'll ever know is if the case goes to the Court of Sessions. I wonder if Lord Clark is as keen to find the answer as we are!

[stuart500]

At the end of the day I'm sure the judge will recognise the party to this who have done absolutely everything by the book with painstaking fairness and yet has been abused, ridiculed and gloated over by petty minded spiteful rivals who have a stolen a sporting advantage and potentially a huge financial advantage.

 

On the other hand we have a party who have acted in the interests of one club to the severe detriment of others. They have acted in a deceitful, dishonest, patronising and malicious manner to those who have tried to call them out for it. They are frightened that their actions will now come to light and are cowardly trying to hide behind vague rules which purport to put them above the law of the land.

 

They simply cannot be allowed to win. 

[Riccarton3]

18 minutes ago, kila said:

 

The whole quarantine thing confirms that the no vote would've meant the resolution failing.

 

Otherwise why make such a fuss over not receiving it? The SPFL could've simply said "there are still 28 days remaining for no voters to change their mind." The fact they didn't must be significant.

 

 

They had to get to Dundee quickly. After telling everyone else what the results were. Created a reason with 'lost'vote.  They obviously weren't keen to have the re solution sit at any point as failed, rather get Dundee to say not to consider their vote rather than, as you say, use the 28 day window. This suggests they did not want to be saying it's failed as it stands, announcing failure and then going after Dundee. That would look even worse than it was.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Riccarton3

[Riccarton3]

10 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

ND couldn't influence the petitioners : it was already too late for that. I simply think he wanted to reinforce the perception that it was a "football issue" by getting the clubs involved but as we could see after today - it' about a dispute between two shareholders and  the SPFL Ltd and how the SPFL Lts runs its business affairs.

 

It was very illuminating to see NDs plans for a pile-on used by Hearts QC as a justification for a trial in the public interest.  I'm sure ND wasn't expecting that. 

A really desperate act, even acknowledged by the rags!!! A judge must see that as a huge red flag.

[Jambo-Fox]

I’ve listened to the majority of the case. For me it’s impossible to know if this will be referred to the SFA for arbitration or not.

I hear Clark asking questions, they might be ‘killer’ questions but it’s impossible to interpret whether they work for or against us or indeed if they are just for clarification. 
What I do know is that the decision will be based on legalities and interpretation of the law, in fact a judgment! 
Who’d want to be a judge? Not me!

[Lonewolflins]

1 hour ago, OTT said:

 

We've long argued on Kickback that Scottish football is corrupt, referees are biased etc. but definitive proof has never been forthcoming. This offers an opportunity to open the books and take a deep dive into the SPFL's actions during this period. The feeling I'm getting is that they really don't want that. When people feel they are untouchable, they get sloppy. I'd be very interested to see the communications relating to Dundee from other member clubs and from Doncaster himself. I think that could be deeply damaging to his position. 

 

Accountability and transparency has long been absent from our game and I think from a greater good aspect this could be huge if we're successful. Even if all we're successful in is getting the matter in front of a Judge in a civil trial sense. One glaring thing is the SPFL lawyer admitting 4.48 being the time the vote was received yet Mclennan has claimed it to be far later 'late evening', I think more inconsistencies will rear their head as this goes on and you don't know how any of them are going to respond on the stand, they could very easily crack. Stewart Robertson for example has no reason to lie or be cute with the truth with regards to the boards conduct throughout. 

 

I'd agree, there is huge public interest in this and it will do the game good to finally be able to air some of this publicly. It could be the watergate moment Scottish football has needed for decades. A real chance to drain the swamp. Its important to note that they didn't think this would get to court. At least not in the early stages, so how they have discussed the matter amongst themselves will be very revealing. Lord Clarke has a huge decision on his hands here, but we're the good guys here. Back the club who have tried to work with the SPFL every step of the way or back the shady governing body who didn't even want this hearing public? I'd hope its a no brainer for Lord Clarke.

Great post 

[sac]

14 minutes ago, Tokyo Drifter said:

So basically the SPFL is lying.

They’ve been lying since the drafting of the resolution, which had had lies & omissions contained within the document which unduly forced clubs to vote in a certain way.

A question that I’ve not seen asked to clubs is that if all the lies about end of season payments, and the omission of potential £10m liability to Sky, BT, BBC, & radio, would you still have voted to accept or reject the resolution?

[Ethan Hunt]

2 hours ago, Rods said:

I am still concerned as I feel a draw is not enough. It has the feel of the Rangers submission lots of punches but no actual knockouts. Before anyone calls me a shitebag etc its just my feelings.

 

I am however wondering if anyone knows what papers we are waiting on for tomorrow? Will this be able to swing it in our favour is this the big punch we are waiting for or is it a damp squib.

You do know that a boxing match can be won without a knock out punch being landed? Repeated body punches has won many a fight.

[ducatiboy]

47 minutes ago, Dougster said:

Hi all

 

My first post. 
 

Like everyone I’m following the court proceedings with great interest.  One comment from Lord Clark that struck me yesterday was him stating “this was a complex case....”

 

If that’s his view, is that not reason enough to hear this case in the CoS due to the admitted complex nature rather than send to arbitration?

I tend to agree with you, I came away from today thinking Thomson did Very well presenting our case (professional) as I thought the threat of exemption didn’t sit too well with Lord Clark, from the other side, I’m thinking today moved a little our way🤞🏻

[manaliveits105]

If it goes to the court could we call Keef Jackson as a witness for the hard of thinking 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Just now, Jambo-Fox said:

I’ve listened to the majority of the case. For me it’s impossible to know if this will be referred to the SFA for arbitration or not.

I hear Clark asking questions, they might be ‘killer’ questions but it’s impossible to interpret whether they work for or against us or indeed if they are just for clarification. 
What I do know is that the decision will be based on legalities and interpretation of the law, in fact a judgment! 
Who’d want to be a judge? Not me!

Yes you would. Big money and you just decide whatever. Piece of piss

[Rods]

so tomorrow we get the papers, are those from the SPFL?

[Dave McCreery's knee]

I think Lord Clark will be keen to find out whether the Dundee no vote admittedly received at 4.48pm was quarantined on purpose and with knowledge of SPFL staff to enable them to change the outcome of the vote. The consequences of that process was devastating to Hearts, Partick and Stranraer and could still be for the 3 promotes teams. The answers could be devastating to SPFL and various individuals and organisations if proved done on purpose then covered up.