SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Riccarton3]

19 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

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

Certainly not incompetence. These people do not do things through incompetence. You must at least be at this point by now.

[Neil Dongcaster]

The judge clearly sees Hearts have a case. That’s evidenced by his statements re the Dundee vote.

 

It’s just whether the case actually gets in front of him for him to make a judgement. Which I don’t think will ever happen. If case proceeds to trial the SPFL will settle. 

[redm]

3 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

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 the future of announcing failure and then going after Dundee. That would look even worse than it was.

I just assumed the vote probably did hit quarantine, but SPFL knew it straight away and maybe saw it as an opportunity to indulge in some jiggerypokery with the result. A result of a vote they would otherwise lose. So they shared the incomplete results publicly to set foundation for the story they agreed with Dundee about revocation etc. I think that conversation happened between 5 and whatever time it was that SPFL made the statement, and Dundee sent their revocation message after that, of course.

 

I’m not usually so cynical but SPFL won’t ever get benefit of the doubt from me, and the silence from Nelms for days after was just plain peculiar. 

[Brave Hearts]

1 hour ago, jonnothejambo said:

 

I think the Dundee voting fiasco could be the clincher.....

 

Here's hoping anyway.

 

 

and now that the SPFL have admitted in court that they received dundee NO vote at 16:48 on Good Friday.

 

 

[Mikey1874]

7 minutes ago, sac said:

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?

 

I think documents around the drafting and agreeing of the Resolution will help our case if it goes to full hearing. 

 

Though not sure which documents we are looking to see.

[redm]

8 minutes ago, Dave McCreery's knee said:

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. 

Yep. Did the Deloitte investigation look at the time these quarantine folders were actually accessed, for example? 
 

Even if they didn’t access that folder and see the vote for themselves early on, SPFL spoke to Dundee people about the vote around 5 and were told it had been sent. They know they have a quarantine folder, so they’d also know it might well have landed there, and having spoken to Dundee they’d know how they voted too. It’s just all such a load of guff. 

[Mikey1874]

9 minutes ago, Rods said:

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

 

Tomorrow we ask for papers from the SPFL.

[troonmaroon]

3 hours ago, David McCaig said:

Heart of Midlothian/Partick Thistle v SPFL: Day 2

 

##superb summary but shortening for sake of board etc##

 

Reconvene at 10 tomorrow morning

Thanks so much David! 

 

Can you clarify... Ive seen comments referring to papers spfl are due to provide tomorrow? Was that confirmed today and do we know what those papers are? 

Edited July 2, 2020 by troonmaroon

[Rods]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Tomorrow we ask for papers from the SPFL.

 

Thanks Mikey

 

I am thinking/hoping that these papers are related to the other options( from memory there was 6) that Rangers dossier mentioned.

[kila]

Just now, redm said:

Yep. Did the Deloitte investigation look at the time these quarantine folders were actually accessed, for example? 

 

I find the whole quarantine story just too convenient and I don't think they ever expected a court to be potentially sniffing at that. The server logs will reveal all, and I doubt the Deloitte investigation went further than asking the employees 'did that email go into spam and you didn't check or see it until later?'. The court will though!

 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

27 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

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

 

It seems more than incompetence. Quarantine systems send alerts to administrators and you'd have thought that during an important vote like this using email as the way to cast a vote, someone would be monitoring it closely. Instead, according to their statements etc after the event, no-one checked the quarantine folder until several hours after the deadline had passed, despite Dundee having confirmed they'd voted a lot earlier. If not deliberate, it's VERY incompetent and calls into question how the SPFL could manage any sort of vote if they can't even check their emails properly.

[Mikey1874]

4 minutes ago, redm said:

I just assumed the vote probably did hit quarantine, but SPFL knew it straight away and maybe saw it as an opportunity to indulge in some jiggerypokery with the result. A result of a vote they would otherwise lose. So they shared the incomplete results publicly to set foundation for the story they agreed with Dundee about revocation etc. I think that conversation happened between 5 and whatever time it was that SPFL made the statement, and Dundee sent their revocation message after that, of course.

 

I’m not usually so cynical but SPFL won’t ever get benefit of the doubt from me, and the silence from Nelms for days after was just plain peculiar. 

 

Looking at the other information such as Aberdeen being told their vote didn't matter it is very likely they knew Dundee were voting No and that they were key to getting the Resolution passed. 

 

What they actually did or didn't do might never be discovered.

 

But if as in Partick's legal advice Dundee voted No then the question of quashing the whole Resolution arises. 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

1 minute ago, kila said:

 

I find the whole quarantine story just too convenient and I don't think they ever expected a court to be potentially sniffing at that. The server logs will reveal all, and I doubt the Deloitte investigation went further than asking the employees 'did that email go into spam and you didn't check or see it until later?'. The court will though!

 

 

It will also be easy to examine the original PDF and run a test of the email system. Quarantine and spam systems only flag emails they think contain malware. It'll be easy to replicate the vote to see where the email ends up.

[Riccarton3]

24 minutes ago, sac said:

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?

There are actually so many strands,to this that are just plain questionable, it's hard for it not to feel like overkill. Too much cholce. A bit like Trump, so many objectionable incidents and comments that it's so overwhelming . Needs a clear mind to tie them all together or concentrate on some more than others. Apologies to any Trump fans

Edited July 2, 2020 by Riccarton3

[macwad]

I wrote the notes to friends a couple of weeks ago, as I was very concerned at the dreadful press briefings that were being sent out and coordinated from certain parts of Scottish Football against Hearts. Notwithstanding I feel also that there is ample room and lawful justification for the Court to imply breaches of competition law which, are both in my opinion obvious and go to the heart of this matter. Competiton law (in the context of markets and competion) not football is a powerful legal element which, I hope the petitioning lawyers will bring to the argument. So far, they have kept their powder dry on this and dealt with the "rule bending" jiggery pokery of the SPFL which in itself I hope will be enough.

 

SPFL Regs Key Clauses

 

C14 The Clubs for the time being entitled in terms of these Rules to participate in the

Premiership shall, disregarding any abandoned or postponed matches, play in 38

League Matches in any one Season.

 

C17 At the end of each Season (following completion of all League Matches in the

Premiership in that Season) the Club in position 12 in the Premiership shall be

relegated to play and be eligible to participate in the Championship for and during

the next Season.

 

Postponement and Abandonment of Matches

 

G50 No League Match or Play-Off Match shall be postponed except on the instructions

of the appointed Referee or pitch inspector or by the Board

 

G51 If a League Match or Play-Off Match is postponed other than by the Board, such

postponement shall be reported as soon as reasonably practicable to the Secretary

by the Referee concerned and, where it has been postponed with the consent of

the Board, it shall be the duty of the Home Club to immediately notify the

appointed Match Officials of such postponement.

 

G52 In the event of any League Match or Play-Off Match not being played or abandoned

or being ordered to be played or replayed, it shall be played on a date and at a time

as determined by the Board

 

Effectively, there is no provision for the Board to abandon a League Match permanently – it can be interpreted here that they must determine a new date and time. This conclusion is well supported from the key extracts on Matches to be played to complete a season.

 

 

Non-fulfilment of Fixture Obligations

 

G53 No Club shall, unless the circumstances of the failure are outside the control of the

Club concerned and could not have been reasonably foreseen and reasonably

anticipated and remedied prior to the match, fail to fulfil its fixture obligations in

respect of any League Match or Play-Off Match on and at the appointed or, as the

case may be, rescheduled date, time and venue.

 

G54 For the purposes of Rules G5 and G53 a representation by a Club that it will not or

intends not to fulfil a fixture obligation or that it will do so only subject to a

condition or conditions which are or are found to be unacceptable to the Board

shall be deemed to be in breach of Rule G5 notwithstanding that the Board has or

may have rescheduled or later reschedules the match concerned.

 

G55 Without prejudice to any other sanctions, which may be imposed for a breach of

Rules, a Club failing to fulfil a fixture obligation in terms of Rules G5 and/or G53

shall be liable to pay compensation for any expenses necessarily incurred by the

opposing Club as a direct result of the failure. The amount of such compensation

will be at the discretion of the Board which will consider every such case on its

merits.

 

In other words the other clubs who voted to not fulfil fixtures are liable to pay compensation for the expenses Hearts have necessarily incurred as “opposing Clubs”. In other words all the teams with outstanding fixtures against Hearts for last season owe us compensation. Also, potentially all the Championship clubs who voted to end the season and send Hearts down to play against them and cannot now fulfil upcoming fixtures behind closed doors also owe them.

 

Scottish FA and Arbitration

 

99. ARBITRATION

General

99.1       This Article 99 comprises an agreement by parties who are subject to the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA,

to submit disputes of certain natures, as specified in more detail below, to arbitration. It is important for

parties to understand that the resolution of any dispute under this Article 99 comprises resolution by

arbitration. Accordingly the provisions of the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”), together with

the Scottish Arbitration Rules which form Schedule 1 to the 2010 Act (with the exception of default rules

which are disapplied by this Article 99) must be considered together with this Article 99, together with any

amendments to the said Act and/or any other statutory or other provisions which may be relevant to the

conduct of an arbitration in Scotland.

 

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.

 

In effect having your case accepted by the Court of Session destroys the Arbitration rule the muppets are now piping up about in the newspapers. Clair Whyte has nothing to look at even the suggestion that she does is completely unfounded. As the SFA Compliance Officer she must know this so why is she not stamping this nonsense out in press statements?  Probably because the SFA are as incompetent a bunch of numpties (or being influenced) by others to the point of bias.

[Maroon 1874]

45 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

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

 

My bet is Aberdeen and Septic

[manaliveits105]

40 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.

 

 

Hope so and fact that some hobbit interlopers might have contributed to that would be warm and fuzzy and they deserve our thanks 

 

[Mikey1874]

If it goes to court, the Dundee vote shambles and the mess created if the Resolution is found not to have passed makes an out of court settlement probably a certainty.

[Diadora Van Basten]

4 minutes ago, Brave Hearts said:

 

 

and now that the SPFL have admitted in court that they received dundee NO vote at 16:48 on Good Friday.

 

 

This should be a huge story the media should be trying to disclose what exactly happened and who did what.

 

Instead we are left with a confirmation that the SFA received the vote at 4.48 but it is not clear if they knew they had received it at 4.48 and pretended they didn’t, instructed KPMG to investigate gave them limited instructions claimed no wrongdoing was done.

 

Or if the vote was received at 4.48 because the law states that the vote was received at that time the vote was made even if it went into the spam folder.

 

Why is nobody asking these questions?

[Jamboelite]

Its hard to remind myself this isnt even the main trial but just a preliminary hearing on where it should sit to hear it fully.

 

If this is to be heard with Lord Clark at CoS then i can see the SPFL folding quickly but if it goes to arbitration they will feel like they can get this buried with minimal disruption.

 

I dont think we should interpret  Lord Clark’s questioning too specifically on either aide as clearly he is being very thorough in his understanding of what may happen next in each decision. 

Edited July 2, 2020 by Jamboelite

[colinmaroon]

2 hours 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.

 

 

Amen!!!

 

 

[HMFC01]

17 minutes ago, Dave McCreery's knee said:

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. 

 

I believe I read it was Doncasters secretary that was in charge of receiving the votes.  So I would assume he's got to be questioned also.  Anyone else surrounding the rigging/robust deterring of the vote would also be questioned.

[Mikey1874]

6 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

It will also be easy to examine the original PDF and run a test of the email system. Quarantine and spam systems only flag emails they think contain malware. It'll be easy to replicate the vote to see where the email ends up.

 

Then the Deloitte report could be one of the documents we want to see. 

[kila]

Just now, HMFC01 said:

 

I believe I read it was Doncasters secretary that was in charge of receiving the votes.  So I would assume he's got to be questioned also.  Anyone else surrounding the rigging/robust deterring of the vote would also be questioned.

 

There was a choice of two people to send the vote slip to.

 

One of the early screen shots wasn't cropped and it showed their email addresses and the fax number. If I could find that post we could find out who the two were in the hierarchy.

[Class of 75]

1 hour ago, manaliveits105 said:

Hopefully the judge is aware of their underhandedness 

Yep fingers crossed 

[soonbe110]

1 hour 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...

Exactly, add them to the 16 that indicated in favour then add in two or three of the bigger guns in the premiership who have most ££’s to lose if we win a big comp claim and you suddenly have a majority of clubs in favour of 14/10/10/10. Criminally sad behaviour as I hope they are about to find out. 

[HMFC01]

1 minute ago, kila said:

 

There was a choice of two people to send the vote slip to.

 

One of the early screen shots wasn't cropped and it showed their email addresses and the fax number. If I could find that post we could find out who the two were in the hierarchy.

 

So who was the other choice?  McClennan?  I thought I read/heard Doncaster quoted as saying his secretary received the vote(s).  Ach well, let's get them all up on the stand if given the chance  

[Ethan Hunt]

26 minutes ago, Dave McCreery's knee said:

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. 

I’ve posted this a few times on this thread.

 

 

[8skacel8]

9 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

If it goes to court, the Dundee vote shambles and the mess created if the Resolution is found not to have passed makes an out of court settlement probably a certainty.

 

Do you think Hearts would accept some sort of deal from the SPFL rather than show the country what a corrupt organisation they are?

 

I think we probably would accept an out of court settlement that was something along the lines of a forced reconstruction.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

30 minutes ago, Dave McCreery's knee said:

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. 

 

 

I think this is the key to everything and is why it needs to go to court. There will be email logs and an electronic trail. The lengths the SPFL went to avoid a proper inquiry suggests they have something to hide.

 

The Deloitte inquiry stated "Prior to identifying the quarantined email at around 20:30, no one from the SPFL had seen the email from Eric Drysdale." It seems in incredible that a ) no alert was sent informing administrators that an email was held in quarantine and b ) during such an important vote no-one checked it sooner. The Deloitte report completely failed to answer those questions so you have to assume they didn't bother asking. Why? They are such obvious questions to address if you are doing a thorough investigation of events. 

Edited July 2, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Mikey1874]

2 minutes ago, 8skacel8 said:

 

Do you think Hearts would accept some sort of deal from the SPFL rather than show the country what a corrupt organisation they are?

 

I think we probably would accept an out of court settlement that was something along the lines of a forced reconstruction.

 

The obvious quick remedy is no relegation 

 

Which is 13-10-10-9 for one season. 

[SectionDJambo]

1 minute ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

This should be a huge story the media should be trying to disclose what exactly happened and who did what.

 

Instead we are left with a confirmation that the SFA received the vote at 4.48 but it is not clear if they knew they had received it at 4.48 and pretended they didn’t, instructed KPMG to investigate gave them limited instructions claimed no wrongdoing was done.

 

Or if the vote was received at 4.48 because the law states that the vote was received at that time the vote was made even if it went into the spam folder.

 

Why is nobody asking these questions?

They have put barriers up to any avenue of investigation of when, and where, the Dundee vote was received. Dundee had assured the WhatsApp group, including Inverness CT, that the vote was sent in time and revealed a photo of their voting paper.

Whatever happened after it was received, is what the SPFL board don't want in the public domain. The arrogance of power, that they have enjoyed for years, seems to have given them confidence that they could manipulate the legitimate outcome of the vote from a division which was seen as the crucial battleground for the SPFL board to push through Celtic being declared champions before any risk of null and void being declared across Europe.

It is shameful that the Scottish media have never seriously questioned what happened. You could be sure that if a similar situation had arisen over a decision by UEFA over something adversely affecting Celtic, they would be all over it.

[Ethan Hunt]

17 minutes ago, Maroon 1874 said:

 

My bet is Aberdeen and Septic

My bet is that it was made up nonsense.

[adambraejambo]

The famous Q&A from Maclennan 

How did the events of Good Friday unfold? What was the timeline of how the SPFL came to understand how clubs would be returning?

At the time of the 5pm Board meeting on Good Friday, the SPFL had received 38 returns from clubs. One further return came in during the meeting, which meant that the following returns had been received:

Ladbrokes Premiership: 10 in favour, 1 against (one outstanding)

Ladbrokes Championship: 7 in favour, 2 against (one outstanding)

Ladbrokes League 1 & League 2: 16 in favour, 3 against (one outstanding)

This meant that the one outstanding Ladbrokes Championship return was key to the adoption or rejection of the resolution.

Only later that night did it transpire that Dundee FC had attempted to submit a 'reject' return at 4.48pm. It was stopped in an email quarantine system operated by an IT company used by the SPFL through the Scottish FA to run the SPFL's email systems. It was only at 8.55pm that day that the Dundee FC return was released from quarantine and received by Iain Blair. In the meantime, at 6pm, the Dundee FC club secretary had sent a text to Iain Blair saying: "Iain I understand John [Nelms] has spoken to Neil [Doncaster]. Please do not consider our vote as cast, at the present time."

[Jambo-Fox]

11 minutes ago, HMFC01 said:

 

I believe I read it was Doncasters secretary that was in charge of receiving the votes.  So I would assume he's got to be questioned also.  Anyone else surrounding the rigging/robust deterring of the vote would also be questioned.

Yep that’s what I thought and my hypothesis is that he or she does not work until 5pm on a Friday and they had gone home before it landed and sat in their inbox!

[Oneneilberry]

21 minutes ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

This should be a huge story the media should be trying to disclose what exactly happened and who did what.

 

Instead we are left with a confirmation that the SFA received the vote at 4.48 but it is not clear if they knew they had received it at 4.48 and pretended they didn’t, instructed KPMG to investigate gave them limited instructions claimed no wrongdoing was done.

 

Or if the vote was received at 4.48 because the law states that the vote was received at that time the vote was made even if it went into the spam folder.

 

Why is nobody asking these questions?

From their own press release re.the Deloitte audit for the Dundee vote they said it was received at 14.48 it sat in a spam folder operated by a third party and was noticed unread at 8.30 then released to the inbox at 8.55 

This needs to be verified independently imo as you can’t trust this shower of ***** with the truth about anything 

Edited July 2, 2020 by Oneneilberry

[Footballfirst]

I wouldn't go overboard on the 4:48 email sent or received point just yet.  There is enough plausible deniability in what has been said, not to change very much.

 

*  Acknowledgement in the SPFL's "answers" that the vote had been sent at 4:48pm

*  Statement yesterday from Moynihan that it had arrived at 4:48pm

 

We already knew all that. It had arrived on the SPFL server at 4:48pm, but allegedly sat in the quarantine folder. According to the SPFL (and the Deloitte report) it was not viewed until 8:55pm.

 

Alternatively it is possible that Moynihan could say that he "misspoke" (to use current political parlance) when he said it had arrived. He may choose to correct the record when he speaks tomorrow.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

6 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said:

They have put barriers up to any avenue of investigation of when, and where, the Dundee vote was received. Dundee had assured the WhatsApp group, including Inverness CT, that the vote was sent in time and revealed a photo of their voting paper.

Whatever happened after it was received, is what the SPFL board don't want in the public domain. The arrogance of power, that they have enjoyed for years, seems to have given them confidence that they could manipulate the legitimate outcome of the vote from a division which was seen as the crucial battleground for the SPFL board to push through Celtic being declared champions before any risk of null and void being declared across Europe.

It is shameful that the Scottish media have never seriously questioned what happened. You could be sure that if a similar situation had arisen over a decision by UEFA over something adversely affecting Celtic, they would be all over it.

 

 

It's a major admission by the SPFL side during the last couple of days that they did "receive" the Dundee email at 4:48 or whatever. Previously they and the Deloitte investigation said it was "sent" at that time. This seems a very important change and really does open to question both the events of that day and how the SPFL (and Deloitte) acted after it. 

[jack D and coke]

8 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said:

They have put barriers up to any avenue of investigation of when, and where, the Dundee vote was received. Dundee had assured the WhatsApp group, including Inverness CT, that the vote was sent in time and revealed a photo of their voting paper.

Whatever happened after it was received, is what the SPFL board don't want in the public domain. The arrogance of power, that they have enjoyed for years, seems to have given them confidence that they could manipulate the legitimate outcome of the vote from a division which was seen as the crucial battleground for the SPFL board to push through Celtic being declared champions before any risk of null and void being declared across Europe.

It is shameful that the Scottish media have never seriously questioned what happened. You could be sure that if a similar situation had arisen over a decision by UEFA over something adversely affecting Celtic, they would be all over it.

It’s truly sickening stuff. 
I sometimes wish I didn’t love Hearts so much. I’d love to turn my back on this shit. 

[sac]

23 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

There are actually so many strands,to this that are just plain questionable, it's hard for it not to feel like overkill. Too much cholce. A bit like Trump, so many objectionable incidents and comments that it's so overwhelming . Needs a clear mind to tie them all together or concentrate on some more than others. Apologies to any Trump fans

There’s only one way to get a fair hearing & that’s to get it heard fully in court (which I think is what you’re alluding to) Get ND, JN, PL, and a n other on the stand, plus the documented evidence out in the open. Let’s also see the individuals step up who indicated they would testify in court.
 

[Maroon 1874]

7 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

My bet is that it was made up nonsense.

 

Interesting considering DU and Raith are not flush with cash, Cove are in effect juniors so all would possibly be limited on cash for their QC

[WorldChampions1902]

36 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

I think documents around the drafting and agreeing of the Resolution will help our case if it goes to full hearing. 

 

Though not sure which documents we are looking to see.

One that we need to see is the scope of the “audit” which Deloitte’s were engaged to do. The SPFL would have set that out in a detailed manner if they wanted to cover up. One can draw conclusions from what that scope document omitted as much as what it included. You can then drill down to get to some uncomfortable truths.

[HMFC01]

27 minutes ago, macwad said:

 

 

In other words the other clubs who voted to not fulfil fixtures are liable to pay compensation for the expenses Hearts have necessarily incurred as “opposing Clubs”. In other words all the teams with outstanding fixtures against Hearts for last season owe us compensation. Also, potentially all the Championship clubs who voted to end the season and send Hearts down to play against them and cannot now fulfil upcoming fixtures behind closed doors also owe them.

 

 

 

In effect having your case accepted by the Court of Session destroys the Arbitration rule the muppets are now piping up about in the newspapers. Clair Whyte has nothing to look at even the suggestion that she does is completely unfounded. As the SFA Compliance Officer she must know this so why is she not stamping this nonsense out in press statements?  Probably because the SFA are as incompetent a bunch of numpties (or being influenced) by others to the point of bias.

 

Would you say there is a chance we could get reinstated and compensated at the same time.    Nice work.

 

I understand the games to be compensated by clubs.  Do you know whom would pay the other costs of losses:  example, sponsorship, that's all I can think of  There were other losses mentioned , I cant think of what they were.

 

Anyone else that can answer is also welcome.

[Rick Sanchez]

You would think on the day of a vote with a 5pm deadline that you would regularly check your quarantine/spam folders. Or even have the quarantine switched off.

 

Nothing legal in that, just common sense. I check my spam folder now and again, all my FoH emails go in there.

[1971fozzy]

2 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

It’s truly sickening stuff. 
I sometimes wish I didn’t love Hearts so much. I’d love to turn my back on this shit. 

ditto.  100% agree with this.  To the point can’t see me attending any away games again now tbh. 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

I wouldn't go overboard on the 4:48 email sent or received point just yet.  There is enough plausible deniability in what has been said, not to change very much.

 

*  Acknowledgement in the SPFL's "answers" that the vote had been sent at 4:48pm

*  Statement yesterday from Moynihan that it had arrived at 4:48pm

 

We already knew all that. It had arrived on the SPFL server at 4:48pm, but allegedly sat in the quarantine folder. According to the SPFL (and the Deloitte report) it was not viewed until 8:55pm.

 

Alternatively it is possible that Moynihan could say that he "misspoke" (to use current political parlance) when he said it had arrived. He may choose to correct the record when he speaks tomorrow.

 

 

I don't believe that had been confirmed before yesterday. The SPFL at the time gave the impression the email took ages to show up. They didn't once say "We received the Dundee email at 4:48." The Deloitte investigation also said it was "sent" at 4:48 but viewed hours later. They didn't seem to bother asking why it took so long to view it, which in itself is strange.

 

 

[ollie2004]

Any chance we can get a current view on what is what?

[Guest ToqueJambo]

Just now, Rick Sanchez said:

You would think on the day of a vote with a 5pm deadline that you would regularly check your quarantine/spam folders. Or even have the quarantine switched off.

 

Nothing legal in that, just common sense. I check my spam folder now and again, all my FoH emails go in there.

 

If you're expecting an important email and it doesn't arrive, the VERY first thing every single normal person does is check their spam folder.

[kila]

8 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I wouldn't go overboard on the 4:48 email sent or received point just yet.  There is enough plausible deniability in what has been said, not to change very much.

 

*  Acknowledgement in the SPFL's "answers" that the vote had been sent at 4:48pm

*  Statement yesterday from Moynihan that it had arrived at 4:48pm

 

We already knew all that. It had arrived on the SPFL server at 4:48pm, but allegedly sat in the quarantine folder. According to the SPFL (and the Deloitte report) it was not viewed until 8:55pm.

 

Alternatively it is possible that Moynihan could say that he "misspoke" (to use current political parlance) when he said it had arrived. He may choose to correct the record when he speaks tomorrow.

 

Nap the server logs say something like

 

16:48:16 - Email with PDF attachment received from [email protected]

16:48:25 - Email marked as read, attachment downloaded to PC with IP 82.23.43.11

16:49:21 - Email marked as unread

16:49:26 - Email moved to folder 'spam'

 

Edited July 2, 2020 by kila

[Guest ToqueJambo]

16 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said:

They have put barriers up to any avenue of investigation of when, and where, the Dundee vote was received. Dundee had assured the WhatsApp group, including Inverness CT, that the vote was sent in time and revealed a photo of their voting paper.

Whatever happened after it was received, is what the SPFL board don't want in the public domain. The arrogance of power, that they have enjoyed for years, seems to have given them confidence that they could manipulate the legitimate outcome of the vote from a division which was seen as the crucial battleground for the SPFL board to push through Celtic being declared champions before any risk of null and void being declared across Europe.

It is shameful that the Scottish media have never seriously questioned what happened. You could be sure that if a similar situation had arisen over a decision by UEFA over something adversely affecting Celtic, they would be all over it.

 

 

What's equally incredible is how many football supporters of other clubs - who are never usually such fans of the blazers running the game - are willing to accept this level of incompetence and possible corruption just to have a laugh at Hearts.