SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, Barack said:

Who?

That woman making a living out of doing voiceovers of Sturgeon.

[bigsuperslim1874]

23 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The Daily Record is reporting that the SPFL and the Scottish Government are on a collision course about fans attending matches. 

 

Perhaps the SPFL will take the SG to arbitration. It's a footballing matter after all. 

The SPFL really are a group of zoomers. There might be a collision but there will only be one winner - do they think they will bend the will of the government just to get fans through the doors....😂. 

[RobNox]

5 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

I was referring to the letter to UEFA that was written six days before the vote to place. Lots of Chairmen have said they never contacted Doncaster, and he never contacted them to speak about the league being called. That being the case who did contact him? Or who did he contact? Why - if he did contact clubs - did he only contact some clubs? We know what the definition of a vast majority is, but what’s his idea of a large number? To all intents and purposes some clubs didn’t even know the league being called was up for discussion until hurried conference calls were made and briefing documents were sent out in double quick time. Worth remembering at this point that Doncaster sent those briefing notes out without them being seen or approved by other members of the SPFL board as per Rangers dossier. He took it off his own back.

 

I wasn't aware of the timing of the letter to UEFA, which makes things seem even more suspicious.  My original post was simply on the basis that Doncaster could misrepresent the vote after it took place.  The plot thickens!

[Ethan Hunt]

35 minutes ago, Brave Hearts said:

 

With the SPFL now admitting to the court that dundee vote arrived at 16:48 then either

 

the SPFL lied to Deloittes when providing their evidence to the investigation 

 

or

 

Deloittes knew this fact and did not report nor highlight this in their findings

 

By SPFL admitting this crucial fact now, this must call the credibility of Deloittes into question and also the ability of Deloittes to conduct an indepth investigation

 

 

There seems to be a bit of confusion about this from somewhere. I think it’s the case that they have accepted that it arrived at 16:48 hours,  i.e. they aren’t going to debate that fact as the email audit trail has already proven it to be a fact. They’ve not admitted to having seen it at 16:48 hours, which, if they did would be the headshot. Having accepted that it arrived at 16:48 hours only means the argument could move on to other legal arguments in relation to it, i.e. was the resolution defeated at that point.

[Ethan Hunt]

10 minutes ago, RobNox said:

 

I wasn't aware of the timing of the letter to UEFA, which makes things seem even more suspicious.  My original post was simply on the basis that Doncaster could misrepresent the vote after it took place.  The plot thickens!

This plot has been really thick from the start! Well worth reading the Rangers dossier again to refresh, if you haven’t already read it, you should.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Ethan Hunt

[graygo]

24 minutes ago, Barack said:

Who?

 

This is her. 😁

 

Apologies for the sweary word.

 

[Hungry hippo]

6 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

There seems to be a bit of confusion about this from somewhere. I think it’s the case that they have accepted that it arrived at 16:48 hours,  i.e. they aren’t going to debate that fact as the email audit trail has already proven it to be a fact. They’ve not admitted to having seen it at 16:48 hours, which, if they did would be the headshot. Having accepted that it arrived at 16:48 hours only means the argument could move on to other legal arguments in relation to it, i.e. was the resolution defeated at that point.

 

Totally agree. They don't seem to have admitted too much yet even though it is clearly very dodgy.

[Doctor FinnBarr]

26 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

That woman making a living out of doing voiceovers of Sturgeon.

 

Even Sturgeon is admitting her voiceovers are getting through to people more than her (Sturgeon) will ever do, "Get the door Frank"

[geomac]

25 minutes ago, Barack said:

Never heard of her. I'll keep it like that, I think. 

 

If she's of similar talent to Limmy,

or Burnistoun, then I'll be glad of the ignorance.

Not as good as Limmy,

probably better than most Burnistoun,

who do you admire? Morecambe & Wise?

[Captain Slog]

15 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

There seems to be a bit of confusion about this from somewhere. I think it’s the case that they have accepted that it arrived at 16:48 hours,  i.e. they aren’t going to debate that fact as the email audit trail has already proven it to be a fact. They’ve not admitted to having seen it at 16:48 hours, which, if they did would be the headshot. Having accepted that it arrived at 16:48 hours only means the argument could move on to other legal arguments in relation to it, i.e. was the resolution defeated at that point.

Didn't Eric Dryesdale state on a whatsApp group the Dundee vote had been submitted ?   Surely someone from the SPFL would have noticed that

[CJGJ]

22 minutes ago, bigsuperslim1874 said:

The SPFL really are a group of zoomers. There might be a collision but there will only be one winner - do they think they will bend the will of the government just to get fans through the doors....😂. 

Like the publicans did you mean ?

 

On this issue Sturgeon is in the wrong and should be told clearly she is wrong.

 

Her expert has made public statements over the last few weeks and now she had to 'correct' what he said because suddenly she realised people were starting to ask why no fans when you have allowed other things to be opened which then make no sense for football or other major sports not to be allowed to open with limited crowds

[PhoenixHearts]

33 minutes ago, Barack said:

Never heard of her. I'll keep it like that, I think. 

 

If she's of similar talent to Limmy,

or Burnistoun, then I'll be glad of the ignorance.

Limmy is on a completely different wavelength to that Burnistoun shite. Not comparable.

[geomac]

1 minute ago, CJGJ said:

Like the publicans did you mean ?

 

On this issue Sturgeon is in the wrong and should be told clearly she is wrong.

 

Her expert has made public statements over the last few weeks and now she had to 'correct' what he said because suddenly she realised people were starting to ask why no fans when you have allowed other things to be opened which then make no sense for football or other major sports not to be allowed to open with limited crowds

 

tone of your language puts me off before listening to the p!sh you are actually spouting - back to selling cars Jackson, try and look competent!

[geomac]

1 minute ago, Barack said:

Two Ronnies? Danny La Roux ? my money is on him if you find anything funny????

 

 

[PhoenixHearts]

1 minute ago, Barack said:

Don't find either funny.

Limmy isn't funny in the traditional sense though. It's not even his sketch stuff that I find good. His nihilistic cynicism is very relatable.

And his improv stories and books also expose his almost sociopathic inner-mind. Good laugh. From a distance.

[geomac]

1 minute ago, Barack said:

What's got up your arse? 

 

Bloody hell.

you said you didn't find various comedians funny, I was wondering what you did find funny, you didn,t and never will get up my arse, 

bloody hell x 2 😁

[Ethan Hunt]

19 minutes ago, Captain Slog said:

Didn't Eric Dryesdale state on a whatsApp group the Dundee vote had been submitted ?   Surely someone from the SPFL would have noticed that

The WhatsApp group had a limited membership. Given the discussions that were taking place on it the SPFL certainly weren’t one of the members. 

[RobNox]

6 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

There seems to be a bit of confusion about this from somewhere. I think it’s the case that they have accepted that it arrived at 16:48 hours,  i.e. they aren’t going to debate that fact as the email audit trail has already proven it to be a fact. They’ve not admitted to having seen it at 16:48 hours, which, if they did would be the headshot. Having accepted that it arrived at 16:48 hours only means the argument could move on to other legal arguments in relation to it, i.e. was the resolution defeated at that point.

 

It's a very interest question.  I made the point previously that as far as the law is concerned, if a proposal is put forward to shareholders, they do not have to vote against it, only in favour.  If they don't vote in favour, that is taken as a vote against.  And the shareholders have 28 days in which to make their vote, and having made a vote in favour, they are precluded from changing that vote.  There is no legal position about changing a 'no' vote, because there is no legal requirement to make a no vote.  

 

So in normal circumstances, you can declare the vote as having succeeded as soon as you receive the requisite number of votes in favour, but can't declare the vote as having failed until 28 days elapsed and you haven't received enough votes in favour.

 

The SPFL asked clubs to vote within 48 hours, 'if possible' and also asked for a yes or no vote.  The fact that the SPFL asked clubs to vote within 48 hours and to indicate a no vote, did not override the legal right of any club to take up to 28 days to respond, and did not override the legal position that there is no such thing as a no vote.  Hence, in my opinion, any club who indicated a no vote had the legal right to change that vote to a yes vote within the 28 day period, because legally, regardless of how they indicated they were going to vote, the only votes that matter are yes votes.  That opened the opportunity for the SPFL to attempt to influence any 'no' voters to reconsider their position before the 28 day period elapsed.

 

 

[geomac]

2 minutes ago, Barack said:

Aye, them two. 

 

As a start:

 

Bill Bryson

Jon Stewart 

Frankie Boyle

The Two Ronnie's WERE good.

Tommy Tiernan

 

To name just a small selection. Other's will not find my list very funny. Is what it is, geo.🙂👍🏻

 

The Two Ronnie's WERE good., preferred Tommy Cooper, Frankie Boyle is a conservative Limmy to me, still funny though, the rest meh!

Did you mean Bill Bailey? he's funny

[J.T.F.Robertson]

3 hours ago, RobNox said:

 

I'm with you on this.

 

Two major clubs to provide funding, the obvious candidates would be the old firm, but we already know that Rangers are not enamoured by Doncaster and would like to see the current regime brought down.  Celtic appear to be financially strong, but they have a huge wage bill and potentially damaging legal action of their own to face.  As long as they get their 9iar title, they have no skin in the game as far as promotion or relegation is concerned.  No other club, major or otherwise, has cash to spare on fighting other clubs' battles, so I call this as BS.

 

As I understand it they have the most to lose, i.e., unlikely as it is, "null and void". It's why we have this shitshow to begin with.

[RobNox]

21 minutes ago, Barack said:

Aye, them two. 

 

As a start:

 

Bill Bryson

Jon Stewart 

Frankie Boyle

The Two Ronnie's WERE good.

Tommy Tiernan

 

To name just a small selection. Other's will not find my list very funny. Is what it is, geo.🙂👍🏻

 

Jerry Sadowitz is still the funniest comedian I have ever seen, and I've seen him lots of times.  There is no subject that is taboo, no line that cannot be crossed. 

[Jambo Jag]

2 hours ago, jamborich said:

Is the Dundee vote our saviour, confused 

Would this possibly be helpful?

 

The following was indicated in an early, related, Daily Record article:

 

"Partick Thistle have been seeking top legal advice and are adamant that Dundee’s ‘no’ vote - that would have seen the initial proposal fail - which was later retracted should have stood".

 

Looking again at the timeline regarding Dundee's 10 April vote, according to Deloitte's report, as commissioned by the SPL:

 

At 17:15, (SPFL chief executive) Neil Doncaster called Dundee FC Managing Director, John Nelms, and left a message asking whether Dundee FC intended to submit a return.

 

At 17:39, Neil Doncaster had a conversation with John Nelms and confirmed that as far as he knew, no vote had been returned from Dundee FC. John Nelms thought Dundee FC’s vote may have been returned, but would make enquiries.
[End of extract]

However, quite oblivious to Doncaster, Dundee's 'no' vote had in fact been received, Deloitte's report confirming:

 

At around 20:30, Ian Blair accessed the SPFL’s email quarantine system (which is a feature of the email system operated by a separate third party) at the suggestion of Rod Mackenzie and identified an unread email from Eric Drysdale that had been sent at 16:48 on 10 April 2020.
[End of extract]

This was elemental, as explained by Dundee in a 'club statement', released on 15 April:

 

"...it was our intention...to vote ‘no’ on the proposed resolution.

 

Despite being electronically submitted, for whatever reason, our vote did not reach the centre (SPFL.) 

 

We were not aware of that, however, until the SPFL published the ‘results’ of an incomplete vote and it was shown that Dundee FC’s vote was not received.

 

This raised an immediate red flag for us; not only was our vote missing, but we discovered that at least two Premiership clubs had modified their position from the understanding we had the day prior. It was then that we decided to put our foot on the ball and pause.

 

We conveyed that decision to the centre...".

 

https://dundeefc.co.uk/news/club-statement-26/

What f Dundee had not been misinformed by Doncaster, that their vote hadn't been received?

 

Would if it had actually been counted by the SPFL and overall voting result published?

 

When Dundee released, "at least two Premiership clubs had modified their position from the understanding we had...", would they still have asked for their vote to be disregarded?

 

Crucially, could they have?

 

If not, then due to their incompetence, the SPFL - and specifically Doncaster - are entirely responsible for the initial vote not being acted upon and the motion being accordingly defeated as voted down.
 

[Ricardo Quaresma]

6 hours ago, kila said:

 

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'

 

 

Or they blacklisted Dundee prior to the arrival of the E-Mail, knowing that their vote was going to be critical & quite possibly aware of the Whatsapp conversation, which definitely contained a 'reject' vote

 

Would assume the 3rd party server would log this action to cover their position

 

 

-

Edited July 3, 2020 by Ricardo Quaresma
Added more

[J.T.F.Robertson]

2 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

The Daily Record is reporting that the SPFL and the Scottish Government are on a collision course about fans attending matches. 

 

Perhaps the SPFL will take the SG to arbitration. It's a footballing matter after all. 

 

Well I'll be. 

[Ethan Hunt]

1 hour ago, RobNox said:

 

It's a very interest question.  I made the point previously that as far as the law is concerned, if a proposal is put forward to shareholders, they do not have to vote against it, only in favour.  If they don't vote in favour, that is taken as a vote against.  And the shareholders have 28 days in which to make their vote, and having made a vote in favour, they are precluded from changing that vote.  There is no legal position about changing a 'no' vote, because there is no legal requirement to make a no vote.  

 

So in normal circumstances, you can declare the vote as having succeeded as soon as you receive the requisite number of votes in favour, but can't declare the vote as having failed until 28 days elapsed and you haven't received enough votes in favour.

 

The SPFL asked clubs to vote within 48 hours, 'if possible' and also asked for a yes or no vote.  The fact that the SPFL asked clubs to vote within 48 hours and to indicate a no vote, did not override the legal right of any club to take up to 28 days to respond, and did not override the legal position that there is no such thing as a no vote.  Hence, in my opinion, any club who indicated a no vote had the legal right to change that vote to a yes vote within the 28 day period, because legally, regardless of how they indicated they were going to vote, the only votes that matter are yes votes.  That opened the opportunity for the SPFL to attempt to influence any 'no' voters to reconsider their position before the 28 day period elapsed.

 

 

For clarity the voting paper gave the options of ADOPT or REJECT rather than YES or NO (which would appear to be the more common language used in written resolution votes). 

 

I think there is a very important difference between a REJECT response and a NO response. The definition of reject is -

 

dismiss as inadequate, unacceptable or faulty

 

Whereas the definition of no is -

 

a negative answer or decision

 

I would argue that given the definition of the word reject, the clubs who voted that way were fully aware of its meaning. The only way the SPFL could then get a club to change their vote would be to address the part of the resolution that club found inadequate, unacceptable or faulty. In essence that is what the SPFL did with Aberdeen (providing reassurances about consultation before ending the Premiership as admitted by Dave McCormack) and Dundee (Reconstruction and some other bullshit). However, in doing that they effectively changed the resolution without the other clubs being aware, thus meaning Aberdeen and Dundee voted on a different resolution to the rest of the clubs, and each other.

 

Tom English stated on Sportsound that he had asked Doncaster what he would do if the resolution failed. Doncaster replied that he would tweek it and keep bringing it back like Theresa May did with the Brexit vote. In reality that is what he should have done had the vote been dealt with properly. He should have spoken with the reject voters, amended the resolution, and put it out to be voted on. The issue thereafter was that the adopt voters may then have changed the way they previously voted due to the amendments made. Doncaster obviously didn’t fancy having to do that a few times (as per the Brexit vote) and coupled with his desire to get the league called ASAP, he took the easy option on a very tight vote, get the one club required to change its vote.

 

I think the fact that the SPFL requested clubs return their voting papers 48 hours later, and all the clubs complied, meant that the clubs saw that as the voting deadline, whether real or not, meaning when all the votes were returned the resolution was defeated and the 28 days no longer applied.

 

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Ethan Hunt

[Jambo Jag]

49 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

For clarity the voting paper gave the options of ADOPT or REJECT rather than YES or NO (which would appear to be the more common language used in written resolution votes)...

 

Thank you for highlighting all of the above - massive assist with the perspective.

 

 

 

[Libertarian]

Does anyone have the log on details for today's Court of Session?

[Bickfest]

Fingers crossed for today, folks. I am very hopeful that Lord Clark will conclude that the quickest, and most appropriate, forum for this dispute is the Court Of Session, and that we will move quickly to timescales and productions (evidence). I remain of the view that this is what the SPFL executive fear most, and that a resolution which suits all parties will be miraculously found in short order should this decision go our way.

 

If it does, however, go to a hearing, I think we should be looking at whether the proposed resolution was competent in the first place to end the season prematurely. We all know that the resolution process itself was deeply flawed (and thanks to Ethan H for an excellent explanation of further defects above), but was that really the right way to call a halt to the season and award the prizes in the first place? I think that each competition, each season, is an implied contract into which all clubs enter with each other and with the SPFL. That contract is "signed" (executed) when the competition starts, all entants effectively agreeing to the contract terms - the competition Rules. It is a fundamental principle of contract law that, once a contract is under way, it can only be amended (if the amendment is to the detriment of any of the parties, or places any additional or altered burdens on any party) with the agreement of all parties to the contract (not 10 out of 12, but 12 out of 12). (See Mr Lawell's comments from 2008 (I think) earlier in this thread "You cannot change the rules of a competition once it has started........." without the agreement of all participants (my addition)). If you do want to alter it, you do that by changing the Rules, not the Articles of the company administering the competition. So I think what has happened is breach of contract first and unfair prejudice second. The resolution screw up and cover up should be our back up plan of attack, not the first line.

 

I think the SPFL's recent conduct lets slip that they are aware of this themselves. That is why they are proposing to grab the power to make these decisions themselves for next season before the season starts - otherwise, why not wait to see what happens with Covid 19 before requesting authority to act? I do hope that this power grab is firmly rejected by the clubs. Of all sporting administrative bodies I can think of, I'd say the SPFL is the least qualified to exercise such authority in a professional, considered, impartial manner. They must be stopped.

[ScoPo]

20 minutes ago, Bickfest said:

Fingers crossed for today, folks. I am very hopeful that Lord Clark will conclude that the quickest, and most appropriate, forum for this dispute is the Court Of Session, and that we will move quickly to timescales and productions (evidence). I remain of the view that this is what the SPFL executive fear most, and that a resolution which suits all parties will be miraculously found in short order should this decision go our way.

 

If it does, however, go to a hearing, I think we should be looking at whether the proposed resolution was competent in the first place to end the season prematurely. We all know that the resolution process itself was deeply flawed (and thanks to Ethan H for an excellent explanation of further defects above), but was that really the right way to call a halt to the season and award the prizes in the first place? I think that each competition, each season, is an implied contract into which all clubs enter with each other and with the SPFL. That contract is "signed" (executed) when the competition starts, all entants effectively agreeing to the contract terms - the competition Rules. It is a fundamental principle of contract law that, once a contract is under way, it can only be amended (if the amendment is to the detriment of any of the parties, or places any additional or altered burdens on any party) with the agreement of all parties to the contract (not 10 out of 12, but 12 out of 12). (See Mr Lawell's comments from 2008 (I think) earlier in this thread "You cannot change the rules of a competition once it has started........." without the agreement of all participants (my addition)). If you do want to alter it, you do that by changing the Rules, not the Articles of the company administering the competition. So I think what has happened is breach of contract first and unfair prejudice second. The resolution screw up and cover up should be our back up plan of attack, not the first line.

 

I think the SPFL's recent conduct lets slip that they are aware of this themselves. That is why they are proposing to grab the power to make these decisions themselves for next season before the season starts - otherwise, why not wait to see what happens with Covid 19 before requesting authority to act? I do hope that this power grab is firmly rejected by the clubs. Of all sporting administrative bodies I can think of, I'd say the SPFL is the least qualified to exercise such authority in a professional, considered, impartial manner. They must be stopped.

On your first paragraph, I really don't think it is for Lord Clark to make a choice here between two equally valid methods of dealing with our petition or claim if it is to proceed.

 

One is right under the law and one is not surely?   Either Article 99 of the SFA articles applies here or not.  That's not a point of interpretation, that's a determination of legal fact.

 

I believe Hearts and Partick will successfully show that the only legal route is through the Court of Session. 

 

Why?  Well because the company that is the SPFL is, as far as I can ascertain,  not a member of the SFA nor is it an associated person as defined by Article 99.  Therefore said article doesn't apply to this petition.

 

 

Perhaps however under the Arbitration (Scotland) Act, Lord Clark has a separate legal channel for using the option of arbitration, a power which he can exercise at his discretion?  That I haven't considered yet. 

 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by ScoPo

[Lfhearts]

6 hours ago, PhoenixHearts said:

Limmy is on a completely different wavelength to that Burnistoun shite. Not comparable.

Hear hear and we can all guess her allegiance to a certain east end pdo club

[Seymour M Hersh]

6 hours ago, geomac said:

Not as good as Limmy,

probably better than most Burnistoun,

who do you admire? Morecambe & Wise?

 

Hard to better them tbh, perhaps the Two Ronnies and Tommy Cooper was fantastic as well. 

[Worthing Jambo]

11 hours ago, Rods said:

We should also be focusing on the original resolution why was it setup to penalise 3 clubs. Once it become clear the league could not finish and there was no rules for this at that point the directors of the SPFL had a duty to act for all shareholders. Instead they pushed through a resolution that was to the detriment of 3. I hope this is brought to the table at some point. 

Tom English asked Doncaster what he would do if the resolution failed.

Doncaster said , like Theresa May’s brexit plan, I’ll keep bringing it back until it passes.

Tom English says, why didn’t he?

Did Doncaster see an opportunity to cut corners?

Why did cash strapped Dundee change their mind?

 

Edit: Should have read all of the thread!

This is already mentioned above but worth repeating.

Edited July 3, 2020 by Worthing Jambo

[stuart500]

5 hours ago, RobNox said:

 

It's a very interest question.  I made the point previously that as far as the law is concerned, if a proposal is put forward to shareholders, they do not have to vote against it, only in favour.  If they don't vote in favour, that is taken as a vote against.  And the shareholders have 28 days in which to make their vote, and having made a vote in favour, they are precluded from changing that vote.  There is no legal position about changing a 'no' vote, because there is no legal requirement to make a no vote.  

 

So in normal circumstances, you can declare the vote as having succeeded as soon as you receive the requisite number of votes in favour, but can't declare the vote as having failed until 28 days elapsed and you haven't received enough votes in favour.

 

The SPFL asked clubs to vote within 48 hours, 'if possible' and also asked for a yes or no vote.  The fact that the SPFL asked clubs to vote within 48 hours and to indicate a no vote, did not override the legal right of any club to take up to 28 days to respond, and did not override the legal position that there is no such thing as a no vote.  Hence, in my opinion, any club who indicated a no vote had the legal right to change that vote to a yes vote within the 28 day period, because legally, regardless of how they indicated they were going to vote, the only votes that matter are yes votes.  That opened the opportunity for the SPFL to attempt to influence any 'no' voters to reconsider their position before the 28 day period elapsed.

 

 

I understand this argument about changing votes has been put forward but does Company law allow more than one vote?

 

If a no vote doesnt exist as far as passing a resolution is concerned then you cannot vote no. You can only 'not vote yes'. So you haven't yet voted when the first count of yes votes takes place. 

 

You may then subsequently vote yes at a later date within the 28 days. Or abstain.

 

You are not voting no then yes. And you are only voting once (or abstaining).

 

The ballot paper created by SPFL introduced the possibility of an actual no vote (you could opt to 'reject' the motion) and this became final once the vote was sent. There is no provision in Company law to allow you to change your vote from no to yes i.e. have more than one vote because in effect there is actually only one type of vote possible (yes). 

 

This is clearly something for a judge to clarify in law and not be left to a panel of "football experts" as its a "football matter". 

[ScoPo]

1 minute ago, Worthing Jambo said:

Tom English asked Doncaster what he would do if the resolution failed.

Doncaster said , like Theresa May’s brexit plan, I’ll keep bringing it back until it passes.

Tom English says, why didn’t he?

Did Doncaster see an opportunity to cut corners?

Why did cash strapped Dundee change their mind?

The way the SPFL condcuted their business in this matter appears to be questionable at best.

 

The shareholders were asked to make a highly important decision.  So, a few questions I would want to ask..please feel free to add to the list...

 

Were shareholders given sufficient time to do so?  Was there pressure to respond swiftly?

 

Were they in possession of all the facts?

 

Were all alternative options laid out for consideration and the reasons for rejecting them given?  

 

Why did the company conclude that the recommended option would benefit if not all, then the majority, of the shareholders?  What analysis was carried out before that conclusion was reached?  

 

Were all shareholders given equal access to information?

 

Were any shareholders involved in discussions to which other shareholders were not privvy?  If yes, during these discussions were any extra conditions set or commitments made to said shareholders?  And if so, why and for what purpose?   Again, if such discussions occurred, why were the rest of the shareholders excluded? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Diadora Van Basten]

7 hours ago, Ethan Hunt said:

I was referring to the letter to UEFA that was written six days before the vote to place. Lots of Chairmen have said they never contacted Doncaster, and he never contacted them to speak about the league being called. That being the case who did contact him? Or who did he contact? Why - if he did contact clubs - did he only contact some clubs? We know what the definition of a vast majority is, but what’s his idea of a large number? To all intents and purposes some clubs didn’t even know the league being called was up for discussion until hurried conference calls were made and briefing documents were sent out in double quick time. Worth remembering at this point that Doncaster sent those briefing notes out without them being seen or approved by other members of the SPFL board as per Rangers dossier. He took it off his own back.

Agreed from listening to Chairman on Sportsound the first they heard off the league being called as is was two days before the vote but Doncaster wrote to UEFA six days before just another example of wrongdoing that has been glossed over.

 

Its pretty obvious Lawell wanted the league called and Celtic awarded the title and Doncaster was doing his masters bidding.

[williamgerrard]

Has anyone got the login details for today ?

[AlimOzturk]

So what time is kick off chaps?

[belburgh]

At home after a good day at work with a full stomach and a very cool beer in my hand.  I'll be in this for the long run tonight (today your end) 

 

I wish our QC all the best today and hope that the correct decision is arrived at with the SPFL brought to court to answer some of the questions which, up till now, have been sidestepped.  I would love to hear direct questioning to ND in the dock (and under oath) answered! What a day that would be!

 

To all Jambo's, Keep the faith.

[Swanny17]

See if we do win reinstatement, I assume our first few fixtures will be postponed? There’s no danger we will be ready to play matches at the start of August. Or will the SPFL just force us to do so? 

[Portable Badger]

8 hours ago, Ethan Hunt said:

Initially he said “vast majority of clubs” then that changed to “a large number of clubs”. Let’s find out exactly how many, and who they were. 

I would also add..... and on what basis of evidence he could publicly state this opinion/fact

[manaliveits105]

15 point deduction for not being match fit

[Heartsmad1874]

Sent off an email to ask for the code and got an automatic reply with a link. No listed code for today yet, does say if not listed then it might not be available to listen in to??

[Ricardo Quaresma]

14 minutes ago, Swanny17 said:

See if we do win reinstatement, I assume our first few fixtures will be postponed? There’s no danger we will be ready to play matches at the start of August. Or will the SPFL just force us to do so? 

 

Think we should be asking to train NOW pending the outcome

[bigsuperslim1874]

7 hours ago, CJGJ said:

Like the publicans did you mean ?

 

On this issue Sturgeon is in the wrong and should be told clearly she is wrong.

 

Her expert has made public statements over the last few weeks and now she had to 'correct' what he said because suddenly she realised people were starting to ask why no fans when you have allowed other things to be opened which then make no sense for football or other major sports not to be allowed to open with limited crowds

It’s more the fact that the shambolic SPFL who couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery are taking the Govt to task. Not saying Govt are right or wrong but the SPFL getting involved.....😂

[Koolkeith]

With fans likely to be in stadiums around the same time as the Championship starting, how much worse off will we be?  Those clubs could make money from tv, but will have operational costs. 

[Gmcjambo]

7 minutes ago, Portable Badger said:

I would also add..... and on what basis of evidence he could publicly state this opinion/fact

Obviously any professional outfit will have kept records showing who they spoke to, and of the Board decision making process.  It won't look good if they haven't.  Can just imagine how this organisation is run though.   Another reason why SPFL will want to avoid court.  They have acted with impunity throughout.

[Heartsmad1874]

6 minutes ago, Heartsmad1874 said:

Sent off an email to ask for the code and got an automatic reply with a link. No listed code for today yet, does say if not listed then it might not be available to listen in to??

Edited now,

 

 

[williamgerrard]

Thanks

[Riccarton3]

Just thinking of Moynihan: he summed up the SPFL and SF A ethos in one crass line. 

[Aussie Jambo]