SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 minute ago, Gmcjambo said:

Judge is not hanging about then!    No idea if that's a good or bad sign, but he's obviously clear minded on the position it seems.

 

Yip, it would seem that's he's already made his mind up, not needing to think about it over the week-end.

[Heartsmad1874]

Just now, Ribble said:

Boreland didn't help himself towards the end and got a ticking off from the judge for 'constant interruptions'

Was an almighty slap down  
 

[SMJ_1874]

A bit like the end of a 12 round boxing match wherein, both pugilists dance about trying to claim victory. Point scoring if front of the beaks

[Mikey1874]

So the submissions- "answers"  from Dundee Utd etc and / or SPFL were made public.

 

I haven't seen them. 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Mikey1874

[NANOJAMBO]

1 minute ago, Dannie Boy said:

The Lord knows is rulings already he just needs to reflect on this mornings submissions. 
 

Buckle up this could go either way. My gut feeling is it will be I favour of us.

When he slapped Boreland down I thought he sounded very irritated as though he just wants to get this done. 

[Ribble]

1 minute ago, Gorgieshed said:

I think it's going to Arbitration. I didn't expect the decision as soon as 2pm. The judge is looking to get this done ASAP so that the next stage can begin. Just my opinion. 

 

Not so sure on that, court can happen 14th/15th but no guarantee's that arbitration could meet that timeframe

[neilnunb]

Personally I think 2 QCs have 'bored' him ridgeless whilst the other one has been consistent.

 

 

[Heartsmad1874]

Just now, NANOJAMBO said:

Key bits for me :

 

SPFL QC having a dig at leakage of docs as a basis for not producing, some are not relevant, some already in the public domain.

 

Boreland is saying DUFC perhaps  cannot produce them / some of them because of Covid restrictions ?!?!?

 

Thomson having a go at both QCs - you've had ages to get to work on this. 

 

Did Boreland seriously suggest Hearts should go to court with the "Rangers dossier" ? instead of complying with Hearts reuest for docs ? 

 

 

Where about on the internet was the answers posted? Must have missed that.

 

Only thing i seen was the possible Neil Doncaster letter written down in Apple notes ffs.

[Sarah O]

5 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Ruling given at 2pm.

[Don Dan]

SPFL QC kept referring to the SPFL as a company and admitting other indiscretions such as the Dundee vote.
Both trying to hide papers under it’s to hard argument and using COVID as reason to not get access to them. That just won’t wash imo.

[Steve]

I cannot believe their argument for not giving documents is that it it 'difficult'! Surely that can never stand up in a court of law!

 

 

[Hagar the Horrible]

What might go for us now we are allowed to talk is that Boreland was so aggressive in hiding the documents, cant locate them, they are at the stadium, covid will make if dificult, and the time scales also make it dificult so M'Laud throw it out?

 

Boreland got slapped down for interupting somewhat agressively, we had him on the ropes

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Here we go then.

 

I rather fear that the judge might have sat listening to this and thought ‘why don’t you all just **** all and stop boring me with this.’

[Skiba]

4 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

Judge obviously conscious of time and will be looking to get the case underway asap.

 

Before the corrupt bas******s release the fixture list.  Here's hoping

[Don Dan]

1 minute ago, Heartsmad1874 said:

Was an almighty slap down  
 

Aye Thomson  just unpacked the dirty laundry and he was panicking and tried to interject. 

[Neil Dongcaster]

Where is our second favourite Davie with his update....

[RENE]

Referee's gone to look at VAR.  This could be a defining moment..😁

[Hackney Hearts]

2 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

using COVID as reason to not get access to them. That just won’t wash imo.

 

You MUST wash. For at least 20-30 seconds.

[DETTY29]

Documents at stadium.

 

What is this?

 

1893.....

[heatonjambo]

I have gone from w are losing this, to a draw to we have lost, to I think it’s going to court!

 

champange on ice maybe 

[JAMBO.LOU]

1 minute ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

What might go for us now we are allowed to talk is that Boreland was so aggressive in hiding the documents, cant locate them, they are at the stadium, covid will make if dificult, and the time scales also make it dificult so M'Laud throw it out?

 

Boreland got slapped down for interupting somewhat agressively, we had him on the ropes

yes,  I liked Thomson’s rebuttal that they claim to have done work to improve the stadiums in light of promotion but couldn’t access papers within said stadiums. 

[Jim Panzee]

8 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

Oral Ruling 2pm

ooer. picture of Kenneth Williams etc

[Mikey1874]

If given go ahead Case will be heard week after next.

 

Think it was the Tues 14th or Wed 15th for 3 days. 

[Hagar the Horrible]

The Rangers dossier was damming, if this goes ahead then the SPFL have a lot of questions needing answered, and under oath, no hiding place if this goes for us?  I think still if there IS litigation then the SPFL will not continue, and DU wont have a case without the SPFL?

[Paul1872]

Can anyone tell me if it’s the same access code as yesterday? Couldn’t get it to work but I’m presuming it’s paused for lunch.. so just double checking before I tune in at 2🤪

[David McCaig]

DAY 3: HEART OF MIDLOTHIAN / PARTICK THISTLE V SPFL/DU/RR/CR
 
 
Borland has made reference to the documents submitted by the petitioners and articles that make reference to clubs not being relieved of duties as members of the SFA.
 
Lord Clark: are you saying that there are two linked and overlapping articles supporting the statement you have made.
 
GB refers back to article 99.7 saying that any dispute arising out of association football must go to arbitration.  Can it really be said that this dispute does not in any way arise out of association football?  Viewed sensibly it must be said that this dispute arises from association football.  The petitioners are attempting to deny the 3 champion clubs promotion  The idea that a set of proceedings where that is the central remedy is not a football dispute is a nonsensical contention.
 
GB also contends that the SPFL must be considered an associated person, which again demands that the case must go to arbitration.
 
Gerry Moynihan QC SPFL Response
 
Reference made to section 10 of arbitration act and the fact that the lodging of answers is an indispensable part of Scots Law and the English precedents map directly onto this.
 
Can this dispute be exclusively said to be amongst shareholders, or is it a football dispute.
 
Invariable practice in Scotland that one would plead the arbitration process. It would be absurd to only make an application by motion.  It would be preposterous not to be able to submit a skeleton defence.
 
The Patel Case reflects rather than conflates the argument.
 
Mr Thomson is incorrect to rely on the literal interpretation of article 10. It is in the public interest that parties put their cards on the table at the earliest possible date.
 
Refers back to Hamlyn in the 19th century being indicative of Scotland having a long history of being supportive of arbitration.
 
Lord Clark: Mr Thomson actually stated that 10.1(d) gives no common law basis for discretion, if a step has been taken.
 
Clubs have responded in good faith and been entirely candid in their response.
 
If any discretion is available it should not deprive the clubs of their right to arbitration
 
Lord Clark:  The Dundee vote.  Can anything else be done to save time.
 
GM that admission is a technical one. Understanding is that the issue of the Dundee vote should be capable of resolution by legal argument.  This should be capable of being sorted by debate.
 
The SFA dispute resolution now has 3 tracks. 1. Arbitration – disputes of a certain nature. 2. Judicial review 3.Judicial panel.  Disciplinary matter go down route 3 – judicial panel, which is subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session.
 
The example is given of the COS overturning a decision by Judicial Panel against Rangers.
 
Reference made to the Fulham and Bridgehouse cases that this dispute does fall within the remit of arbitration.
 
As far as arbitration goes there is no reason why the parties could not apply the SFA today for arbitration, which would put the case in exactly the same position as it is with the court.
 
The written resolution creates 3 categories, clear winners and losers, middle ranking clubs and those who actually voted against self-interest.
 
GM once again blames Hearts/Partick for the delays.
 
GM finishes by asking Lord Clark to refer to arbitration.
 
Lord Clark: one of the points of law raised by SPFL that there is some authority for parties to change a vote when not counted.  Will there be a requirement for evidence on the approach in general taken to counting votes.  Were they opened and counted as received.
 
GM it is a real possibility that evidence is required.  Although Dundee had voted, legislation deliberately allows 28 days and whilst an affirmative vote cannot be revoked, GM asserts that a No vote can.
 
End of GM submission
 
Lord Clark offer to Mr Thomson to respond
 
David Thomson QC response
 
Practicalities – can arbitration respond in time required.  GM appeared to be criticising petitioners for time taken. The time taken in this hearing has been predominantly taken by GB/GM.
 
On the issue of voting categories, GM appears not to have read the petitioners submission.  One of the main complaints is that the Directors of SPFL only presented one option for clubs to obtain monies.  A breach of duty of care.
 
Article 10.1(d)  taking any steps in answering the substantive claim.  A quick perusal of the answers shows a few lines where the arbitration clause is identified.  The other 20 pages go beyond candid claims and actually give substantive answers to the petition.
 
MOTION FOR RECOVERY OF DOCUMENTS
 
Lord Clark has not yet made a decision on whether or not to refer to arbitration.
 
DT
 
1. SPFL certain admissions have been made, with the SPFL setting out at length the discussions between Doncaster and Nelms and the legal considerations made.  Documents required in order to interrogate information including content of calls.
 
2.Re averments from the promoted clubs in relation to their promotions.  We do not know the veracity of their claims.  That material must be recovered in order to challenge their arguments.  It comes as a surprise to Hearts and Partick  that clubs make the claims they have made… have Cove really started work on ground improvements? A bizarre quality to the respondents statements, saying that Hearts have both delayed litigation and are premature in seeking document recovery
 
Call for a commissioner to be appointed on Monday in order to help facilitate the recovery of document.
 
Lord Clark happy to facilitate any agreements.
 
GB
 
Opposes the suggestion that recovery be ordered prior to a decision being made on arbitration.
 
If the case is required to go to arbitration, the court should not usurp the role of the arbitration panel. However, the arbitration panel does have the power to request documents where appropriate.
 
GB argues that it would not be competent for the court to issue a specification of documents.
 
Lord Clark refers to article 45 that the court may mandate witnesses to attend or disclose documents.  GB says this only refers to a request from tribunal.
 
Documents referring to the 3 clubs have no bearing on Hearts/Partick claim of unfair prejudice.
 
Lord Clark:  These are points which the responders are offering to prove.
 

 
GM
 
If Lord Clark deals with things in order and sists the case that is that and no recovery should be made.
 
There are two rules one for and SFA dispute and one for a football dispute.
 
The tribunal has the power to request the documents it needs and should not be swamped with papers in advance.  The matter should be left with them.
 
The SPFL has concerns about confidentiality in these matters as there is a clear line of authority that to publish pleading in advance is a contempt of court.  Despite this the answers were published on the internet.
 
Documents require to be lodged by 8 July.
 
The SPFL admit that they would require to make material available to support their averments, such as what evidence is there that Dundee’s vote was quarantined?
 
Board papers have already been made available via the Rangers dossier and other papers can readily be made available.
 
The duty of candour includes disclosing the good, the bad and the ugly.
 
GM claims of misleading information refer to the briefing note issued with the resolution.
 
Argues that request for legal briefing is based on English rather than Scots Law.
 
The information required is already in the public domain.
 
Details relating to the commercial contract are sensitive and should be withheld as it is commercially confidential.
 
No reason why disclosure of the TV broadcasting contract is necessary.
 
Issues around receipt of Dundee vote has already been admitted.
 
Call 7 relates to medical advice received
 
GM cannot give an assurance on what is practicable in terms of document return.
 
Proposed court dates are 14-16 July 2020.
 
GM concludes by saying request disproportionate and unnecessary
 

 
David Thomson QC
 
GB none of the documents requested from clubs indicate unfair prejudice.
 
DT – he is right but is directly relevant to whether the court can grant the remedies sought by Hearts/Partick
 
The defence of confidentiality is utter nonsense and details of confidentiality can be dealt with in document recovery.
 
The argument that this is all too difficult.
 
GB interruption – told off by Lord Clark
 
The argument that this is all too difficult and documents can’t be accessed because they are held at stadiums, stadiums being upgraded is nonsense.
 
Wholly unacceptable that respondents now start picking through the request for recovery at court rather than in advance when they have had the document since last Friday.
 
The note of response say premature rather than incompetent to request this information.
 
The request is manifestly well founded and seeks to recover information unknown to the petitioners.
 
With regard to the briefing note, we need the advice to understand what underpins this note.
 
GB – says he did not say that all documents were held at club stadia, only that some were there and that with current covid restrictions may be hard to access.
 
Lord Clark – Summing Up
 
Decision will be made at 2pm this afternoon. The oral ruling will be made on the ScotGov website.

[Steve]

at the very least Nelms and Doncaster will be absolutely terrified right now! 🙂

 

 

[Neil Dongcaster]

Just now, Mikey1874 said:

If given go ahead Case will be heard week after next.

 

Think it was the Tues 14th or Wed 15th for 3 days. 

If given go ahead SPFL will fold and settle. No way will they want this going to court.

[Deevers]

  Cautiously optimistic with this.  Roll on 2pm.

[stuart500]

SPFL and DU Cabal using any pathetic excuse to avoid justice.

[151]

Can't be arsed with these Dundee United fans anymore atall. 2pm better bring good news. Can't see it.

[Debut 4]

3 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Here we go then.

 

I rather fear that the judge might have sat listening to this and thought ‘why don’t you all just **** all and stop boring me with this.’

I’d like to think the judges professionalism stretches beyond that 😁.  It’s just another case to deal with. Another day at the office.

.....I hope.

[gashauskis9]

The bad guys always win these days sadly.  I’ll take comfort from the way we’ve remained professional and protected our integrity throughout.  Better days ahead.

[brunoatemyhamster]

Www.scotcourts.gov.uk

 

On there at two. 

[Nookie Bear]

Win or lose, I am fiercely proud of what this club has tried to do over the last few months. 
 

Other clubs may sneer and laugh but they know we are doing their dirty work while they stand to attention every time Lawell rings. 
 

And we have exposed the “leadership” of our national game to the bone, exposing it as corrupt and weak. 
 

[Debut 4]

2 minutes ago, jonnothejambo said:

 

Aye. A bit like Dungcaster's fartpiece. 

[Sooperstar]

I have no clue so my guess is completely uneducated. I'm going for Arbitration.

 

Prove me wrong m'lord. 

[GBJambo]

How will we hear of the ruling? Will it be on the webex? 

[Neil Dongcaster]

Arbitration is also my guess. 

[Sooperstar]

Just now, GBJambo said:

How will we hear of the ruling? Will it be on the webex? 

I thought it would then full ruling would be on Scotgov website afterwards. Now not so sure reading some other posts.

[brunoatemyhamster]

1 minute ago, Sooperstar said:

I thought it would then full ruling would be on Scotgov website afterwards. Now not so sure reading some other posts.

100% will be. 

[Riccarton3]

1 minute ago, Neil Dongcaster said:

Arbitration is also my guess. 

Is it? Why'd you say that? 

[Debut 4]

Just now, Neil Dongcaster said:

Arbitration is also my guess. 

Great, can look forward to Still Game, Rab C Nesbit and Francie and Josie on the judging panel.  

[GinRummy]

3 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

Win or lose, I am fiercely proud of what this club has tried to do over the last few months. 
 

Other clubs may sneer and laugh but they know we are doing their dirty work while they stand to attention every time Lawell rings. 
 

And we have exposed the “leadership” of our national game to the bone, exposing it as corrupt and weak. 
 

Well said. I believe we’ve stood up for ourselves in the face of cheating and backsliding. Courts are a minefield but the club has done the right thing, win or lose all fans should be with them imo.

[Stendel'sGorgieArmy]

Mind this was only suppose to take a maximum of 2hours 😂

[martoon]

If time is of the essence regarding fixtures and the 1 Aug start then this appears promising. Pushing it to arbitration then, presumably, back to court is time consuming. 

 

Probably naivety and wishful thinking on my part but I feel quite optimistic.

[gashauskis9]

6 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

Win or lose, I am fiercely proud of what this club has tried to do over the last few months. 
 

Other clubs may sneer and laugh but they know we are doing their dirty work while they stand to attention every time Lawell rings. 
 

And we have exposed the “leadership” of our national game to the bone, exposing it as corrupt and weak. 
 

This 

[Riccarton3]

10 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

If given go ahead Case will be heard week after next.

 

Think it was the Tues 14th or Wed 15th for 3 days. 

Nothing wrong with that timescale

[SMJ_1874]

Our lucks going to change today. Is it too early to predict my bet. Hearts to finish top 4 in the premiership and qualify for Europe next season  Hope you didn’t throw they betting slips away in anger 🇱🇻

[bungalow]

Slightly concerned as to the speed of judgement. In my mind that points to arbitration as to set a “precedent” would involve more legal backup. Hope I’m wrong but not long to wait now.