SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[steve123]

3 minutes ago, Victorian said:

FAO all these other clubs,   their fans and anyone else.

 

Get right to ****.   The arbitration tribunal will come to it's conclusion.    Whichever way it goes,   it will be the legally correct and proper result.    If you think you're in the right and that the tribunal will arrive at a result that goes your way,   you will proclaim that justice has been done.    If it goes against you,   that also means that justice has been done.    It's for people of specific,   professional competence to decide.

 

We'll take our medicine if it comes our way.     Will you?

spot on !!

[Guest ToqueJambo]

9 minutes ago, Victorian said:

FAO all these other clubs,   their fans and anyone else.

 

Get right to ****.   The arbitration tribunal will come to it's conclusion.    Whichever way it goes,   it will be the legally correct and proper result.    If you think you're in the right and that the tribunal will arrive at a result that goes your way,   you will proclaim that justice has been done.    If it goes against you,   that also means that justice has been done.    It's for people of specific,   professional competence to decide.

 

We'll take our medicine if it comes our way.     Will you?

 

 

This. We seem to be getting stick for taking it to court, but it would be unusual if we didn't.

 

Clubs in Belgium, France and Holland all took their cases to court. Clubs in England are threatening to. All these are leagues that ended early. Funnily enough all the many leagues playing to a finish aren't having to go to court 🤷‍♂️ 

 

Perhaps playing to a finish, which we could have done starting June 22 no matter what Doncaster claims, was the best option after all.

[ramrod]

Any news on the arbitration date ? 

[Byyy The Light]

34 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

Raith are irritating me now tbh. 

 

8 games left, 1 point ahead. 

Voted as champions. 

Not only that, voted to replace a team that was 2 behind with a game in hand. 

 

Then, when they got  the chance to at least stop the damage to said club they never. 

And now, despite being warned since April are going on about sporting merit as they need to defend their title and are Suprised it's in court and court costs money. 

 

Sporting integrity / merit, what a brass ****ing neck. 

 

Raith have annoyed me the most in of all this shithousery for exactly the points you’ve made.

 

One of the most vocal chairmen spouting the “not the right time” pish. 
 

Playing Falkirk away last game of season too. 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Byyy The Light
Remembered something else I was pissed off about

[Guess The Crowd]

2 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Of course not but listen to what that Malone guy said about arbitration not focusing on morality or fairness. It’ll all be about the letter of the law

 

It was Chris McLaughlin who said that.

[Boof]

3 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Ha ha, 10 goals past him

 

Gave away the penalty for #6

 

 

 

[Tynehead]

26 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

And Brechin dodged a bullet!

 

 

and caused end of Pyramid.  What about a letter fron SFA about that shoddy business.

[gjcc]

1 minute ago, Byyy The Light said:

Raith have annoyed me the most in of all this shithousery for exactly the points you’ve made.

 

One of the most vocal chairmen spouting the “not the right time” pish. 

Exactly, the right time = when it directly benefits them. 

[Ethan Hunt]

31 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

Agreed to an extent but lots of small indiscretions, incompetent leadership or examples of poor practice isn't necessarily illegal. 

 

We look like we do need evidence of an illegal action or a breach in the articles of membership from their side. 

I think this concerns most folk, what is this evidence, does it exist, wil we uncover it?

 

If not, tbh just like the rangers dossier it's a good story( one I agree with) but with very little legal consequence or in their case no legal consequence at all.

You may want to read the full article I posted earlier. It’s written by a QC and a n other. I’ve copied out the essential elements that have to be demonstrated under Section 994, Companies Act 2006. Where does it say, in the essential elements or anywhere in the article, that something illegal must occur?

 

https://www.4newsquare.com/publications/unfair-prejudice-petitions-what-makes-prejudice-unfair/

 

Unfair Prejudice Petitions: what makes prejudice “unfair”?

DAVID HALPERN QC AND MICHAEL BOWMER| 3 Jul 2019

 

Unfairness is an essential ingredient in minority shareholder petitions. Prejudice alone is not enough. This article explores just what it is that a petitioner needs to prove to make prejudice “unfair” in order for a petition to succeed.

 

The Elements of a Section 994 Petition

Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 permits a member of a company to petition the court for relief on the ground that the company’s affairs are being or have been conducted in a manner that causes unfair prejudice to the interests of members generally or of some part of its members (including at least himself).

A petitioner under section 994 must therefore establish four elements to the satisfaction of the court: (1) the conduct of the company’s affairs; (2) has prejudiced; (3) unfairly; (4) the petitioner’s interests as a member of the company. In other words the conduct must be both prejudicial and unfairly so; conduct may be prejudicial without being unfair or unfair without being prejudicial. Both elements need to be satisfied and, if either is not, the petition will not be well founded.[1]

[Beast Boy]

49 minutes ago, Wee Mikey said:

ps ... 5:20 when he takes it out on the goal-post after the 5th; 5:40 when he gives away a pen and badgers the ref; the fine shot of his ugly pus at 8:24 after goal #9; showing all the speed of a tortoise whilst jogging back at 9:24 just before goal #10.

 

Nae wonder he's a tad sair, eh? Clearly still haunted. 😋

Absolutely delightful knowing there was a total banger of a vermin fan on the pitch that day. Must have hurt like ****. 😄

[manaliveits105]

someone let Ann and the QC know the jkb opinion - no point in going on

[1971fozzy]

28 minutes ago, Byyy The Light said:

Raith have annoyed me the most in of all this shithousery for exactly the points you’ve made.

 

One of the most vocal chairmen spouting the “not the right time” pish. 
 

Playing Falkirk away last game of season too. 

I would not shed a tear whatsoever for them. An irritating tin pot club that have been a disgrace throughout this whole mess. The double standards are unprecedented 

[Flux]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.stv.tv/scotland/daily-record-owner-reach-to-cut-550-jobs-as-advertising-falls%3ftop&amp

 

Do we know any millionaires with money burning a hole in their pocket... 🤔 

[jambo-in-furness]

5 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

someone let Ann and the QC know the jkb opinion - no point in going on

 

 

DONT PANIC

 

[colinmaroon]

The difficult part is liars lie (and being economical withe truth is lying -you can lie by omission).

 

Let's hope someone slips up or, and I admit this is a long shot,  someone comes clean.

 

[Harry Potter]

56 minutes ago, neilnunb said:

 

 

Seriously, should they go bust, I'll be down on Pratt Street within 10mins. The Esso near the train station sells flowers so I'll pop in on the way so I have something to lay on their doorstep.

😅 ha ha.

[rmreido]

9 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

someone let Ann and the QC know the jkb opinion - no point in going on

 

4 minutes ago, jambo-in-furness said:

 

 

DONT PANIC

 

You stupid boy!!!

[Victorian]

That comment from Brandon Malone is of no concern whatsoever.    The decisions were never going to be made on morality or fairness,   which are subjective constructs.    

 

If anyone believed we had an argument based on what we or anyone else deemed to be fair then they were barking up the wrong tree.     Our case will be crammed full of arguments on specific points of law and of the SPFL's rules,   etc.     

 

If we lose then we can still be entitled to believe we have been screwed over and that what was done was deeply unfair and deceitful.    But that's all it will amount to.    Opinions.     We were always going to have to demonstrate much more than it being unfair.

[Portable Badger]

2 hours ago, Celtic1ICT3 said:

As an ICT supporter and a long time ago a qualified company secretary, the key objective issue for me is - did Dundee meet the Friday 17.00 BST deadline? The answer is 'Yes they did (but the SPFL's legal advice seems to be that they could change their mind - that evidence will be interesting in Arbitration. Where in the Articles or Companies Act does it allow this? Can you imagine someone in the House of Commons or a large company returning shortly after the votes had been counted and saying I would like to change my mind. Or turning up at the Polling Station at 22.10 saying I have a late vote or can I get my ballot paper back to change it?  Decisions can be reversed but there is normally a procedure to follow if there has been legal compliance in the original vote.)'.

 

Dundee on the face of it  voted in accordance with  Company law and the SPFL's instructions and articles of association. MacLennan subsequently said that: 'The SPFL should not have placed a Friday 17:00 BST deadline on ballot responses'. That suggests there was a deadline to me!!!

 

The SPFL did therefore set a deadline - the Chairman said as much, and Dundee were fully compliant. Failure to vote would have  meant it could not be counted as a vote. The arrangement was that you had one vote and Dundee used it. 

 

They then asked, after the deadline, to vote again.   This request was under the  directors written resolution procedure.

 

The Companies Act - 

291(4)  The copy of the resolution must be accompanied by a statement informing the member–

(a)how to signify agreement to the resolution (see section 296), and

(b)as to the date by which the resolution must be passed if it is not to lapse (see section 297).

291(5)  In the event of default in complying with this section, an offence is committed by every officer of the company who is in default.

 

There has been a focus on the Dundee vote but there is potentially another significant vote which may have been over looked in the public domain but not by the QCs.  Murdoch MacLennan : '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.'  In law, that vote is potentially more significant than the Dundee vote because it missed the deadline. Yet it was counted. Maclennan added : 'This meant that the one outstanding Ladbrokes Championship return was key to the adoption or rejection of the resolution.'

 

However, had this been a physical meeting, that vote would not have been counted because no one was present to vote. 

 

This bit from MacLennan is quite important : 'The legal advice we received was that Dundee FC were entitled to change their mind and to submit a second return in favour of the resolution and that the SPFL Board should accept that as a valid return.'

 

I am not a legal expert but I have attempted to put forward an objective contribution to what is a key moment in Scottish football history.

 

 

 

Many thanks.  Are there any rumours as to what club submitted after 5pm?

 

If it eventually come to pass we end up playing in the same league we all look forward to the day out and to fill your ground.   Won’t be such an arduous task for me since I live in Inverness !!

[Boof]

3 hours ago, Daveandal said:

We are * to blame for Dundee Utd and Raith’s financial situation.  Maybe they should look at their own boards who have it seems brought both these teams to the brink of bankruptcy. 

 

*  did you miss out a 'not'?

 

If you didn't...I don't see how we can be held responsible for their situations.

[Defender]

11 minutes ago, Portable Badger said:

Many thanks.  Are there any rumours as to what club submitted after 5pm?

 

If it eventually come to pass we end up playing in the same league we all look forward to the day out and to fill your ground.   Won’t be such an arduous task for me since I live in Inverness !!

The other side of that though is 5pm wasn't the *official* deadline...the clubs had 28 days to submit a vote...the SPFL just asked the quicker the better. All seems dodgy to me but not sure if that is going to be a factor.

[Byyy The Light]

18 minutes ago, 1971fozzy said:

I would not shed a tear whatsoever for them. An irritating tin pot club that have been a disgrace throughout this whole mess. The double standards are unprecedented 

Totally agree. I actually went to hospitality a few seasons back and had a great day so looked at them as a decent club. They can get themselves thoroughly to feck now though. 

[Ethan Hunt]

16 minutes ago, Portable Badger said:

Many thanks.  Are there any rumours as to what club submitted after 5pm?

 

If it eventually come to pass we end up playing in the same league we all look forward to the day out and to fill your ground.   Won’t be such an arduous task for me since I live in Inverness !!

Was it not Hearts? We had to submit our vote again as I remember it. I’ll check though.

[graygo]

29 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

someone let Ann and the QC know the jkb opinion - no point in going on

 

Na, get it right up them. They don't like it apparently.

[Kiwidoug]

Been reading through the last few pages and the highlight is this young chap Dean Brett.  It seems to me from his thoughtful comments that he has a keen legal mind and I'm wondering whether the SPFL will choose him as their arbitrator.

[jr ewing]

1 hour ago, OTT said:

 

Agree entirely. 

 

Folk need to avoid getting themselves worked up over this idea that there needs to be a smoking gun. Its likely there will be lots of small points of action which highlight a pattern of improper conduct. People are looking for a 'Hollywood moment' of Doncaster caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Its not happening that way. 

 

Smoking gun needs dropped from the vocabulary. Its what killed the impact of Rangers dossier. The content highlighted wrong after wrong but because it lacked that killer blow people decided to discount it. 

 

Easier to prove more in Partick"s case . Maybe concentrate on them may help us.

[Bickfest]

I suggest it is well worth a listen again to Paul Reid's comments about the tribunal and the processes in the Sportsound podcast https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p08jw9lb from about 11 mins in. Particularly interesting  for me when he discusses what will happen if Hearts & Partick win, in relation to giving effect to that outcome. (A response to a suggestion that "balance of convenience" might result in demotion but with compensation, rather than restoration.)

 

He said (not verbatim) "Balance of convenience is more thought of by a court when asked to consider something on an interim basis - what can we do to prevent/minimize harm in the interim with the least inconvenience all round? However, when it has heard the full arguments, the tribunal will have to decide whether what was done was lawful or unlawful, and that is a technical argument under company law. If what happened was unlawful, it is very unlikely that the tribunal would say that, nonetheless, we'll give effect to the result. The courts do not like saying what was done was unlawful but we won't do anything about it.

 

Having thought about it more, I think it is more likely, that we will lead with the lawfulness of the resolution (including the Dundee vote and withholding crucial information) because to win that would result in restoring the position to that prior to the resolution - ie we remain in the premiership. However, if they find that, despite the chicanery, it was lawful, they can still determine that there was unfair prejudice and award compensation, whilst not interfering with the resolution's consequences.

 

I remain of the belief that the SPFL have a lot to hide and the next few days will be at the very least excruciatingly uncomfortable for them.

[Locky]

7 hours ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

Rice ( Hamilton ) trying to weasel out of the mix by saying Hamilton would do as we have done. Pity the clown didn't come out earlier and back us. They will still get the same treatment all the other clowns get when we get back to playing ( no matter what league ) 

Bit harsh on Rice tbh. Not his job to back us, nor his job to really do anything in this. He's merely a manager, not a board member etc.

[Bull's-eye]

32 minutes ago, Victorian said:

That comment from Brandon Malone is of no concern whatsoever.    The decisions were never going to be made on morality or fairness,   which are subjective constructs.    

 

If anyone believed we had an argument based on what we or anyone else deemed to be fair then they were barking up the wrong tree.     Our case will be crammed full of arguments on specific points of law and of the SPFL's rules,   etc.     

 

If we lose then we can still be entitled to believe we have been screwed over and that what was done was deeply unfair and deceitful.    But that's all it will amount to.    Opinions.     We were always going to have to demonstrate much more than it being unfair.

 

Your    posting     style    gets     weirder     by     the     day.

 

Is    it    a     medical      problem,      JKB      can      help.

[Ethan Hunt]

1 hour ago, Guess The Crowd said:

 

It was Chris McLaughlin who said that.

That’s my recollection as I told the OP earlier. 
 

Given the definition of both words McLaughlin obviously thinks the SFA will have jurisdiction (which they have not) over it. Quite a bizarre statement for him to make given both words essentially make up the principles of law. Unless it was..... a Freudian slip!

 

morality

noun

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

 

fairness

noun

1. 
impartial and just treatment or behaviour without favouritism or discrimination.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Ethan Hunt

[Ethan Hunt]

6 minutes ago, Bickfest said:

I suggest it is well worth a listen again to Paul Reid's comments about the tribunal and the processes in the Sportsound podcast https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p08jw9lb from about 11 mins in. Particularly interesting  for me when he discusses what will happen if Hearts & Partick win, in relation to giving effect to that outcome. (A response to a suggestion that "balance of convenience" might result in demotion but with compensation, rather than restoration.)

 

He said (not verbatim) "Balance of convenience is more thought of by a court when asked to consider something on an interim basis - what can we do to prevent/minimize harm in the interim with the least inconvenience all round? However, when it has heard the full arguments, the tribunal will have to decide whether what was done was lawful or unlawful, and that is a technical argument under company law. If what happened was unlawful, it is very unlikely that the tribunal would say that, nonetheless, we'll give effect to the result. The courts do not like saying what was done was unlawful but we won't do anything about it.

 

Having thought about it more, I think it is more likely, that we will lead with the lawfulness of the resolution (including the Dundee vote and withholding crucial information) because to win that would result in restoring the position to that prior to the resolution - ie we remain in the premiership. However, if they find that, despite the chicanery, it was lawful, they can still determine that there was unfair prejudice and award compensation, whilst not interfering with the resolution's consequences.

 

I remain of the belief that the SPFL have a lot to hide and the next few days will be at the very least excruciatingly uncomfortable for them.

I’m on this bus, ding, ding!

[colinmaroon]

43 minutes ago, Victorian said:

That comment from Brandon Malone is of no concern whatsoever.    The decisions were never going to be made on morality or fairness,   which are subjective constructs.    

 

If anyone believed we had an argument based on what we or anyone else deemed to be fair then they were barking up the wrong tree.     Our case will be crammed full of arguments on specific points of law and of the SPFL's rules,   etc.     

 

If we lose then we can still be entitled to believe we have been screwed over and that what was done was deeply unfair and deceitful.    But that's all it will amount to.    Opinions.     We were always going to have to demonstrate much more than it being unfair.

 

Just to point out that that is a subjective opinion!

 

 

[Turkishcap]

To simplify 3 judges, theirs to fight the evil corner, ours to fight for justice so we really need to convince the chairman so its 1-1 before we start.

[Blackshades]

If DU are that skint they have to beg to other teams and their fans for money to fight the court case .where did they find the money to pay compensation to Tranmere for Mellon 🤔

[Captain Canada]

I wish we could just fast forward and get the result now. 

 

I'm hoping whatever happens we get reinstated. Either because the panel says so or because they set a compensation figure so high that the teams bottle it and beg for reconstruction. 

[martoon]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

FAO all these other clubs,   their fans and anyone else.

 

Get right to ****.   The arbitration tribunal will come to it's conclusion.    Whichever way it goes,   it will be the legally correct and proper result.    If you think you're in the right and that the tribunal will arrive at a result that goes your way,   you will proclaim that justice has been done.    If it goes against you,   that also means that justice has been done.    It's for people of specific,   professional competence to decide.

 

We'll take our medicine if it comes our way.     Will you?

 

According to some numbnut on .nut Hibs have taken their medicine. They suffered the derby defeats during their glorious balance sheet era, the 5-1 mauling by a bent ref and an unforseen relegation. Why, oh why won't the evil yams take their medicine like the holy Hibees have? 

 

You can tell the poster in question is a bit peculiar. He gives his posts titles. 

 

 

 

 

[Zico's left foot]

11 minutes ago, Turkishcap said:

To simplify 3 judges, theirs to fight the evil corner, ours to fight for justice so we really need to convince the chairman so its 1-1 before we start.

Aren't all 3 judges independent? Not sure any of them fight for any particular side, although each side will obviously pick someone that they think/hope will be sympathetic to their cause.

[BelgeJambo]

11 minutes ago, Blackshades said:

If DU are that skint they have to beg to other teams and their fans for money to fight the court case .where did they find the money to pay compensation to Tranmere for Mellon 🤔

Compensation from us for Robbie I would think

[martoon]

Page 1515.

 

Nice.

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 minute ago, martoon said:

Page 1515.

 

Nice.

 

 

[Portable Badger]

53 minutes ago, Defender said:

The other side of that though is 5pm wasn't the *official* deadline...the clubs had 28 days to submit a vote...the SPFL just asked the quicker the better. All seems dodgy to me but not sure if that is going to be a factor.

True     I guess we will take any angle or argument to try and convince the arbiters it was dodgy/inconsistent voting process - just to discredit the process and sow seeds of ambiguity and doubt

[MattyK82]

5 minutes ago, martoon said:

Page 1515.

 

Nice.

[pettigrewsstylist]

They have no money i thought. Surely we are reinstated if we win.

[blairdin]

22 minutes ago, Captain Canada said:

I wish we could just fast forward and get the result now. 

 

I'm hoping whatever happens we get reinstated. Either because the panel says so or because they set a compensation figure so high that the teams bottle it and beg for reconstruction. 

I just want the outcome to cause maximum damage and chaos to the SPFL and the individuals on its board. It needs burned to the ground. 

 

 

[Cisco1914]

26 minutes ago, Blackshades said:

If DU are that skint they have to beg to other teams and their fans for money to fight the court case .where did they find the money to pay compensation to Tranmere for Mellon 🤔

Hearts

[Riccarton3]

18 minutes ago, Zico's left foot said:

Aren't all 3 judges independent? Not sure any of them fight for any particular side, although each side will obviously pick someone that they think/hope will be sympathetic to their cause.

There is something inherently wrong with an SFA list. The names should be provided by an independent body that serves the football authorities when required. Not on a list known already by the SFA. Unless I have it wrong.

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Riccarton3

[RobNox]

3 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Of course not but listen to what that Malone guy said about arbitration not focusing on morality or fairness. It’ll all be about the letter of the law

 

It wasn't Malone who made that comment, it was McIntyre, so it's only a soundbite, with no weight of legal expertise behind it.  The OP stated it was Malone, but he is mistaken.  @Ethan Hunt has also pointed this out to the OP.  

 

Fairness will very much come into the proceedings, part of our claim will be that the actions taken by the SPFL and / or other member clubs amounts to 'unfair prejudice'.  A lot of people getting confused about legality, thinking we need to uncover a bribe or something else that is obviously illegal.  But unfair prejudice is a breach of company law.  We'll be arguing that the very act of putting forward a proposal that would have serious consequences for certain clubs was both unfair, and prejudicial to those clubs.

 

I'm in no better position to call this than anyone else on this forum, but my confidence level is higher after Lord Clark upheld our petition for the release of documents than if he had rejected it.  The very fact that the opposing QCs put up very feeble arguments to try and avoid disclosure tells me they are concerned that there is something there that will strengthen our case.

 

Keep the faith!

[martoon]

14 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, MattyK82 said:

 

👍😊

[Shanks]

I would rather £8m than reinstatement.  We’d romp the championship and get to laugh at Scottish football having to pay us back the money for years to come, it will also kill off a few clubs as well which would be a nice little bonus. 

[Jim Panzee]

Just now, Shanks said:

I would rather £8m than reinstatement.  We’d romp the championship and get to laugh at Scottish football having to pay us back the money for years to come, it will also kill off a few clubs as well which would be a nice little bonus. 

Is there not a possibility that promotion is denied next season so we could be in the championship for two seasons?