RobNox Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 4 hours ago, gjcc said: Imagine betting against your own team. And getting sacked for it. Give him some credit, at least he wasn't thick enough to bet in favour of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco1914 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said: 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. You just wouldn't trust any of the sfa, spfl cants.but who knows, we might get a surprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Canada Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, Jim Panzee said: Is there not a possibility that promotion is denied next season so we could be in the championship for two seasons? I think that's very likely if the clubs vote to give the SPFL extra powers like they asked for. Not sure when the result of that is due? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan Hunt Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, RobNox said: 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! Sorry mate, probably a slip on your part but it wasn’t McIntyre who said it it was definitely Chris McLaughlin. I’ve just listened to the podcast again and he says “there isn’t time for morality or perceived fairness”. As you quite rightly say it was a sound bite. I dismay at the SMSM as not only was the sound bite incorrect in so many ways - see my earlier post about the definition of the words morality and fairness - but BBC Scotland quoted it in their twitter feed promoting the podcast. It is important that wrongly attributed remarks are corrected. For Brandon Malone to have said that would make a complete mockery of the arbitration system, hence why he didn’t say it. For clarity @Dusk_Till_Dawn As for the rest of your post I agree entirely. Edited July 7, 2020 by Ethan Hunt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 (edited) 32 minutes ago, martoon said: 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. Not surprised. Justifying one instance of injustice upon another via an indeterminate number of perceived injustices placed upon them. Probably some weird, perverted version of some deep psychological / personality disorder. A psychotic, Munchausen / Schadenfreudian hybrid illness. Edited July 7, 2020 by Victorian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil D. Corners Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, 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. I could live with that. It’s just the compensation we request as we‘re being disproportionately affected vote to end the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 1 minute ago, Ethan Hunt said: Sorry mate, probably a slip on your part but it wasn’t McIntyre who said it it was definitely Chris McLaughlin. I’ve just listened to the podcast again and he says “there isn’t time for morality or perceived fairness”. As you quite rightly say it was a sound bite. I dismay at the SMSM as not only was the sound bite incorrect in so many ways - see my earlier post about the definition of the words morality and fairness - but BBC Scotland quoted it in their twitter feed promoting the podcast. It is important that wrongly attributed remarks are corrected. For Brandon Malone to have said that would make a complete mockery of the arbitration system, hence why he didn’t say it. For clarity @Dusk_Till_Dawn You're right, I just recalled that it was one of the BBC twats (so definitely not English), but got them mixed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said: Sorry mate, probably a slip on your part but it wasn’t McIntyre who said it it was definitely Chris McLaughlin. I’ve just listened to the podcast again and he says “there isn’t time for morality or perceived fairness”. As you quite rightly say it was a sound bite. I dismay at the SMSM as not only was the sound bite incorrect in so many ways - see my earlier post about the definition of the words morality and fairness - but BBC Scotland quoted it in their twitter feed promoting the podcast. It is important that wrongly attributed remarks are corrected. For Brandon Malone to have said that would make a complete mockery of the arbitration system, hence why he didn’t say it. For clarity @Dusk_Till_Dawn As for the rest of your post I agree entirely. Duly corrected Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybalfour Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 Where is the proposal that there is no promotion/relegation coming from.I haven't seen it anywhere apart from some jumping to the conclusion that the powers the SPFL have asked for allow them to do this.Surely they are asking for powers to make a ruling if we can't complete next season which ,unless Covid breaks out again ,won't happen. I can't see in a million years the clubs giving the board powers to call anything as this season has been a shambles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 4 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. Welcome to JKB buddy, and thanks for your input. I must admit, when I first glanced at your username I did think, here we go again, another interloper. However, once I'd read it properly I realised you were not one of the great unwashed coming on to troll this forum. I'm guessing you haven't read through this thread (I'm assuming you actually have a life, unlike a genuine interloper who appeared earlier), but fwiw, ICT is firmly on our 'good guys' list. You may be even more pleased to know that the Staggies are on the 'wanks' list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nookie Bear Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 16 minutes ago, Jim Panzee said: Is there not a possibility that promotion is denied next season so we could be in the championship for two seasons? Is it beyond the SPFL to actually come to some sort of decision about this? Rhetorical question, it appears. Does anyone know when the Championship/Leagues 1&2 seasons are due to start and how many teams are struggling to even take part? Is this not the most pressing issue right now, apart from the legal action?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 Just now, billybalfour said: Where is the proposal that there is no promotion/relegation coming from.I haven't seen it anywhere apart from some jumping to the conclusion that the powers the SPFL have asked for allow them to do this.Surely they are asking for powers to make a ruling if we can't complete next season which ,unless Covid breaks out again ,won't happen. I can't see in a million years the clubs giving the board powers to call anything as this season has been a shambles. Really - after the complete stupidity shown calling the end to the last season. Stupidity is the chief currency in place in the SPFL. Shambles after shambles and you think that next season might be any different? Unbelievable! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Mikey Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 10 minutes ago, Victorian said: Not surprised. Justifying one instance of injustice upon another via an indeterminate number of perceived injustices placed upon them. Probably some weird, perverted version of some deep psychological / personality disorder. A psychotic, Munchausen / Schadenfreudian hybrid illness. Could be the result of in-breeding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccarton3 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Cisco1914 said: You just wouldn't trust any of the sfa, spfl cants.but who knows, we might get a surprise. Their rules are set to screw any challenge. Any fair minded person would have taken satisfaction from the slapdown the judge gave to their excuses re the documents sought by the clubs. They are used to running roughshod. Edited July 7, 2020 by Riccarton3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 4 hours ago, 7628mm said: I would suggest our chances are better than 50/50 due to the HMFC & PT having access to the documentation etc. requested. If the information requested is not complete or has been obviously tampered with by the SPFL side then on a point of law we can go back to the CoS if the arbitration panel fail to take this into consideration and we lose at arbitration. Still all to play for but IMHO will not be concluded until after the 1st round of SPL games unless we can get an interdict. It would be quite a call if we apply for an interdict after the 1st round and stop the SPL in it's tracks whilst awaiting the arbitration decision. The SPFL will just kick the can down the road as much as possible. They will approach the arbitration in the same manner as Dave King did with his court cases re The Rangers share issue. They can't though. Lord Clark recognised that timing was of the essence and set aside time to return to the CoS later this month if necessary. If the SPFL are stupid enough to try delaying tactics, or obstruct the operation of the panel, the panel has the right to refer it back to Lord King, who could hold the SPFL in contempt (like most people do tbf).. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruyff Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 20 minutes ago, Jim Panzee said: Is there not a possibility that promotion is denied next season so we could be in the championship for two seasons? 📱 "Hiya Lord Clark, - yep they're still being a bunch of corrupt *****." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nookie Bear Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 4 hours ago, Celtic1ICT3 said: 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. Not going to comment on your post in general as others have done so but just going to pick out the last sentence. To me, the last few months have been key times in Scottish football history and it is leading up to a key moment which could be cataclysmic for the game. But the mood now appears to be one of 'move on' and just get back to playing football, rather than the incompetence and potential corruption of the governing body. The game has been laid bare and everyone just seems to be trying to carry on as if nothing of consequence has happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruyff Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 15 minutes ago, Victorian said: Not surprised. Justifying one instance of injustice upon another via an indeterminate number of perceived injustices placed upon them. Probably some weird, perverted version of some deep psychological / personality disorder. A psychotic, Munchausen / Schadenfreudian hybrid illness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 38 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. Yes they are (although they're not judges, the chair might be or have been). I've not got an issue as to their impartiality, mind you we don't know who is in the list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Section Q Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 Here's a decent take on our fight with the SPFL..... https://the4thofficial.net/2020/07/going-beyond-the-headlines-what-does-this-ruling-mean-for-spfl-hearts-and-partick-thistle/ """In my reading of the order, Lord Clark raised the issue of the legality of Article 99.15 of the SFA’s article of association (where clubs are prohibited from moving to the courts without prior permission of the SFA) but did not make a ruling on it. However, he raised several precedents where it has been ruled unlawful.""" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Section Q Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 9 minutes ago, Wee Mikey said: Could be the result of in-breeding? Lance that....! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan Hunt Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 6 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said: Not going to comment on your post in general as others have done so but just going to pick out the last sentence. To me, the last few months have been key times in Scottish football history and it is leading up to a key moment which could be cataclysmic for the game. But the mood now appears to be one of 'move on' and just get back to playing football, rather than the incompetence and potential corruption of the governing body. The game has been laid bare and everyone just seems to be trying to carry on as if nothing of consequence has happened. I think that is just another narrative being used against Hearts and Partick Thistle. The let’s just ‘move on’ allows people to have a dig at us for holding them back/things up. Couple that with a ‘there’s nothing to see here’ attitude and it paints us as making a big issue out of nothing. That suits the majority of football media because they all - with a few notable exceptions - nailed their colours to the SPFL mast. They would hate to be proved wrong. More importantly, they would hate for Hearts and Partick Thistle to be proved right! That twat Chris McLaughlin stated on today’s Sportsound podcast that in six months we’ll have moved on and will all be talking about something else. He is obviously totally unaware of how long Hearts fans - quite rightly - hold grudges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 3 hours 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. We need to convince the panel that, on the balance of probabilities, the actions taken represent unfair prejudice. Lot's of small things, none of which in their own right could be persuasive, can add up to lead the panel to believe that, on the balance of probabilities, our case is proven. We do not have to convince them beyond all reasonable doubt, which would have made our chance of success highly unlikely, unless there was a smoking gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartsmad1874 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 3 hours 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. This in spades. Rangers never said they had a smoking gun in their dossier that was the media etc who led that narrative to discredit it. ‘Water pistol’ at a gun fight if i remember correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardiff Hearts Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 Been an education browsing all these opinions and viewpoints , really helped me get a better grip on what has happened and what might happen next. Cheers for all the explanations guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diadora Van Basten Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 48 minutes ago, Jim Panzee said: Is there not a possibility that promotion is denied next season so we could be in the championship for two seasons? Exactly reinstatement should be the preferred option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 (edited) I'm kind of resigned to losing now, the SFA and SPFL share an address ffs and we're relying on one to judge the other fairly? But as long as we keep swinging all the way down I'm happy that the club have done what they should. Either way we're going to be public enemy number 1 from here on in, I hope we embrace it. Edited July 7, 2020 by Smithee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said: I think that is just another narrative being used against Hearts and Partick Thistle. The let’s just ‘move on’ allows people to have a dig at us for holding them back/things up. Couple that with a ‘there’s nothing to see here’ attitude and it paints us as making a big issue out of nothing. That suits the majority of football media because they all - with a few notable exceptions - nailed their colours to the SPFL mast. They would hate to be proved wrong. More importantly, they would hate for Hearts and Partick Thistle to be proved right! That twat Chris McLaughlin stated on today’s Sportsound podcast that in six months we’ll have moved on and will all be talking about something else. He is obviously totally unaware of how long Hearts fans - quite rightly - hold grudges. With regards your last paragraph, he should do. The club that play at Ibrox have held a grudge against him for far longer than six months. Edited July 7, 2020 by John Findlay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stan Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 1 hour 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. No, all 3 start with an independent and open outlook. They together consider the evidence and they may or may not agree on the outcome at the end of it. No one is taking anyone's side in this or advocating for either party. They reach a decision purely on the evidence in front of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 3 hours ago, OTT said: The entire board are weak links Les Gray was daft enough to come out with the unfair quote Alan Burrows hasn't got a legal background Stewart Robertson has absolutely no reason to cover Doncaster and Co's arse here Then I think there are a few diddy club chairmen too. Expecting this many people to keep their lies straight is funny. It can't be done. I think if our lawyers can get to question them it will be a blood bath. I'd be highly surprised if Robertson hasn't been offering us some assistance, in terms of pointing out what he thought were irregularities in the SPFL Board's conduct. A common tactic in interrogation, or investigative journalism, is to ask questions you already know the answer to. The SPFL Board members might have concocted a story between them, but as you say, if they are questioned individually, then it will soon start to unravel. They dare not lie or deliberately mislead the tribunal, or they could end up being referred to CoS themselves. And they won't get away with avoiding the question or giving evasive or meaningless answers (as Doncaster tends to do). My only disappointment is that this isn't happening in open court. I would love to have heard Doncaster being interrogated by our QC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco1914 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 28 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said: Their rules are set to screw any challenge. Any fair minded person would have taken satisfaction from the slapdown the judge gave to their excuses re the documents sought by the clubs. They are used to running roughshod. I think lord Clark smelt a rat, Hearts have smelt a rat, hopefully the documents reveal a rat! And the chairman's no a rat!😜 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indianajones Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 We are Jambos, super Jambos, no one likes us, we dont care? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan Hunt Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 5 minutes ago, John Findlay said: With regards your last paragraph, he should do. The club that play at Ibrox have held a grudge against him for far longer than six months. Yeah, for - what Rangers described as - “misleading and unbalanced reporting”. To be honest I can’t remember any of the circumstances around that dispute but what I will say is I consider his coverage of of this debacle to be misleading and unbalanced in relation to Hearts and Partick Thistle. He throws in a few “I have sympathy” lines now and again but - in the main - the manner of his reporting has been pro SPFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normando Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 12 minutes ago, Tambo_The_Jambo said: Ah my old favourite ...Son of a Thousand Fathers A simple case of rotten spunk. Last month I saw like that had a butchers book in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 2 hours ago, Boof said: * did you miss out a 'not'? If you didn't...I don't see how we can be held responsible for their situations. Either that or a question mark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 35 minutes ago, Section Q said: Here's a decent take on our fight with the SPFL..... https://the4thofficial.net/2020/07/going-beyond-the-headlines-what-does-this-ruling-mean-for-spfl-hearts-and-partick-thistle/ """In my reading of the order, Lord Clark raised the issue of the legality of Article 99.15 of the SFA’s article of association (where clubs are prohibited from moving to the courts without prior permission of the SFA) but did not make a ruling on it. However, he raised several precedents where it has been ruled unlawful.""" One if those was the legality of the SFA having the power to expel clubs and a fine if up to £1m LC stated that it would not stand in court. so sorry Keef. Still in a job are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkishcap Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 14 minutes ago, stan said: No, all 3 start with an independent and open outlook. They together consider the evidence and they may or may not agree on the outcome at the end of it. No one is taking anyone's side in this or advocating for either party. They reach a decision purely on the evidence in front of them. Fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccarton3 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said: Yeah, for - what Rangers described as - “misleading and unbalanced reporting”. To be honest I can’t remember any of the circumstances around that dispute but what I will say is I consider his coverage of of this debacle to be misleading and unbalanced in relation to Hearts and Partick Thistle. He throws in a few “I have sympathy” lines now and again but - in the main - the manner of his reporting has been pro SPFL. It was to do with sectarian singing\behaviour yet the rodent can still look tired and dismissive (we'll be talking about something else in 6 months)by two clubs taking a stance against a demotion during a global pandemic. I don't know what kind of man he is or what integrity he has full stop. Edited July 7, 2020 by Riccarton3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 1 minute ago, Ethan Hunt said: Yeah, for - what Rangers described as - “misleading and unbalanced reporting”. To be honest I can’t remember any of the circumstances around that dispute but what I will say is I consider his coverage of of this debacle to be misleading and unbalanced in relation to Hearts and Partick Thistle. He throws in a few “I have sympathy” lines now and again but - in the main - the manner of his reporting has been pro SPFL. Could say the same about Doncaster...He doesn't come across on Sky as if he is worried someone like Nelms will turn whistle blower on him. I think he has zero respect, collectively for the chairpersons of the clubs in Scotland - He knew before any of this started that reconstruction was not, and never would be, on the agenda...He is meant to be the public face and chief negotiator, head salesman of Scottish football but you can see from the end of the Sky interview where he is smirking as he trots out the line about passion etc of Scottish football, that he has no faith in his product whatsoever... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartsmad1874 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 7 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said: Yeah, for - what Rangers described as - “misleading and unbalanced reporting”. To be honest I can’t remember any of the circumstances around that dispute but what I will say is I consider his coverage of of this debacle to be misleading and unbalanced in relation to Hearts and Partick Thistle. He throws in a few “I have sympathy” lines now and again but - in the main - the manner of his reporting has been pro SPFL. Yeah, Rangers have hated that idiot for almost 5 years believe they initially banned him after unbalanced reporting as you say in regards to fan arrests or something like that. I hope we follow suit and ban clowns like him, we don’t need the BBC at our ground or covering our matches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan Hunt Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 11 minutes ago, stan said: No, all 3 start with an independent and open outlook. They together consider the evidence and they may or may not agree on the outcome at the end of it. No one is taking anyone's side in this or advocating for either party. They reach a decision purely on the evidence in front of them. Correct. We need to stop this “the panel will be unfair” nonsense. The arbitrators will be people of standing, with hard earned reputations they will want to keep. No-one with any affiliation or vested interest will be anywhere near the panel. If they are seen not to have applied the law correctly, or have clearly made an error, whether deliberate or otherwise, the petition will find its way back to the Court of Session. It is in no-ones interest - including the SPFL’s as they don’t want it in the open - for this not to be all above board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartsmad1874 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said: One if those was the legality of the SFA having the power to expel clubs and a fine if up to £1m LC stated that it would not stand in court. so sorry Keef. Still in a job are you? Hopefully after DR’s redundancy plans he’s on the scrap heap where he belongs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Beni of Gorgie Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 Read the 16 pages finally of Lord Clark. Thought he was very fair and neutral. A fair hearing is what we can expect, wrongly I thought it would be a Kangaroo court, it will be anything but. Therefore I am relaxed the final outcome will be one we should be prepared to accept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 1 hour 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. No. All three are impartial, the SPFL choice is not there to fight the SPFL's corner, just as our choice is not there to fight ours. Any argument in favour of any party will be made by their respective QCs, just as it would have been done in the CoS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkishcap Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 Just now, RobNox said: No. All three are impartial, the SPFL choice is not there to fight the SPFL's corner, just as our choice is not there to fight ours. Any argument in favour of any party will be made by their respective QCs, just as it would have been done in the CoS. Yeah cheers got that wrong. By the way off topic but M Stewart, is he on holiday or placed on bbc spfl corrective treatment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libertarian Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 Don't know if this has been posted previously but I have just listened to the BBC Scotland football podcast with Tom English who mentioned that some league chairman have said that if Hearts win compensation that several clubs will go bust. What were these idiots thinking about when they voted against reconstruction. I have absolutely no sympathy for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 14 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said: Yeah, for - what Rangers described as - “misleading and unbalanced reporting”. To be honest I can’t remember any of the circumstances around that dispute but what I will say is I consider his coverage of of this debacle to be misleading and unbalanced in relation to Hearts and Partick Thistle. He throws in a few “I have sympathy” lines now and again but - in the main - the manner of his reporting has been pro SPFL. I would say 95% of the BBC Glasgow, I mean Scotland, journalists and pundits have been pro SPFL, if not pro SPFL, them most certainly anti Heart of Midlothian and Ann Budge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccarton3 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 1 minute ago, Turkishcap said: Yeah cheers got that wrong. By the way off topic but M Stewart, is he on holiday or placed on bbc spfl corrective treatment? I was thinking about him.. I reckon he was a. removed because they could not trust him not to overstep the mark (tell some home truths) or b. he asked to be excused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Deeds Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, Libertarian said: Don't know if this has been posted previously but I have just listened to the BBC Scotland football podcast with Tom English who mentioned that some league chairman have said that if Hearts win compensation that several clubs will go bust. What were these idiots thinking about when they voted against reconstruction. I have absolutely no sympathy for them. And we only win if these clubs have behaved illegally, so tough cookies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Bishop Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, Turkishcap said: Yeah cheers got that wrong. By the way off topic but M Stewart, is he on holiday or placed on bbc spfl corrective treatment? Has he not signed for Celtic TV along with Darrel Currie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
62,985
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.