SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[DETTY29]

22 minutes ago, Gambo said:

How would a club make a payment to another club to help with legal fees?

 

 

Or offer up lucrative friendlies for votes.

 

Very easily.

[Deevers]

7 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

Saughton Jambo MUST keep posting!

 

Please keep sharing your and Leslie Deans thoughts! They are posted in good faith! They are what they are and I’m sure most people find them interesting even if they don’t necessarily agree with them! 

This. 

[Malinga the Swinga]

7 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Did he not get found guilty of something in Lithuania in his absence?

 

Edit: No, court case expected this year.

 

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5461007/hearts-vladimir-romanov-stealing-bank-probe/

And show trials in absence, particularly in a country that has a strong dislike of Russia, of a prominent Russian citizen, will merely be used to divert blame from authorities and onto 'foreigners'.

[Malinga the Swinga]

4 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

Or offer up lucrative friendlies for votes.

 

Very easily.

Or simply write a cheque/transfer funds. Does anyone believe the SPFL would do anything about it. They could hand over the money in used £20's, have it photographed and stuck in the papers and nobody in authority would bat an eyelid. In fact, they would be looking for a cut of money themselves.

[Gambo]

Surely we have a strong case on the arguement that when Covid halted the league, neither ourselves, PTFC, SFC, were mathematically relegated, same as CFC, DUFC, RRFC, CRFC were not mathematically champions. Null and void and no teams were deliberately hurt.  Nothing made up or guessed at, just plain simple facts.

 

What they did was to deliberatley hurt teams by making up relegation, their guess work hurt teams unnecessarily, no facts to go on just pure guess work that hurt other teams.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

Course all these clubs coming out at this particular time with how poor they are has nothing to do with a looming arbitration case that could result in them having to pay out compensation and is in no way designed to influence the decisions on and public opinion around that.

[Captain Canada]

Are the majority of the other clubs happy to gamble their futures on the outcome of this arbitration? 

 

In a worst case scenario they'll be down £250k each. For many that will be game over.

 

The way I see it is they can force reconstruction back onto the agenda now so no harm is done or sit back and keep their fingers crossed for an outcome other than compensation.

 

The SPFL shouldn't be taking this risk with the future of its members though. It's something else to see all the hatred aimed at us when every set of fans would want their team to fight in the same way if it had been impacted by the SPFL's decisions. 

 

From what I've seen there's nothing in their rules that says a team can be demoted, relegated or expelled as part of an incomplete season. It's very easy to blame us but who in their right mind would just sit back and watch their business take an £8m hit voed for by their competitors? 

[Lone Striker]

14 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

Saughton Jambo MUST keep posting!

 

Please keep sharing your and Leslie Deans thoughts! They are posted in good faith! They are what they are and I’m sure most people find them interesting even if they don’t necessarily agree with them! 

Definitely.   SJ is definitely in the JKB "Premiership"  of posters.... while most of us mere mortals barely make it into League 2.   Heck, a few are even  stranded in the Lowland League .  

[Guest ToqueJambo]

2 minutes ago, Gambo said:

Surely we have a strong case on the arguement that when Covid halted the league, neither ourselves, PTFC, SFC, were mathematically relegated, same as CFC, DUFC, RRFC, CRFC were not mathematically champions. Null and void and no teams were deliberately hurt.  Nothing made up or guessed at, just plain simple facts.

 

What they did was to deliberatley hurt teams by making up relegation, their guess work hurt teams unnecessarily, no facts to go on just pure guess work that hurt other teams.

 

The whole arbitrary way it was decided that some teams should benefit while others should suffer has to be central to our case.

Edited July 8, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Nookie Bear]

27 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

I think we'll get nominal compensation and demotion will stand unfortunately. Lowering my expectations to enjoy it more if we win. It does seem like we have a case and could win but I just think the SPFL wouldn't have let it get this far if they didn't think they had a solid case. And now they or someone is funding the other clubs' involvement. Getting it to take place behind doors was a big win for them. I definitely think the SPFL are going to get a bit of a telling off about how this happened though, which could be something I suppose.

I’m in this boat. We all know it’s been a disgraceful shambles since the day we locked down but proving it’s illegality is a different matter altogether. 

[Gambo]

I know Lord Clark has said they must, but does anyone expect the SPFL to hand over all original paperwork with nothing missing?

[heatonjambo]

Does seam a bit of a drama queen does mr deans 

 

people are always going to mouth off in frustration 

 

so he reads the forum, but can’t post !

 

no slight on Saughton jambo but LD is constantly putting him self to the fore

[Guest ToqueJambo]

Just now, Nookie Bear said:

I’m in this boat. We all know it’s been a disgraceful shambles since the day we locked down but proving it’s illegality is a different matter altogether. 

 

They'll no doubt get the win on the wording rather than the fairness of their rules. We'll be told we signed up to those rules and so should suck it up. All of that is fair enough I suppose aside from the way it all happened being incredibly dodgy. Being a Hearts fan is all about lowering expectations to enjoy the good times when they happen so hopefully we get a surprise and the SPFL really have fecked up. I still think it's 50/50 because of how D Utd and co were panicking.

[Footballfirst]

There are probably three reasons why DU/RR/CR are continuing with the case at arbitration.

 

The first is to defend themselves in the event that Hearts/PT use any information gleaned from the disclosure of documents against them.

 

The second is quite a simple one as it adds weight to the SPFL's defence, in that they are effectively allowed to have two separate submissions to the panel against a single one from the petitioners.

 

The third is in the event of Hearts/PT winning the argument, where I would expect that they would seek to have a balance of convenience decision made that they should retain their places in the higher leagues, while a financial award is made to Hearts/PT as compensation for their demotion.  That would certainly make financial sense for DU in particular. 

Edited July 8, 2020 by Footballfirst

[hibsarepants]

6 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

Saughton Jambo MUST keep posting!

 

Please keep sharing your and Leslie Deans thoughts! They are posted in good faith! They are what they are and I’m sure most people find them interesting even if they don’t necessarily agree with them! 

Sorry that LD has been given a hard time, its down to the fact we are all a tad angry and frustrated. Like LD I was surprised that the Reconstruction vote was not a lot closer. That surprise was due to the fact that I have been involved in enough damages actions that I knew that if the "expulsion" issue wasn't dealt with than there was a clear legal case to answer. That's exactly where we are now albeit in private rather than public. I thought the Football Chairman would realise that and take the much less financially punitive option. Then I spoke with one Enlighted Chairman who explained that football clubs mostly  vote to reduce competition - to put stronger teams out their league.   In response to that I repeat a legal phrase much used already - Do not do actions which cause harm - there are consequences.

[DETTY29]

15 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Or simply write a cheque/transfer funds. Does anyone believe the SPFL would do anything about it. They could hand over the money in used £20's, have it photographed and stuck in the papers and nobody in authority would bat an eyelid. In fact, they would be looking for a cut of money themselves.

Another wee statement from the club

 

'we note comments from xyz alluding that other SPFL member  clubs are supporting their legal representation.  This information is now with our legal representatives and we will comment no further,

[colinmaroon]

1 hour ago, Saughton Jambo said:

Leslie Deans has asked me to post his final comments on jkb due to the backlash and sustained criticism posted by fellow members when the information, received and posted in good faith, has turned out to be incorrect. This basically comes down to the underhand tactics adopted by chairman when saying they’ll act one way but in fact act the complete opposite. There is no legislation that covers this. We all have the clubs best interests at heart, yet some of the abuse levelled at certain posters has left a bad taste in the mouth when all one is trying to do is keep members informed of proceedings. As follows:- 

 

 I have reluctantly decided to refrain from making further detailed comment on Kickback about the ongoing litigation/arbitration. Certain posters clearly object to your posting my remarks and I regard their personal abuse as offensive.   Whilst I understand their frustration that the anticipated reconstruction never got off the ground ,the information provided to me was passed on in good faith. I was not the only one taken aback by the news that only 16 out of 42 clubs supported this. 
Like others of my generation, my mastery of technology is not the best so thank you for lodging my comments. I should also congratulate certain posters-- David McCaig, Footbalfirst, Ethan Hunt, Hibsarepants come to mind amongst others, -- who continue to offer incisive and insightful comment on complex issues
I stated publicly on BBC radio that I believed we had a good case.   David Thomson QC explained clearly in his opinion on Patrick Thistle 's website that the motion of April 10 had failed. He was clear in his view of the Dundee vote. 
Additionally the SPFL executive induced its members to vote in a certain way by virtue of its misrepresentation and withholding of relevant information in its advice paper of April 8. 
What follows is whether Hearts and PT suffered unfair prejudice as defined in the Companies Act. I believe they did. To change the rules from a 38 to a 30 game season part way through is inherently unfair if it leads to relegation , as admitted by at least one SPFL director. 
The prejudice is the major loss of income suffered by being in a lower and shortened league. 
With unfair prejudice established I anticipate the tribunal should  find in favour of Hearts and PT. 
The tribunal should comprise 3 experienced independent lawyers and I have no qualms or concerns that we will get a fair hearing. Any manifest legal errors will mean it's referred back to Lord Clark. 
Others have said, rightly in my opinion, that there will be bad blood between clubs going forward.  I hope in the fullness of time others might recognise that we fought for what is right and if changes are  then made as a result , there could be a major benefit to football as a whole.

 

Les Deans 

 

The backstabbers who fed LD false information or chickened out are the guilty ones here, not LD.

 

Some of the abuse has come from interlopers, some of them longterm 5th columnists; others who need to get a grip; and a few who should know better.

 

If all that's posted on here has to be absolute cast iron, please just close the doors and fling away the keys. 

[SectionDJambo]

54 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

This is something that's got me a little confused, and I'd be grateful if you, or anyone else, can explain to me why promotion and relegation might be considered even a fundamental, let alone the fundamentals, of football? It's confused me ever since I read a Celtic supporter stating something similar (and as ever in these matters, he offered no justification or evidence for his statement) that there couldn't be a title winner without relegation.

 

Now I can't see the connect between a title win and relegation, and nor can I see that promotion and relegation are in any way fundamental to football. They may be a long established construct within leagues that have more than one division, but league football has always been played, and titles won, without the need to relegate one or more club, and, indeed, the Scottish League didn't introduce automatic promotion until 1922. What's more, the bottom division in Scotland only had any form of relegation after the recent introduction of the pyramid system and in the 1999/2000 season there was no relegation, at all, in any division as the top league increased to 12 clubs. So football has always managed to cope quite well without promotion and/or relegation so it can't be fundamental to football, nor a requisite of allowing a club to be crowned champions.

 

Of course, maybe I am wrong and someone will be able to correct me by showing that there has always been relegation and promotion, but in my opinion this assertion that there must be relegation and/or promotion is just a part of the propaganda that has been pushed throughout social media aimed at discrediting Hearts & Partick's case, and if it's allowed to go unquestioned on JKB then they are winning the supporters' battle.

It’s as stupid as their “always have to be winners and losers” narrative. 
Narrow minded idiots who are happy to see others suffer as long as they are ok.

[John Findlay]

46 minutes ago, Gambo said:

How would a club make a payment to another club to help with legal fees?

 

 

A gift?

[Lone Striker]

3 minutes ago, Captain Canada said:

Are the majority of the other clubs happy to gamble their futures on the outcome of this arbitration? 

 

In a worst case scenario they'll be down £250k each. For many that will be game over.

 

The way I see it is they can force reconstruction back onto the agenda now so no harm is done or sit back and keep their fingers crossed for an outcome other than compensation.

 

The SPFL shouldn't be taking this risk with the future of its members though. It's something else to see all the hatred aimed at us when every set of fans would want their team to fight in the same way if it had been impacted by the SPFL's decisions. 

 

From what I've seen there's nothing in their rules that says a team can be demoted, relegated or expelled as part of an incomplete season. It's very easy to blame us but who in their right mind would just sit back and watch their business take an £8m hit voed for by their competitors? 

It's weird psychology, isn't it.  Someone posted a good analysis a few pages back. Basically you've got 2 outcomes to consider in a dilemma - keep going to the end, regardless of the pain, cost  and stress ...... or bail out, accept you were wrong, reduce your losses and work to repair things.

 

It seems the SPFL and the C3 are in that first group - too arrogant/stupid/stubborn to even think of bailing out. Maybe even more scared of the ramifications of voluntarily making a u-turn, as opposed to being forced to by a court - and there's always the chance that the court will vindicate them, so in their eyes the least worst option is to keep going with the legal defence regardless of cost.  

 

[Lone Striker]

18 minutes ago, Gambo said:

Surely we have a strong case on the arguement that when Covid halted the league, neither ourselves, PTFC, SFC, were mathematically relegated, same as CFC, DUFC, RRFC, CRFC were not mathematically champions. Null and void and no teams were deliberately hurt.  Nothing made up or guessed at, just plain simple facts.

 

What they did was to deliberatley hurt teams by making up relegation, their guess work hurt teams unnecessarily, no facts to go on just pure guess work that hurt other teams.

Apparently, that's the new definition of "sporting integrity" now

[colinmaroon]

Prediction:

 

When Llawell gets feedback from SPFL counsel that it's not going well,  they'll fold, because if arbitration finds in our favour, then league will be declared null and void and they will lose their championship title.

 

 

[Anything2]

3 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said:

It’s as stupid as their “always have to be winners and losers” narrative. 
Narrow minded idiots who are happy to see others suffer as long as they are ok.

The issue for the promoted 3 is that other clubs only care about winning and losing if they are the team winning or losing. Now that they have all secured their own futures for next season, I doubt they care terribly much whether it's Hearts or Dundee United that get shafted, they may prefer it to be Hearts but enough to pay for DU's legal fees? That would be some deep routed hatred, especially given everyone is trying to safeguard themselves from financial losses. 

[SectionDJambo]

36 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Wouldn't be the only thing most of these wankers in the media swallow whole.

Or their thick and gullible readers. It’s just too easy for the weegie press to spread lies and innuendo. 

[Poseidon]

2 hours ago, Newton51 said:

If it turns out to be compensation we are awarded, it doesn't have to all come out of the first sky payment. Sure could be staggered across the season

Even a couple of seasons. Although we've been shafted Ann will still try to minimise the impact on other teams cos she's a very decent human being

[Pasquale for King]

2 minutes ago, Poseidon said:

Even a couple of seasons. Although we've been shafted Ann will still try to minimise the impact on other teams cos she's a very decent human being

Why, it’s compensation for what we lose over the next year. At the very worst it should be all paid up by May 2021. Have they shown us any decency, why should we worry about the SPFL sinking ship? 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

2 hours ago, Newton51 said:

If it turns out to be compensation we are awarded, it doesn't have to all come out of the first sky payment. Sure could be staggered across the season

 

I like the idea of it being paid to us every month for years more than a lump sum. 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

10 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Apparently, that's the new definition of "sporting integrity" now

 

It depends what football shirt the person saying it is wearing.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

3 minutes ago, NLTFTh said:

Keep this wknr and his side kick on the North end of the Forth Bridge..

We don't need them anywhere near Our Club...

Always Hearts, Only Hearts...

 

FTh and all the rest

 

Ach, he's just standing up for his club by being an abusive eejit it seems. He can walk where he wants and take money off folk while his club's millionaire owner sits at home in the US and doesn't lift a finger to help.

Edited July 8, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Poseidon]

4 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

Why, it’s compensation for what we lose over the next year. At the very worst it should be all paid up by May 2021. Have they shown us any decency, why should we worry about the SPFL sinking ship? 

No reason to at all, I can just see Ann being open to it.

[JKBMod 3]

In reference to the Dundee sponsored walkers can I remind members of rule 13. 
 

13. Do not encourage, condone, or attempt to justify criminal activity and do not encourage, condone, or attempt to justify violence.

[tcjambo]

1 hour ago, wavydavy said:

 

I will believe it when I see it assuming I don't catch it myslef and pop my clogs. 😍

lol

[RobNox]

2 hours ago, JimmyCant said:

Stranraer would also need to pay a share. I am sure we'll think of something to make sure they get their share back. Perhaps a beneficiary will appear and play good samaritan for them. Theres a few other clubs in that category who shouldn't have to lose out because of the actions of others.

If it goes to compensation there will be civil war.  I presume it will be paid by the SPFL, reducing the prize money pot, so clubs will receive the same proportion of a greatly reduced pot, so Celtic will most likely lose the most, which is nice.

 

I doubt they will be happy with that, nor will those clubs who voted against the resolution to call the league, or who voted favour of league reconstruction.  John Nelms duplicity could end up costing them all a lot of money.

[GMEdinburgh]

1 hour ago, Ethan Hunt said:

The SPFL board seem pretty good at spending other people’s money, without consultation. If I were a club Chairman - and the SPFL lose the case - and as a result Doncaster has cost my club money - I’d want his head presented on a stick.

He's already cost the clubs millions through clawback monies from Sky and BT alone never mind future monies with giving Sky free games as further compensation. With no Companies banging on their door to sponsor the league they have also failed the clubs. I still don't understand how the Ratnor of the footballing world how he's still not been pulled up for all his failures including the Covid scandal. 

[NLTFTh]

13 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Ach, he's just standing up for his club by being an abusive eejit it seems. He can walk where he wants and take money off folk while his club's millionaire owner sits at home in the US and doesn't lift a finger to help.

What a shame..... PMSL

[queensferryjambo]

3 hours ago, Hungry hippo said:

Fair play to the guys fundraising. Seem to be doing it in a positive way and nothing wrong with fans backing their club.

 

 Exactly, I can't help but admire fans who try to help their own clubs.

 

It's a sad shame though that fans from multiple clubs are fund raising and throwing money into court fees / arbitration fees that could have went into football instead.

 

If the SPFL hadn't made such a **** up of all of this and arrogant club chairmen hadn't jumped on board with it, this wouldn't be needed to have happened.

 

Oh wait sorry I just read the Sun and the Daily Record this is all Hearts fault  

[Smoked-Glass]

I assume because fixtures are out and 1st batch of sky games picked,  league reconstruction isn't an option anymore?   It's either compensation or nothing. 

[JimmyCant]

48 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

They'll no doubt get the win on the wording rather than the fairness of their rules. We'll be told we signed up to those rules and so should suck it up. All of that is fair enough I suppose aside from the way it all happened being incredibly dodgy. Being a Hearts fan is all about lowering expectations to enjoy the good times when they happen so hopefully we get a surprise and the SPFL really have fecked up. I still think it's 50/50 because of how D Utd and co were panicking.

I think it was Donald Findlay who said ‘what’s fairness got to do with it’ In so far as what is argued in the court or arbitration ’fairness’ doesn’t matter a whole lot. If fairness mattered at all we wouldn’t be in this position.

 

This is going to turn on whether we can satisfy the panel that the process had illegal steps to it. Whether that’s the vote changing, the full information being held back from the resolution or no alternatives being given a meaningful airing.

Fairness went out the window the minute that resolution vote was sent out.

 

Even showing the panel it was prejudical probably wouldn’t be enough if they (SPFL) show that all steps taken were legal and above board and within the scope of the articles and/or company law. Showing prejudice might be enough for compensation. It might not be enough for a re-instatement decision

Edited July 8, 2020 by JimmyCant

[Diadora Van Basten]

Doncaster paid £2.5 million back to BT and £1.3 million back to Sky as a result of ending the season early.

 

If he is happy to cost clubs £3.8 million without telling them then I think he will have no qualms paying the £10 million Hearts and Partick claim and putting us in the Championship.

 

I suspect he will just say he had no choice after clubs voted against reconstruction.

[graygo]

4 minutes ago, JKBMod 3 said:

In reference to the Dundee sponsored walkers can I remind members of rule 13. 
 

13. Do not encourage, condone, or attempt to justify criminal activity and do not encourage, condone, or attempt to justify violence.

 

In reference to the SPFL board and the member clubs can I remind them of  article B1 of the SPFL articles of association.

 

B1. In all matters and transactions relating to the League and Company each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the Company with the utmost good faith.

😁

 

 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

Just now, graygo said:

 

In reference to the SPFL board and the member clubs can I remind them of  article B1 of the SPFL articles of association.

 

B1. In all matters and transactions relating to the League and Company each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the Company with the utmost good faith.

😁

 

 

 

Cracker!

[Rods]

6 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

I think it was Donald Findlay who said ‘what’s fairness got to do with it’ In so far as what is argued in the court or arbitration ’fairness’ doesn’t matter a whole lot. If fairness mattered at all we wouldn’t be in this position.

 

This is going to turn on whether we can satisfy the panel that the process had illegal steps to it. Whether that’s the vote changing, the full information being held back from the resolution or no alternatives being given a meaningful airing.

Fairness went out the window the minute that resolution vote was sent out.

 

Even showing the panel it was prejudical probably wouldn’t be enough if they (SPFL) show that all steps taken were legal and above board and within the scope of the articles and/or company law. Showing prejudice might be enough for compensation. It might not be enough for a re-instatement decision

This puts it better than I could. 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

7 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

I think it was Donald Findlay who said ‘what’s fairness got to do with it’ In so far as what is argued in the court or arbitration ’fairness’ doesn’t matter a whole lot. If fairness mattered at all we wouldn’t be in this position.

 

This is going to turn on whether we can satisfy the panel that the process had illegal steps to it. Whether that’s the vote changing, the full information being held back from the resolution or no alternatives being given a meaningful airing.

Fairness went out the window the minute that resolution vote was sent out.

 

Even showing the panel it was prejudical probably wouldn’t be enough if they (SPFL) show that all steps taken were legal and above board and within the scope of the articles and/or company law. Showing prejudice might be enough for compensation. It might not be enough for a re-instatement decision

 

Unfair but not illegal might well be the upshot of the whole thing.

[TheBigO]

9 minutes ago, Smoked-Glass said:

I assume because fixtures are out and 1st batch of sky games picked,  league reconstruction isn't an option anymore?   It's either compensation or nothing. 

Not at all. If our demotion is deemed illegal and reversed, SPFL will need to rectify it. We'll essentially never have been relegated.

 

Releasing fixtutmres means nothing. As do Sky in this legal case anyway.

[Riccarton3]

13 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

I think it was Donald Findlay who said ‘what’s fairness got to do with it’ In so far as what is argued in the court or arbitration ’fairness’ doesn’t matter a whole lot. If fairness mattered at all we wouldn’t be in this position.

 

This is going to turn on whether we can satisfy the panel that the process had illegal steps to it. Whether that’s the vote changing, the full information being held back from the resolution or no alternatives being given a meaningful airing.

Fairness went out the window the minute that resolution vote was sent out.

 

Even showing the panel it was prejudical probably wouldn’t be enough if they (SPFL) show that all steps taken were legal and above board and within the scope of the articles. Showing prejudice might be enough for compensation. It might not be enough for a re-instatement decision

Yes, when the SPFL's own CE  states that the rules were not right for the situation and the Board looks to a power grab in the event of a second phase of COVID to avoid a similar fiasco, it is hard to see how compensation is not the result if illegality cannot be proved. That's without going into any other strands our legal team explore e.g the resolution itself needing QC advice on whether litigation would be likely. Why offer a resolution with such a potential outcome??

Edited July 8, 2020 by Riccarton3

[JKBMod 3]

3 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

In reference to the SPFL board and the member clubs can I remind them of  article B1 of the SPFL articles of association.

 

B1. In all matters and transactions relating to the League and Company each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the Company with the utmost good faith.

😁

 

 

Fair enough. 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

3 minutes ago, TheBigO said:

Not at all. If our demotion is deemed illegal and reversed, SPFL will need to rectify it. We'll essentially never have been relegated.

 

Releasing fixtutmres means nothing. As do Sky in this legal case anyway.

 

This is my preferred outcome. Reconstruction will surely be forced through in that case and we get the incredible scenes of the likes of D Utd and Raith backtracking for our viewing pleasure.

Edited July 8, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[RobNox]

1 hour ago, loveofthegame said:

 

We'll see I guess, but what is immediately ENORMOUSLY in our favour is that (1) this isn't an arbitration led by the SFA/SPFL (i.e. an immediate stitch up) and (2) this is being contested on founding principles of company law, not whether "the fitba men think it's fair".

 

I'm therefore much more positive than I would have otherwise been. 

 

Also, despite the opposing QCs arguing strongly against it, the judge upheld our petition for release of key documents.  

[gnasher75]

13 minutes ago, Smoked-Glass said:

I assume because fixtures are out and 1st batch of sky games picked,  league reconstruction isn't an option anymore?   It's either compensation or nothing. 

 

That is 100% Neil Doncaster's intention but the decision will be made by the arbitration panel and if they go for reinstatement or reconstruction, the fixtures will have to be re-done. If the SPFL was serious about treating clubs with the utmost good faith they would have waited until the case had been heard before publishing the fixtures.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

Just now, RobNox said:

 

Also, despite the opposing QCs arguing strongly against it, the judge upheld our petition for release of key documents.  

 

They really did. Almost like they have something to hide..