SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

1 hour ago, soonbe110 said:

Doubt that there’s time for recon to get through and top league to start in time for a full season. Arbitration probably going to be finished by mid to late July, needs at least a week for SPFL to meet to prepare a plan, then needs at least a week for voting process then needs another 7 days minimum for egm to be called. Then we need time for some clubs, probably us and ICT, to go through  their pre-season before league games start. We won’t be ready to play games until early Sept even if we re-started training as soon as the arbitration process is over. 

Which is one reason the arbitration panel won't order reconstruction if we win (and probably why there was no mention of reconstruction in the petition), they will just tell the SPFL to reinstate us and PT (Stranraer probably by association) but leave the reconstruction issue to the league as a 'football matter'. They might even hand down an order to either reinstate us or pay us the £10m in damages, again, leaving it up to the SPFL to decide and carry the can for any problems the order might cause. I suspect that if reconstruction isn't possible then the affected clubs will be recompensed financially (hush money) along with a load of sympathy and promises for the future.

[BelgeJambo]

12 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

Are you sure the Belgian leagues have been 'voided'. I read it as the decision to declare the leagues won and relegation has been voided and to be revisited to be decided in a fairer and more lawful manner. If I've read it correctly, then there will still be champions named regardless of whether or not relegation takes place. 

Glad you brought this up, I mentioned this last night.  It’s not a final decision.  It has been passed back to the FA to find a solution.  They either null and void or reconstruct (18 teams) look like the two options or do what the Dutch did and compensate

[manaliveits105]

As a "Big Hitter" we could offer a "friendly" 

[wavydavy]

10 minutes ago, GMEdinburgh said:

Does anyone know the cut off point that we can take this back to court if no arbitrition date has been agreed. 

 

Lord Clark indicated that we had around three weeks but we can only take it back to the COS if there are legal issues. We can't take it back if we are not happy with the outcome provided the process has been doen within the law.

[wavydavy]

1 hour ago, soonbe110 said:

Doubt that there’s time for recon to get through and top league to start in time for a full season. Arbitration probably going to be finished by mid to late July, needs at least a week for SPFL to meet to prepare a plan, then needs at least a week for voting process then needs another 7 days minimum for egm to be called. Then we need time for some clubs, probably us and ICT, to go through  their pre-season before league games start. We won’t be ready to play games until early Sept even if we re-started training as soon as the arbitration process is over. 

 

The Belgian league fixtures have already been announced just like ours but it has not made any difference to the decision.

[SectionDJambo]

3 minutes ago, gashauskis9 said:

Yep.  Reconstruction would have cost us very little, but we’d rather spend more on supporting a group of teams to keep Hearts, PT and Stranraer down.  It’s pathetic.

It's very probably the case, as other guys have said on here, that the clubs were told, through a "nod and a wink", that the worst thing that would happen was the case being referred to the SFA for arbitration. The lawyer, Mackenzie, had previous for doing this to Partick Thistle. From there it would be made to appear that a thoughtful and fair panel, of the usual suspects from within Scottish football, would "regrettably" come to the decision that the relegations should stand. So no need to consider reconstruction and they should all just trust the SPFL board, maybe with the caveat of the consequences of upsetting the grand plan.

Lord Clark blew that wee scheme away by insisting on legal people, of a certain length of service and company law experience, and producing relevant documents and records, and the panic set in. Now they are having to hope that the SPFL board didn't lead them to a financial hit they thought unlikely, and are circling the wagons to try to beat us by strength of numbers, rather than validity of their hopes.

[Willie Hamilton genius]

1 minute ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

I mean, it's one thing for the fans to be dickheads - i would expect nothing less - but when club owners are being downright ignorant then it becomes another thing altogether and they can reap what they sow.

 

If the owners of Dundee Utd, Raith and Cove believe we are to blame for all of this then they are not fit and proper to run a pie stand, let alone a football club.

 

 

Thing is, I'm not sure they DO believe Hearts are to blame really.

They've just been sucked into believing it's the only way they can be promoted by Doncaster. The narrative in the red top press ( surely no Hearts supporter can be buying these now? ) is believed by football fans who are hard of thinking, and I imagine these fans of the 3 are pressurising their chairmen to go down this route.

No matter what the outcome, Hearts have done the right thing, and these 3 clubs are just Doncaster's patsies.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

1 minute ago, Jambo Mac said:

Any league ended early on a PPG basis is fundamentally wrong unless teams have firstly played the same amount of games and an equal Number home and away. In our case the league should have been decided by the position when 22 games had been played  

I think the abiding principle should have been 'do no harm' meaning no relegation (unless already inevitable) as a must and promotion and awarding of titles to be properly debated and voted upon as individual issues with absolutely no monetary considerations included.

[wavydavy]

8 minutes ago, BelgeJambo said:

Glad you brought this up, I mentioned this last night.  It’s not a final decision.  It has been passed back to the FA to find a solution.  They either null and void or reconstruct (18 teams) look like the two options or do what the Dutch did and compensate

 

So the quick solution in Scotland would be to offer us and Partick a decent wedge of compensation and they could carry on with how things are at the moment.

 

The problem would be how much and if the rest of the clubs could afford it.

Edited July 9, 2020 by wavydavy

[Nookie Bear]

1 minute ago, Willie Hamilton genius said:

Thing is, I'm not sure they DO believe Hearts are to blame really.

They've just been sucked into believing it's the only way they can be promoted by Doncaster. The narrative in the red top press ( surely no Hearts supporter can be buying these now? ) is believed by football fans who are hard of thinking, and I imagine these fans of the 3 are pressurising their chairmen to go down this route.

No matter what the outcome, Hearts have done the right thing, and these 3 clubs are just Doncaster's patsies.

 

They should be saying that it is ridiculous they are having to go through this process when we have a Board in place (with numerous sub-committees, let's not forget) to address all the issues relating to this situation.

 

Everything they are quoted in saying is a criticism of us for pursuing a course of action they deem harmful to their own clubs, and the wider game. They should be directing their anger at - and those Dundee Utd lads should be marching to - Glasgow.

[Willie Hamilton genius]

1 minute ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

They should be saying that it is ridiculous they are having to go through this process when we have a Board in place (with numerous sub-committees, let's not forget) to address all the issues relating to this situation.

 

Everything they are quoted in saying is a criticism of us for pursuing a course of action they deem harmful to their own clubs, and the wider game. They should be directing their anger at - and those Dundee Utd lads should be marching to - Glasgow.

Correct

[Mundaydog]

9 minutes ago, JamboGraham said:

 

Member clubs may be saying to Dundee United, Raith and Cove that they have sympathy (cost of zero). I very much doubt that any of them will ever be writing a cheque to support them in their campaign. There is nothing in the actions or behaviours of member clubs to suggest that providing cash directly to another club will ever happen...

From today's courier

Raith Rovers vow to continue legal fight alongside Dundee United and Cove Rangers after SPFL clubs chip in for legal fees

Raith Rovers chairman Bill Clark insists the financial support received from other SPFL clubs has allowed the Fifers, Dundee United and Cove Rangers to continue their legal battle.

The Stark’s Park supremo warned earlier this week that Rovers were at risk of going bust amid the soaring costs of fighting the petition tabled by Hearts and Partick Thistle.

 

 

A joint statement by the Championship, League One and League Two title-winners confirmed that the final bill could rise to £150,000 by the time the Scottish FA’s arbitration process has been completed.

As a result, Clark was giving serious consideration to withdrawing Raith’s defence.

However, he has been buoyed by the response of other SPFL members and, while reluctant to reveal the figure raised, says the additional income is enough to allow the three named clubs to stand their ground.

Dundee United, Raith and Cove Rangers could all feasibly see their promotions reversed if the ruling goes against them – with proceedings understood to be slated to get underway on Monday or Tuesday of next week.

Clark confirmed: “We have decided to continue to participate in the legal process, largely due to the financial support we have received from clubs throughout the country – in all divisions.

“A substantial amount of money has been pledged to support us and we’ve been very heartened by that.”

Even if the promotions and relegations are not quashed, the SPFL could yet be liable for a substantial compensation payout, with Hearts angling for £8 million and Partick Thistle aiming for £2 million.

Clark continued: “I think a lot of clubs have come to realise that it’s not just the three clubs involved in the petition who stand to lose out.

“There are financial risks for every single club in the SPFL.

“I’ve spoken to the Championship clubs, with the exception of Hearts, for obvious reasons, and Inverness, who have their own particular view on the world.

“We have had excellent response from them, and from the Premiership and League One and Two.

“If you add the crowdfunding efforts, which we hope will also be successful, then we believe we can go forward with this process.”

However, Clark has emphasised that it is not merely bank balances which could suffer – contending that the reputation of every club which voted to curtail the campaign is on the line.

The contentious ballot to end the season is likely to be put under the microscope next week, including all communications between SPFL representatives and Dundee chief executive John Nelms which preceded the Dee’s infamous U-turn.

Despite the controversy, the motion ultimately passed with 81 per cent of the vote

And Clark said: “It’s not just about money – there is a risk to reputations.

“The [Hearts and Partick] petition is effectively saying that all of those in the 81 per cent who voted Yes in the original ballot to curtail the league did so with prejudice against Hearts and Partick.

“That is a serious allegation and absolutely not the case at. Clubs made up their minds for all sorts of different reasons.”

 

[Hagar the Horrible]

I dont think that reconstruction is within the power of this panel to grant, it will be either they have acted unlawfully in relegating us, and we stay up, They we legal to relegate us but at a cost for compensation, or now unlikey we should suck it up

[wavydavy]

1 minute ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

They should be saying that it is ridiculous they are having to go through this process when we have a Board in place (with numerous sub-committees, let's not forget) to address all the issues relating to this situation.

 

Everything they are quoted in saying is a criticism of us for pursuing a course of action they deem harmful to their own clubs, and the wider game. They should be directing their anger at - and those Dundee Utd lads should be marching to - Glasgow.

 

You know what sticks in my mind about the way the SPFL is run and should be ringing alarm bells in all the club owners/chairmen etc is. The fact that Doncaster actually asked Ann Budge to submit a Paper to him about the offer of money to the Clubs from James Anderson.

 

Interesting to see how quickly they all applied for the £50k once the money was there.

 

Does that not tell you something about how poorly they are run?

[Hungry hippo]

5 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

So the quick solution in Scotland would be to offer us amd Partick a decent wedge of compensation and they could carry on with how things are at the moment.

 

The problem would be how much and if the rest of the clubs could afford it.

 

Found the cash quickly enough for Sky's rebate. Could easily just deduct from future income if they wanted.

[yvonnejambo]

Another good analysis 

https://the4thofficial.net/2020/07/sporting-integrity-of-dundee-united-raith-rovers-cove-rangers/

[wavydavy]

Just now, Hungry hippo said:

 

Found the cash quickly enough for Sky's rebate. Could easily just deduct from future income if they wanted.

 

Maybe the richer clubs could help out just as they are doing with DU/RR/Cove.

[Dallas Green]

2 minutes ago, Mundaydog said:

From today's courier

Raith Rovers vow to continue legal fight alongside Dundee United and Cove Rangers after SPFL clubs chip in for legal fees

Raith Rovers chairman Bill Clark insists the financial support received from other SPFL clubs has allowed the Fifers, Dundee United and Cove Rangers to continue their legal battle.

The Stark’s Park supremo warned earlier this week that Rovers were at risk of going bust amid the soaring costs of fighting the petition tabled by Hearts and Partick Thistle.

 

 

A joint statement by the Championship, League One and League Two title-winners confirmed that the final bill could rise to £150,000 by the time the Scottish FA’s arbitration process has been completed.

As a result, Clark was giving serious consideration to withdrawing Raith’s defence.

However, he has been buoyed by the response of other SPFL members and, while reluctant to reveal the figure raised, says the additional income is enough to allow the three named clubs to stand their ground.

Dundee United, Raith and Cove Rangers could all feasibly see their promotions reversed if the ruling goes against them – with proceedings understood to be slated to get underway on Monday or Tuesday of next week.

Clark confirmed: “We have decided to continue to participate in the legal process, largely due to the financial support we have received from clubs throughout the country – in all divisions.

“A substantial amount of money has been pledged to support us and we’ve been very heartened by that.”

Even if the promotions and relegations are not quashed, the SPFL could yet be liable for a substantial compensation payout, with Hearts angling for £8 million and Partick Thistle aiming for £2 million.

Clark continued: “I think a lot of clubs have come to realise that it’s not just the three clubs involved in the petition who stand to lose out.

“There are financial risks for every single club in the SPFL.

“I’ve spoken to the Championship clubs, with the exception of Hearts, for obvious reasons, and Inverness, who have their own particular view on the world.

“We have had excellent response from them, and from the Premiership and League One and Two.

“If you add the crowdfunding efforts, which we hope will also be successful, then we believe we can go forward with this process.”

However, Clark has emphasised that it is not merely bank balances which could suffer – contending that the reputation of every club which voted to curtail the campaign is on the line.

The contentious ballot to end the season is likely to be put under the microscope next week, including all communications between SPFL representatives and Dundee chief executive John Nelms which preceded the Dee’s infamous U-turn.

Despite the controversy, the motion ultimately passed with 81 per cent of the vote

And Clark said: “It’s not just about money – there is a risk to reputations.

“The [Hearts and Partick] petition is effectively saying that all of those in the 81 per cent who voted Yes in the original ballot to curtail the league did so with prejudice against Hearts and Partick.

“That is a serious allegation and absolutely not the case at. Clubs made up their minds for all sorts of different reasons.”

 

 

Thats not what that guy said on the PLZ podcast. He said folk would vote against anything that would help us or Inverness. I'd say that raises a huge question over the intent of how people voted to end the season.

[AndrewB]

Raith Rovers are completely shameless.

 

Wish I had one of these league ladders that Shoot used to give out.  I'd use it for a "Go Bust Soon League."

I'd be moving clubs up and down the ladder all the time as new bits of news and comment come in.

 

RRFC would just have been moved back up a place or two.

[Bull's-eye]

Frantic phone calls to chairman around the country with a begging bowl out is quite distasteful.

 

What a cesspit of underhand lowlife Shite our countries football mafia has become. 

 

Sickening.

[Jambof3tornado]

45 minutes ago, dazinho88 said:

 

I've nothing to evidence this but I am fairly certain we can take the appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne

We can indeed 

[Rick Sanchez]

2 minutes ago, Dallas Green said:

 

Thats not what that guy said on the PLZ podcast. He said folk would vote against anything that would help us or Inverness. I'd say that raises a huge question over the intent of how people voted to end the season.

 

Yep, still say he should be called up under oath and asked to expand on it.

[JamboGraham]

5 minutes ago, Mundaydog said:

From today's courier

Raith Rovers vow to continue legal fight alongside Dundee United and Cove Rangers after SPFL clubs chip in for legal fees

Raith Rovers chairman Bill Clark insists the financial support received from other SPFL clubs has allowed the Fifers, Dundee United and Cove Rangers to continue their legal battle.

The Stark’s Park supremo warned earlier this week that Rovers were at risk of going bust amid the soaring costs of fighting the petition tabled by Hearts and Partick Thistle.

 

 

A joint statement by the Championship, League One and League Two title-winners confirmed that the final bill could rise to £150,000 by the time the Scottish FA’s arbitration process has been completed.

As a result, Clark was giving serious consideration to withdrawing Raith’s defence.

However, he has been buoyed by the response of other SPFL members and, while reluctant to reveal the figure raised, says the additional income is enough to allow the three named clubs to stand their ground.

Dundee United, Raith and Cove Rangers could all feasibly see their promotions reversed if the ruling goes against them – with proceedings understood to be slated to get underway on Monday or Tuesday of next week.

Clark confirmed: “We have decided to continue to participate in the legal process, largely due to the financial support we have received from clubs throughout the country – in all divisions.

“A substantial amount of money has been pledged to support us and we’ve been very heartened by that.”

Even if the promotions and relegations are not quashed, the SPFL could yet be liable for a substantial compensation payout, with Hearts angling for £8 million and Partick Thistle aiming for £2 million.

Clark continued: “I think a lot of clubs have come to realise that it’s not just the three clubs involved in the petition who stand to lose out.

“There are financial risks for every single club in the SPFL.

“I’ve spoken to the Championship clubs, with the exception of Hearts, for obvious reasons, and Inverness, who have their own particular view on the world.

“We have had excellent response from them, and from the Premiership and League One and Two.

“If you add the crowdfunding efforts, which we hope will also be successful, then we believe we can go forward with this process.”

However, Clark has emphasised that it is not merely bank balances which could suffer – contending that the reputation of every club which voted to curtail the campaign is on the line.

The contentious ballot to end the season is likely to be put under the microscope next week, including all communications between SPFL representatives and Dundee chief executive John Nelms which preceded the Dee’s infamous U-turn.

Despite the controversy, the motion ultimately passed with 81 per cent of the vote

And Clark said: “It’s not just about money – there is a risk to reputations.

“The [Hearts and Partick] petition is effectively saying that all of those in the 81 per cent who voted Yes in the original ballot to curtail the league did so with prejudice against Hearts and Partick.

“That is a serious allegation and absolutely not the case at. Clubs made up their minds for all sorts of different reasons.”

 

 

“Pledged”...I wouldn’t count it until the cheque is cashed. 

[manaliveits105]

Surely its outwith the rules for other member clubs to give financial support in a dispute between members ? no doubt our legal team know however .

The RR guy is an absolute trumpet and hopefully he takes his ship down - his slagging of ICT shows what a classless welt he is 

[Jambo Mac]

1 minute ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

I think the abiding principle should have been 'do no harm' meaning no relegation (unless already inevitable) as a must and promotion and awarding of titles to be properly debated and voted upon as individual issues with absolutely no monetary considerations included.

Good way of thinking. but I think the 'do no harm' part is way too optimistic.There would probably be around a 100% rejection of awarding Celtic/Rangers a title. I thought just after I sent my previous post regarding ending the league after 22 games wouldn't have worked as there is a minimum number of games required to be considered for European competition qualification(not sure but around 30)

[Mundaydog]

1 minute ago, Dallas Green said:

 

Thats not what that guy said on the PLZ podcast. He said folk would vote against anything that would help us or Inverness. I'd say that raises a huge question over the intent of how people voted to end the season.

 

I want the whole sh*t show razed to the ground. 

No matter the outcome, you know that smug pr*ck of a chairman will wash up at Tynecastle at some point demanding this that and the next thing as the chairman of a visiting club.

4 minutes ago, Dallas Green said:

Clark continued: “I think a lot of clubs have come to realise that it’s not just the three clubs involved in the petition who stand to lose out.

 

Yeah if you had voted to 'do no harm' and agree to reconstruction then nobody would lose out.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

1 hour ago, Floridajambo said:

There is one point here that concerns me about the entire case. If we do "win" the arbitration and they conclude the SPFL vote was irregular and the league relegations were unlawful, what is to prevent the SPFL just saying mea culpa and having exactly the same vote again? Rightly or wrongly, I suspect the result this time would be even more than 81% in favor as the other clubs would just want to really slam Hearts & Partick Thistle.

I'd imagine that situation would be taken into account by the arbitration panel. You don't right the wrongdoing of unfair and prejudicial acts by creating the perfect scenario for a clearly unfair and prejudicial act to be enacted against the very same victims again.

[henryheart]

This guy Clark from Raith does not get it. There is no suggestion that all votes were placed to prejudice Hearts. He is right that in most cases the votes were placed for self interest ; in his case promotion but he fails to understand that he still has an obligation to vote taking into account the full consequences of doing so.  

[Hagar the Horrible]

And Clark said: “It’s not just about money – there is a risk to reputations.

 

That is and admission of guilt and they want to cover it up!

[a11ank]

So, let me get this straight

 

DU, RR and CR are suggesting that they have promises of funding from fellow chairmen throughout the Scottish Game.

 

These the same chairmen who will already have a bill coming along from the SPFL for their failed attempt at CoS and future episode at Arbitration.

 

These the same chairment who will have a whopping bill if we get compensation...

 

"Aye, no problem.  I don't mind coughing up 2/3/4 times"

 

Aye, right!!!

[Spellczech]

49 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

Was listening to sports sound the other day and they had an arbitration expert on. He reckoned the chances of any appeal being heard was extremely small and would, like other have said, have to be on the back of very dodgey decisions. 

He would say that TBF...Basically, as in any court, a decision must be justified, and if that justification relies upon an interpretation of the law which one party believes is incorrect then it can be appealed to the court. This case is now tightly wound up with Company Law, we were not defeated on that front, and indeed may have more evidence from looking at SPFL documents. The judge himself said that the panel must have the requisite legal experience, so no ex-footballers...The defence that it was a "Football matter" was kicked out. The media says we lost in the COS but that is not true, the venue remains neutral, but we got to see the other side's tactics board.

[Allowayjambo1874]

10 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said:

 

Lord Clark blew that wee scheme away by insisting on legal people, of a certain length of service and company law experience, and producing relevant documents and records, and the panic set in. Now they are having to hope that the SPFL board didn't lead them to a financial hit they thought unlikely, and are circling the wagons to try to beat us by strength of numbers, rather than validity of their hopes.

Sorry but I’m not sure that’s correct. The SPFL QC said that the SFA has a list of people for arbitration panel and they were made up of legal people and explained to the court the process of how they were chosen. He may even have said that the chair has to have 10 years experience although Lord Clark definitely stipulated that in his verdict. 
 

I think it’s important we try to stick to the facts as things posted suddenly become the truth and before we know it people are posting that we are a shoe in for a positive decision when in fact I personally think this is absolutely in the balance. 
 

Someone earlier asked a question which is bothering me and hasn’t really been answered. If the panel declare the vote didn’t follow proper process and is therefore  illegal what is to stop the SPFL running another vote the day after and getting it passed through after diligently following the correct process? We are back to square one surely?

[Turkishcap]

Just been speaking to my Jags mate out here, says we will win, calling the 3 idiots, actually feckin idiots.

In keeping with the Jags he is a top bloke

 

Edited July 9, 2020 by Turkishcap

[luckydug]

3 hours ago, JamboBoy said:

I see the Dundee United fans doing the sponsored walk are doing it because the club are involved in the situation through no fault of their own. The hypocrisy is quite staggering as if the pandemic was the fault of Hearts, PT or Stranraer. This is the nub of the whole problem here and exactly what Ann Budge has said all along. It is the fault of no one, therefore NO ONE should be punished. This is the major tenet of our case yet most clubs seem to be happy to just put it to one side unless it impacts on them. Ann Budge also made it very clear she would never have voted to punish other clubs, but once again any shred of common or human decency is just confined to the bin by both the clubs concerned, the SPFL and our disgusting sports media. Makes you even more embarrassed to be a Scot where every single issue always results in divisiveness and anger. What has our wonderful Country become? Not one I am proud of for sure!

A bit unfair to diss the whole country because of the actions of bunch of jumped up committee men in Glasgow. 

I accept that sectarianism is at the roots of our football problems. 

The best thing that could happen is if the OF buggered off. 

The fact that the OF have to be represented on the SPFL board tells us everything. 

The problems we have in football have always been there. 

The difference is they have picked on clubs who have the guts to fight back. 

This dispute could be the best thing to have happened if the clubs decide to boot out  'the committee' 🤔

[Hagar the Horrible]

1 minute ago, Allowayjambo1874 said:

 

Someone earlier asked a question which is bothering me and hasn’t really been answered. If the panel declare the vote didn’t follow proper process and is therefore  illegal what is to stop the SPFL running another vote the day after and getting it passed through after diligently following the correct process? We are back to square one surely?

Time and the realisation that by doing so will prove we are right and compensation could be paid out in full?

[jambos are go!]

Silence is golden???

[The Future's Maroon]

8 minutes ago, JamboGraham said:

“I’ve spoken to the Championship clubs, with the exception of Hearts, for obvious reasons, and Inverness, who have their own particular view on the world.

That particular comment from the RR trumpet says a lot.

 

They might have just jumped to the top of my ‘hope the go bust’ list.

[Ex member of the SaS]

22 hours ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

Just for avoidance of doubt. 1st prize is we get reinstated, 2nd Prize is compensation.

If the Calpol 3 contests it, here are the outcomes:

1.       We win re-instatement, The Calpol 3 pay for that privilege by all legal fees,  £300k No calpol 3

2.       We win compensation to the max, The Calpol 3 pay the legal fees, and 40 clubs have to find £250k each, 4 clubs left in the league!  That’s a whopping £350k per Calp?

3.       We win 50% compensation,  The Calpol 3 pay the legal fees, and 40 clubs have to find £125k each, 10 clubs left in the league!,  

4.       We win 20% compensation,  The Calpol 3 pay the legal fees, and 40 clubs have to find £50k each, 20 clubs left in the league?

5.       We lose outright we lose, we play Championship football

If the Calpol 3 Don’t contest it here are the outcomes:

1.       We win re-instatement, all clubs pay for that  privilege by all legal fees,  £8k each

2.       We win compensation to the max, 40 clubs have to find £257k each, 4 clubs left in the league!,  

3.       We win 50% compensation,  40 clubs have to find £132k each, 10 clubs left in the league!,  

4.       We win 20% compensation,  40 clubs have to find £57k each, 20 clubs left in the league?

5.       We lose outright can’t happen, its uncontested.

For clarity, 1st prize is the best option for us and the league, 2nd Prize is ruinous but the courts won’t care, emotion is out of it, it’s just business, we have to go with the cost that’s best for us, and we have to ensure that it covers 2 seasons, as the league will vote to keep us out, We need that insurance policy.  The Calpol 3 have to win outright, or its just Cove the Calpol 1.  Its down to the clubs to keep themselves afloat, they had the chance for reconstruction what did they think would happen , and the courts cant go for what might happen, they will apply the letter of the law

There is another option you have missed. Line 2. We win compo to the max, BUT what if they award compo but clubs fold and can't /won't pay it? We could be in Championship with little cash and no teams to play.

[Spellczech]

2 minutes ago, a11ank said:

So, let me get this straight

 

DU, RR and CR are suggesting that they have promises of funding from fellow chairmen throughout the Scottish Game.

 

These the same chairmen who will already have a bill coming along from the SPFL for their failed attempt at CoS and future episode at Arbitration.

 

These the same chairment who will have a whopping bill if we get compensation...

 

"Aye, no problem.  I don't mind coughing up 2/3/4 times"

 

Aye, right!!!

There are a few reasons for other chairmen to want to keep the 3 "promoted" clubs in the case. First is that it allows the SPFL to continue to make it out that this is a squabble between members; Second is that they may be thinking "invest a little here, to save a lot if they win"; Third is that by "giving up" they lose the PR battle - like Falkirk not going to the court in 2000, people just assumed they didn't have a case, but rather they just didn't have the money...

[milky_26]

1 minute ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

There is another option you have missed. Line 2. We win compo to the max, BUT what if they award compo but clubs fold and can't /won't pay it? We could be in Championship with little cash and no teams to play.

the clubs would not be paying it, it would come from the overall spfl money pot once the tv money comes in. Then prize money for every team would be reduced

[Lone Striker]

11 hours ago, Gmcjambo said:

Not surprising.  Surely the only basis on which to cede power to the SPFL is trust.......how can clubs vote for this given the complete absence of trust.    The SPFL don't seem to understand just how poorly they are performing and how disliked they are.....either they are completely dim witted or just thick skinned and loving the power and large salaries. 

You have to chuckle at this though.   

 

They've  allowed the clubs to vote based on their own  selfish/spiteful reasons during these last 3 months when the "winners and losers" identities were known .  Now when the SPFL want to avoid that happening again, those same clubs are worried that giving the SPFL carte blanche would allow them to  act in selfish/spiteful ways .... and each club suddenly realises that their decisions might  adversely affect them.    Regardless of our legal outcome, this next SPFL fiasco will be highly entertaining .... if it goes ahead.   😂      

 

 

[assessor]

7 minutes ago, a11ank said:

So, let me get this straight

 

DU, RR and CR are suggesting that they have promises of funding from fellow chairmen throughout the Scottish Game.

 

These the same chairmen who will already have a bill coming along from the SPFL for their failed attempt at CoS and future episode at Arbitration.

 

These the same chairment who will have a whopping bill if we get compensation...

 

"Aye, no problem.  I don't mind coughing up 2/3/4 times"

 

Aye, right!!!

blindingly obvious it's from Celtic

[Mysterion]

3 minutes ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

There is another option you have missed. Line 2. We win compo to the max, BUT what if they award compo but clubs fold and can't /won't pay it? We could be in Championship with little cash and no teams to play.

Then Ann will have accidentally reduced the number of SPFL clubs in the league structure as per her comments a few years back.

 

Technically a win.

[manaliveits105]

3 minutes ago, The Future's Maroon said:

12 minutes ago, JamboGraham said:

“I’ve spoken to the Championship clubs, with the exception of Hearts, for obvious reasons, and Inverness, who have their own particular view on the world.

That particular comment from the RR trumpet says a lot.

 

They might have just jumped to the top of my ‘hope the go bust’ list.

Is it because Inverness have a fair and just view on the world so there was no point in talking to them?

[Spellczech]

2 minutes ago, assessor said:

blindingly obvious it's from Celtic

Yep - Nobody else has the readies...or the vested interest.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Spellczech

[Andrew Gilbert Wauchope]

Could someone be kind and briefly summarise where things stand?  Has the panel been appointed?  Has a date been set?  Could there be negeotiations going on behind the scenes?  Lord Clark said he expected some expediency, given the urgency and impending   Not seeing much sign of it.

 

Ma heid is fair birlin' fae the ins and oots. 😱.

[manaliveits105]

not only 8.79 in a row but they are now trying to buy the .79 

[doctor jambo]

On ‎06‎/‎07‎/‎2020 at 16:42, BRY said:

 

What I dont get is that RR have been advised it is "50/50"

IF they chuck it in now, they survive- either promoted or not- the other 2 will need to decide to continue or not.

 

If they continue and LOSE then they simply go bust.

It is a massive risk to take on the toss of a coin- same applies for Dundee Utd and Cove- they dont even NEED to fight- they could leave it to the SPFL, face no costs and have just the same chance of winning/ losing/

Cotinuing is madness on their part

[Everybody Loves Baz!]

So all these clubs that got 50 grand of Mr Anderson for Covid testing etc etc, now have money to spunk on helping RR in their hour of need.

 

Aye, shite.

Hope they're the first to go bust!!!!

[assessor]

1 minute ago, manaliveits105 said:

not only 8.79 in a row but they are now trying to buy the .79 

Ha ha, you mean trying to buy the .21