SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

1 hour ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

You omit to say why. Why teams should go down. You also ignore the fact that there are a great many examples of leagues being won with no club being relegated. It is not, and never has been, a prerequisite of football that for a league to be won a club must be relegated. In the SPFL case, whether or not we consider that Celtic 'won' the league, the decision was made to announce them as title winners, something that, in itself, is no more than an honour, the presentation of a piece of silverware, and has no future effect on any other club. Celtic were at the top of the league when the league was closed, they have been presented with the trophy and proclaimed champions as an acknowledgement of that fact. If reconstruction had been agreed, there would have been no relegation but the trophy would still have been presented to them. There is absolutely no connection between having a league winner and the act of relegating a club. Unless, of course, we listen to a non Hearts supporter trying to justify our relegation, or a Celtic-hater reveling in the thought that our non-relegation might see last season's league title removed from them. 

No, don’t agree with this at all. Awarding a title to a team who haven’t won it cannot be more acceptable than inflicting relegation on a team who haven’t suffered it. Unless you’re biased because your team happens to be top or bottom. FWIW, I’d take the same attitude if the Huns were top.

 

The league should have been voided.

[Spellczech]

1 hour ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

Thing is, while arguing in court, now SFA arbitration,  that they acted within their powers, here they are, trying to be given the powers to act should the same situation arise. They are seeking these powers because, not only did they, the board, not have the necessary authority to act, there were no rules or procedures to follow and, as a result, their solution was a complete shambles. I don't know if that could help our case, or not, but in the common sense argument, it makes no sense.

 

Another way to look at it is, even if they didn't have the power to do what they did, if they'd 'done the right thing' with a fair and equitable outcome, then there would be no need to make the changes they seek as they'd already have the perfect template to adopt into the company rules.

Simple truth is that they were under pressure to end the season before any other country or UEFA declared it Null & Void. They didn't even pause to consider fairness or the cost of premature "relegation" or the possibility of completing it. Anything other than a simple vote would've slowed the process down...and one club did not want that.

 

Worst thing is that in any other country 10 in a row would be seen as an utter embarrassment, but here it is regarded as the Holy Grail of Achievment...

Edited July 9, 2020 by Spellczech

[Mundaydog]

1 minute ago, assessor said:

blindingly obvious it's from Celtic

If clubs are giving money to other clubs surely that will need to be included in their accounts?

 

What does it get classed as? A 'donation' to another club? 

How come they were all claiming poverty but can now afford to give money to DU, RR & Cove.

If I was James Anderson I would be questioning what the donations he gave are being spent on.

[Jambomuzz]

Is it common knowlegde who are paying for particks legal fees? 

[graygo]

37 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said:

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.

 

This keeps getting said but it's just not true, this is a requirement under the SFA arbitration rules.

[Mundaydog]

1 minute ago, Jambomuzz said:

Is it common knowlegde who are paying for particks legal fees? 

was it not suggested that the lawyers for them had been their lawyers previously and where defending them this time on a no win - no fee basis?

 

Some of the Partick supporters looking in here, may know more details.

[Jambomuzz]

Just now, Mundaydog said:

was it not suggested that the lawyers for them had been their lawyers previously and where defending them this time on a no win - no fee basis?

 

Some of the Partick supporters looking in here, may know more details.

From what i have heard from someone inside thistle, it is hearts paying them. 

[doctor jambo]

So, in light of the claim of "prejudicial unfairness" - some of the clubs who voted us down, are now pumping money into their "rivals" to fund a legal battle that has nothing to do with them, to keep us down?

 

Think the dictionary definition of what "prejudicial unfairness" is set to be ammended to "see what the SPFL did  in 2020"

[18Jambo_dave74]

Let me get this right - Partick, Stranraer and ourselves were expelled from our respective leagues with absolutely no offer of financial compensation despite just about everyone I've heard speak (whatever side of the fence they are on) acknowledge that it was not fair. 

 

Yet, we are now being told that there are clubs out there financially backing Dundee Utd, Raith and Cove in their attempts to ensure that we are not reinstated. 

 

Does this not prove prejudicial unfairness? 

 

 

[David McCaig]

25 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.

The cash would be taken from the Commercial pot.  Not paying would be illegal.

[Nookie Bear]

15 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Simple truth is that they were under pressure to end the season before any other country or UEFA declared it Null & Void. They didn't even pause to consider fairness or the cost of premature "relegation" or the possibility of completing it. Anything other than a simple vote would've slowed the process down...and one club did not want that.

If they had just taken a few days to consider the ramifications then this could have been avoided. But they were too keen to write letters to UEFA and award celtic their title before considering what they should have been doing: protecting their members. 
 

Now, those actions could result in clubs going out of business to take this whole thing through the legal process when it could have been sorted weeks ago. 

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Just now, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

No, don’t agree with this at all. Awarding a title to a team who haven’t won it cannot be more acceptable than inflicting relegation on a team who haven’t suffered it. Unless you’re biased because your team happens to be top or bottom. FWIW, I’d take the same attitude if the Huns were top.

 

The league should have been voided.

So you are admitting it is all just your opinion, that you have no basis for stating that you can't have a champion without relegation?

 

The awarding of a title is just that, an award. It inflicts no damage, whether it it deserved or not - as long as no other club with a right to that title has been denied it. Relegation, on the other hand, has far reaching consequences for any club, even more so when that club was denied the chance to earn the reprieve that was clearly well within it's grasp. 

 

Whether or not you consider awarding a title more or less acceptable than relegation in the current situation is up to you, but there can be little doubt that awarding the title hurts no one, while inflicting relegation is extremely damaging to all three clubs, none of whom were as certain to be relegated as Celtic were to winning the Premiership.

 

And rest assured, should we win our case and be reinstated, there will be no call to remove the title from Celtic from anywhere other then the most bitter of rivals, for it would be impossible to justify such a call.

[Spellczech]

10 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

If they had just taken a few days to consider the ramifications then this could have been avoided. But they were too keen to write letters to UEFA and award celtic their title before considering what they should have been doing: protecting their members. 
 

Now, those actions could result in clubs going out of business to take this whole thing through the legal process when it could have been sorted weeks ago. 

Pretty sure Budge was telling them before the vote that it was unfair, but still they charged ahead...

 

And to cap it all, they are so arrogant that they cannot admit they messed up, but rather say "the members voted to end the season" and "We'll deal with the repercussions as they happen (ie fixtures, cost)" but in the meantime we are asking the members to give us a free hand to do whatever the hell we like in future...

 

The move from representative board to dictatorial board suddenly makes the board so much more powerful - just as Lawell joins it too...

Edited July 9, 2020 by Spellczech

[Mysterion]

14 minutes ago, Jambomuzz said:

From what i have heard from someone inside thistle, it is hearts paying them. 

I don’t believe that is correct. 
I understand the Weir family are supporting Partick’s costs.

[One five]

45 minutes ago, Bull's-eye said:

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.

Correct mate

[Kidd’s Boots]

28 minutes ago, Allowayjambo1874 said:

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?

To your last paragraph, I don't think our counsel will be arguing that the vote was illegal, only the outcome of the vote. If the 42 shareholders in the SPFL Ltd agree, as per the  request of the Executive, to have their vote counted by 5pm on the Friday then the outcome of that vote on the resolution should stand. We all know now that the Dundee vote sent and  received at 16:48 was against, therefore the resolution falls. Being back to square one, as you put it, keeps the status quo in all divisions. From a Company law, and legal position, if the Panel accept this as the status of the SPFL Ltd, everything that has transpired since that cannot be made right by simply re-running the vote.

[wavydavy]

50 minutes ago, yvonnejambo said:

Another good analysis 

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

 

 

This is the best bit from this article for me.

 

The absolute brass neck of Dundee United and Raith Rovers, a pair of self-serving and self-interested clubs who’ve shown a complete disregard for anyone but themselves. How they can dare mention sporting integrity yesterday and keep a straight face is beyond me.

 

I forgot about this bit to which is oh so true.

 

No sponsors, no leadership and no money.

 

 

Edited July 9, 2020 by wavydavy

[Spellczech]

8 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

The cash would be taken from the Commercial pot.  Not paying would be illegal.

If there was not enough money in the commercial pot, would the clubs be told to contribute equally or in the proportions that they would receive the commercial pot payments (which seems unlikely)

[David McCaig]

Just now, Spellczech said:

If there was not enough money in the commercial pot, would the clubs be told to contribute equally or in the proportions that they would receive the commercial pot payments (which seems unlikely)

That’s true, but we know that there is approximately £13m in the first tranche of money to be distributed.

[Jambo Mac]

18 minutes ago, Allowayjambo1874 said:

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?

I think too much has happened in the last few months to have another vote.All clubs would need to advised properly of all the implications /costs/refunds in ending the leagues as they stood.Some of these refunds have already been agreed with third parties and European participants agreed with UEFA. There would also be the Hibs/St Johnsone situation regarding prize money for 6th and 7th place if there was a 'no' or 'reject'  vote .A new proposal may mean that clubs have 28 days to reply which would delay the new season starting which could then endanger the new tv deal, although Sky appear to have an open ended agreement with the EPL regarding the start of 20/21 season

[highlandjambo3]

1 hour ago, jambotony said:

One thing no one has mentioned as far as I see.. and apologies, I’ve not read every post but say we win, relegation overturned I’m pretty sure the SPFL could lodge an appeal and vice versa so this could rumble on and on 

That could increase the bill....they have no dosh, they won’t do this.

[Spellczech]

1 minute ago, David McCaig said:

That’s true, but we know that there is approximately £13m in the first tranche of money to be distributed.

So this money was not fronted in March days after the vote? I thought the whole purpose of the indecent haste to call the vote was so money could be handed over to cover the Covid problem?

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

18 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Simple truth is that they were under pressure to end the season before any other country or UEFA declared it Null & Void. They didn't even pause to consider fairness or the cost of premature "relegation" or the possibility of completing it. Anything other than a simple vote would've slowed the process down...and one club did not want that.

And it's that hurry that needs an examination should we prevail in our case. With a clear two months of the season remaining there was, at least, two months available in which to debate all options with no need to make these calls at the same time as ending the league and handing out the TV money. It is indeed debatable whether or not there was even a need to declare the season over before handing out the money as the motion voted on could just as easily have been to allow for it's early payment. There can be little doubt that some powerful entity in Scottish football pushed the board into that hurried and damaging vote for their own purposes and benefit. I think that entity is looking to be in an even more powerful position to push matters in whatever direction they want should a similar situation arise next season.

[The Future's Maroon]

37 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

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

100%

[David McCaig]

2 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

So this money was not fronted in March days after the vote? I thought the whole purpose of the indecent haste to call the vote was so money could be handed over to cover the Covid problem?

I mean the money will be taken from the 1 August commercial pot for the new season.

[DC_92]

2 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

If there was not enough money in the commercial pot, would the clubs be told to contribute equally or in the proportions that they would receive the commercial pot payments (which seems unlikely)

 

Why does it seem unlikely?

 

If the prize pot is £30m, and we win £5m compensation then the prize pot simply reduces to £25m. The league winners then get 13.4% of £25m instead of 13.4% of £30m, etc., so effectively every team is paying proportionately according to their finishing position.

[Lone Striker]

55 minutes ago, Hungry hippo said:

 

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

They are repaying Sky over 5 years .......  £300k per year.  The SPFL are storing up future financial problems for the member clubs over this debacle, and it will get a whole lot worse for all clubs if we are awarded compensation.   

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

Does anyone know when an SFA arbitration panel last sat and for what?

 

How did it turn out?

[Spellczech]

2 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

I mean the money will be taken from the 1 August commercial pot for the new season.

So how does this work? The SPFL get a tranche of Commercial pot at both the start and the end of the season? Do they receive monies mid-season too? How do you decide how to divvy up the pot at the start of the season if it is final positions which dictate the divvying up of the pot at the end?

[Hungry hippo]

11 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

So this money was not fronted in March days after the vote? I thought the whole purpose of the indecent haste to call the vote was so money could be handed over to cover the Covid problem?

 

Sure we would be more than happy to accept a large payment spread over a longer period.

[BelgeJambo]

1 minute ago, Sir Gio said:

Does anyone know when an SFA arbitration panel last sat and for what?

 

How did it turn out?

iIRC. Paul Reef stayed on Sportsound last Saturday that there had been 8 arbitration cases in the last 5 years.  He didn’t name them specifically, but one was to do with signing an Amateur player and he said you can work that one out for yourselves.  Didn’t ring a bell with me unfortunately 

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

14 minutes ago, Kidd’s Boots said:

To your last paragraph, I don't think our counsel will be arguing that the vote was illegal, only the outcome of the vote. If the 42 shareholders in the SPFL Ltd agree, as per the  request of the Executive, to have their vote counted by 5pm on the Friday then the outcome of that vote on the resolution should stand. We all know now that the Dundee vote sent and  received at 16:48 was against, therefore the resolution falls. Being back to square one, as you put it, keeps the status quo in all divisions. From a Company law, and legal position, if the Panel accept this as the status of the SPFL Ltd, everything that has transpired since that cannot be made right by simply re-running the vote.

There is also the distinct possibility, probability really, that vindictiveness would be added to unfair prejudice in any second vote.

[David McCaig]

11 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

So this money was not fronted in March days after the vote? I thought the whole purpose of the indecent haste to call the vote was so money could be handed over to cover the Covid problem?

Sorry, I think we’re probably speaking at cross purposes.  I’m talking about where the money would come from for any compensation payment.

 

I agree that the flawed vote was driven by a desire to release funds to clubs.

 

 

[Spellczech]

7 minutes ago, DC_92 said:

 

Why does it seem unlikely?

 

If the prize pot is £30m, and we win £5m compensation then the prize pot simply reduces to £25m. The league winners then get 13.4% of £25m instead of 13.4% of £30m, etc., so effectively every team is paying proportionately according to their finishing position.

My question was if the pot did not have enough cash in it, because it would be "punishing" clubs for being successful......Seems it  is moot though, as the pot does have enough according to David McCaig. B

[David McCaig]

11 minutes ago, DC_92 said:

 

Why does it seem unlikely?

 

If the prize pot is £30m, and we win £5m compensation then the prize pot simply reduces to £25m. The league winners then get 13.4% of £25m instead of 13.4% of £30m, etc., so effectively every team is paying proportionately according to their finishing position.

That’s it in a nutshell.

[Kidd’s Boots]

1 minute ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

There is also the distinct possibility, probability really, that vindictiveness would be added to unfair prejudice in any second vote.

There simply won't be a second vote on this if the Panel accept the outcome of 10th April. As you say, we need to stick to the facts.

[Lone Striker]

1 hour ago, manaliveits105 said:

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 

It's not a dispute between members (from Hearts point of view). Utd & RR are making it into one by making their own defence at the hearing.   You're right about the RR chairman (Clark) - disgraceful comment about ICT having "their own view of the world".  Hopefully, Scot Gardner told him in uncertain terms where to go. 

[Spellczech]

11 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

Sorry, I think we’re probably speaking at cross purposes.  I’m talking about where the money would come from for any compensation payment.

 

I agree that the flawed vote was driven by a desire to release funds to clubs.

 

 

No, it's fine - I understand now that there will be a pot for the new season coming in when the new season starts. I just don't understand how and when this new tranche would get paid out...Is it all the funds for season 20/21 and the SPFL sit on it for 9 months until the end of the season?

 

I assume yes, as this explains why BT and Sky are due money back for incomplete season 19/20...

 

Hate to say it but this means that they are basically teeming and lading, because they ought to have retained money from 19/20 season pot, as Budge had informed them that she intended to go to court if they relegated Hearts, so they should have provided for this at the time...

Edited July 9, 2020 by Spellczech

[fritz59]

53 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

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

They are also vanishingly unlikely to be called to book for it by the media or the SPFL.

[Mikey1874]

The furloughed staff £1000 payment per person announced yesterday will help clubs. Might not need a second donation from James Anderson now.

[TWF]

The Bosman Ruling, if I remember correctly originated in Belgium and was eventually rubber stamped by UEFA.

Now we possibly could have The Beveren Ruling, also originating in Belgium. Maybe, just maybe it too could be rubber stamped by UEFA. Let's hope so as this could provide one answer to Scottish Football's current problem (debacle)!!

[wavydavy]

10 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

There is also the distinct possibility, probability really, that vindictiveness would be added to unfair prejudice in any second vote.

 

This true however they would surely have to take into account the cost implications of any decision they make. Many of these clubs are struggling and can they afford to lose a chunk of their prize money?

[Mundaydog]

30 minutes ago, Mysterion said:

I don’t believe that is correct. 
I understand the Weir family are supporting Partick’s costs.

Yeah if Hearts were supporting Partick Legal bid

Why not support Stranraer as well

[credit card]

Re Bosman ruling- wishful thinking but certainly would make a lot of sense. Sense when it comes to the SPFL and SFA though is in short supply.

Edited July 9, 2020 by credit card

[graygo]

31 minutes ago, Jambo Mac said:

I think too much has happened in the last few months to have another vote.All clubs would need to advised properly of all the implications /costs/refunds in ending the leagues as they stood.Some of these refunds have already been agreed with third parties and European participants agreed with UEFA. There would also be the Hibs/St Johnsone situation regarding prize money for 6th and 7th place if there was a 'no' or 'reject'  vote .A new proposal may mean that clubs have 28 days to reply which would delay the new season starting which could then endanger the new tv deal, although Sky appear to have an open ended agreement with the EPL regarding the start of 20/21 season

 

Small point but they can call the vote as soon as they have the required number in favour, no need to wait the 28 days.

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

19 minutes ago, BelgeJambo said:

iIRC. Paul Reef stayed on Sportsound last Saturday that there had been 8 arbitration cases in the last 5 years.  He didn’t name them specifically, but one was to do with signing an Amateur player and he said you can work that one out for yourselves.  Didn’t ring a bell with me unfortunately 

That many, surprised 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

43 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

So you are admitting it is all just your opinion, that you have no basis for stating that you can't have a champion without relegation?

 

The awarding of a title is just that, an award. It inflicts no damage, whether it it deserved or not - as long as no other club with a right to that title has been denied it. Relegation, on the other hand, has far reaching consequences for any club, even more so when that club was denied the chance to earn the reprieve that was clearly well within it's grasp. 

 

Whether or not you consider awarding a title more or less acceptable than relegation in the current situation is up to you, but there can be little doubt that awarding the title hurts no one, while inflicting relegation is extremely damaging to all three clubs, none of whom were as certain to be relegated as Celtic were to winning the Premiership.

 

And rest assured, should we win our case and be reinstated, there will be no call to remove the title from Celtic from anywhere other then the most bitter of rivals, for it would be impossible to justify such a call.

Of course it’s my opinion ffs what do you think this is?

[Spellczech]

Just now, graygo said:

 

Small point but they can call the vote as soon as they have the required number in favour, no need to wait the 28 days.

Yeah but with so many known vested interests, fairness and prejudice would again be an issue...It would be a retrospective rubber-stamping exercise not a fair, considered voting procedure...

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

36 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

If there was not enough money in the commercial pot, would the clubs be told to contribute equally or in the proportions that they would receive the commercial pot payments (which seems unlikely)

I think that's where the 8% interest comes in. If there isn't enough money in the pot immediately, then we take what's there now and receive the rest, plus interest, once the next tranche of TV money arrives.

[soonbe110]

3 hours ago, Hashimoto said:

Reinstatement would be the most cost effective solution. So what if we don't get a full season. The potential for having to pay out £8 to 10m would screw Scottish football for ever. Least harm would mean reinstatement for all 3 clubs to their respective rightful place, and potentially protect the most financially vulnerable..

If only the SPFL led clubs could have taken the blinkers off months ago
 

Wouldn’t care if the £8m was in our bank account. Lessons need to be learned.