SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Spellczech]

Just now, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

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.

Ah ok, similarly if paying us £8m in one go is "unfair" to other clubs as it would force them out of business we would have to defer an amount to future years but a commercial rate of interest is applied. Thanks.

[Hagar the Horrible]

1 hour 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.

That is not our worry, I think clubs might be more akin to stopping relegation   But we a re awarded the full amount, they will try and negotiate a settlement plan, probably we get pretty much all the Sky money and clubs will have to

suck that up?   The courts will want payment ASAP,so that will have to be found.  But we have it within our power to take each club one by one, freeze their bank accounts, we only need to do that to one top flight clubs, we get their place in the league or tattiebye

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, wavydavy said:

 

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

When are their fixtures due to start? 

[TWF]

10 minutes ago, credit card said:

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.

All that would be required is for UEFA to "rubber stamp" the Beveren situation. SPFL and SFA would then have to comply, just as they did with Bosman!

[graygo]

3 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

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...

 

Agreed. I doubt very much that there will be another vote. In fact I'm sure of it.

[David McCaig]

8 minutes ago, 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.

 

Which is what makes the SPFL Board’s decision not to simply void the first vote after the Dundee fiasco and re-run the exercise with immediate effect all the more incomprehensible.

 

You can only conclude that the aim was to rush through a seriously flawed and prejudicial resolution with minimum, consideration and scrutiny.

 

So in essence we win both arguments, firstly that the vote failed, so therefore all that happened since is invalid, but secondly the resolution was prejudicial anyway, so therefore it would also be illegal to attempt to reintroduce it.

Edited July 9, 2020 by David McCaig

[Jambo-Fox]

9 hours ago, RobNox said:

 

I wasn't suggesting that the SPFL have any say in things once the panel makes it's decision.  What I was saying is that if the panel decides in our favour, they have the option of reinstating us to the premiership, or awarding compensation.  That's the two possible remedies that we put forward in our case.

 

Once the panel arrives at it's conclusion, there is no negotiation going on as to what remedy they might apply.  They determine the remedy, and it's legally binding unless either party can make a legal argument to take it back to court, but you'd have to be very confident that you had a legal argument to do so.  Not liking the outcome is not a good reason, and is likely to get you into a bit of bother. 

Don’t disagree with any of that. However I think the SPFL will have something to say,

What happens if the panel rules that Hearts should be reinstated and the SPFL refuse citing that “it’s just not possible”?

[Seymour M Hersh]

30 minutes ago, Sir Gio said:

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

 

How did it turn out?

 

Pretty irrelevant as it will be senior lawyers, judges or sheriffs on ours and not bowling club committee members. 

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

15 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

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?

Can we depend on the boards of Scottish football clubs being wise enough to spot any such pitfalls and vote with their heads rather than their hearts?

[David McCaig]

Just now, Jambo-Fox said:

Don’t disagree with any of that. However I think the SPFL will have something to say,

What happens if the panel rules that Hearts should be reinstated and the SPFL refuse citing that “it’s just not possible”?

Lord Clark interdicts the start of the season and Neil Doncaster is found in contempt of court.

[Mikey1874]

7 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

When are their fixtures due to start? 

 

Belgian league starts August 8th

Edited July 9, 2020 by Mikey1874

[graygo]

6 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

Which is what makes the SPFL Board’s decision not to simply void the first vote after the Dundee fiasco and re-run the exercise with immediate effect all the more incomprehensible.

 

You can only conclude that the aim was to rush through a seriously flawed and prejudicial resolution with minimum, consideration and scrutiny.

 

So in essence we win both arguments, firstly that the vote failed, so therefore all that happened since is invalid, but secondly the resolution was prejudicial anyway, so therefore it would also be illegal to attempt to reintroduce it.

 

If they had re-run the initial vote I think they would have a much stronger case assuming the same result.

They would still be open to our claim of prejudice.

 

Edit: sorry dude, should have read your post properly as you've said exactly that.

Edited July 9, 2020 by graygo

[Clerry Jambo]

Jim Spence Retweeted

 

 

 

Dave Cormack

 

@CormackDavie

·

12h

 

Next week we’ll update Dons fans on the Club’s cashflow projections for Season 20/21. An example of the reality we face is an income loss of £400,000 with the Rangers game being played behind closed doors. Determined to avoid staff redundancies and entertain our fans! Stand Free!

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

9 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

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

And you ignore the rest of the post to avoid justifying what you say. Looks like this is a pontificate and hide style of posting from you, as you are clearly not prepared to try and justify the statements you make, which, in my opinion, makes your opinion not worth stating in the first place.

[Hagar the Horrible]

1 minute ago, graygo said:

 

If they had re-run the initial vote I think they would have a much stronger case assuming the same result.

They would still be open to our claim of prejudice.

It only came to light that there was the possibility to pay out without calling the league, and the lie that if we did not call it we would have to pay Sky and BT, we were forced to pay anyway?  Clubs would have been able to decide without the Board lying to them, it would not have gone through, and Celtic would not have got their tainted title

[BelgeJambo]

1 minute ago, Clerry Jambo said:

Jim Spence Retweeted

 

 

 

Dave Cormack

 

@CormackDavie

·

12h

 

Next week we’ll update Dons fans on the Club’s cashflow projections for Season 20/21. An example of the reality we face is an income loss of £400,000 with the Rangers game being played behind closed doors. Determined to avoid staff redundancies and entertain our fans! Stand Free!

Blah blah blah

 

Stay focused on the task in hand Hearts 🇱🇻

[Spellczech]

3 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

Don’t disagree with any of that. However I think the SPFL will have something to say,

What happens if the panel rules that Hearts should be reinstated and the SPFL refuse citing that “it’s just not possible”?

Perhaps that is why there is a compensation claim attached to the action? We have to be realistic, the SPFL board have fought us this far (under the guise of letting the 3 promoted clubs appear to be the ones fighting us). If they/Lawell are this vindictive then they must surely be likely to get petty if they lose...I suspect that the decision as to reinstatement vs compensation might not be a board decision, but rather a member vote decision...

[graygo]

6 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

Don’t disagree with any of that. However I think the SPFL will have something to say,

What happens if the panel rules that Hearts should be reinstated and the SPFL refuse citing that “it’s just not possible”?

 

"Hello, is that Lord Clark?"

[Hashimoto]

1 minute ago, soonbe110 said:

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

I agree with you to a certain extent.....However who do we want to punish....The clubs, or the current a*sehole owners of the clubs?

It's a racing certainty that some of these narrow minded fools will eventually just walk away leaving a trail of devastation behind. The poor sods who support their club will be the ones left picking up the pieces.   

There are some "silent" owners out there who sympathise with our plight and did support reconstruction, however they are still going to get hit with severe financial penalties, and they are absolutely powerless to prevent this, or have there voice heard by the SPFL. These decent, good guys are as much at risk as DU, RR & CR.

Hearts / PT hand was forced into taking this action, unfortunately some of the perceived good guys are going to have to take the hit.

 

[neilnunb]

4 minutes ago, Clerry Jambo said:

Jim Spence Retweeted

 

 

 

Dave Cormack

 

@CormackDavie

·

12h

 

Next week we’ll update Dons fans on the Club’s cashflow projections for Season 20/21. An example of the reality we face is an income loss of £400,000 with the Rangers game being played behind closed doors. Determined to avoid staff redundancies and entertain our fans! Stand Free!

 

 

Aww shucks.

 

[No longer active]

14 minutes ago, 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.

It’s a good point, I think it is okay to call the vote after the “winning line” has been crossed.

 

But not when there are still key votes to be cast like the Dundee one! Or maybe they had received the Dundee one and then called it as they were in cahoots with Dundee changing their crucial vote !!

 

Hence why release of the emails is a vital part of the case!

[Aussie Jambo]

3 hours ago, Mundaydog said:

Raith are in the papers today stating other clubs have offered financial support to continue legal challenge.

How / why is that allowed?

Utd, RR & Cove being promoted / left where they are surely affects no-one but the 3 off them?

 

Maybe I missed other clubs offering Hearts & Partick financial support when we decided to take the SPFL to court....

There must be a lot of chairmen terrified of Ann Budge & Jacqui Low..

 

Well said mate. 

[soonbe110]

9 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Belgian league starts August 8th

So they have a bit more time to fix it than us. 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

5 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

And you ignore the rest of the post to avoid justifying what you say. Looks like this is a pontificate and hide style of posting from you, as you are clearly not prepared to try and justify the statements you make, which, in my opinion, makes your opinion not worth stating in the first place.

No, I’ve been very clear in what I’m saying. You should either call the league or not. That’s my opinion. Like in England whether they’ve either played on or decided via PPG. I’m not interested in the only-hand-out-things-which-are-positive argument. It’s feeble. Associations should be brave enough to null and void if they don’t want anyone to go down.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

11 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

That is not our worry, I think clubs might be more akin to stopping relegation   But we a re awarded the full amount, they will try and negotiate a settlement plan, probably we get pretty much all the Sky money and clubs will have to

suck that up?   The courts will want payment ASAP,so that will have to be found.  But we have it within our power to take each club one by one, freeze their bank accounts, we only need to do that to one top flight clubs, we get their place in the league or tattiebye

I very much doubt we could could go after the individual clubs as the SPFL is a limited company and the members are shareholders whose liability is limited to their £1? shares. Our case is against the SPFL and so we could only claim against the monies they hold and any future revenue. Whatever money they don't have now we would just have to wait until the next influx of cash (TV money) and then accept payment, plus 8% pa interest, of the balance due. If the SPFL went bust before we received payment in full, it would be lost to us, I'm afraid.

[graygo]

1 minute ago, George Cowie said:

It’s a good point, I think it is okay to call the vote after the “winning line” has been crossed.

 

But not when there are still key votes to be cast like the Dundee one! Or maybe they had received the Dundee one and then called it as they were in cahoots with Dundee changing their crucial vote !!

 

Hence why release of the emails is a vital part of the case!

 

Well yes but the Dundee vote was the one that saw the resolution passed. If for arguments sake ICT had voted in favour then the Dundee vote wouldn't have mattered and they could have called the motion accepted without waiting for the Dundee vote.

[Pans Jambo]

1 hour ago, doctor jambo said:

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"

Good point. I hope the "impartial" officials on the Arbitration panel are aware of these shenanigans.

[Mysterion]

Just now, Clerry Jambo said:

Jim Spence Retweeted

@CormackDavie

·

12h

 

Next week we’ll update Dons fans on the Club’s cashflow projections for Season 20/21. An example of the reality we face is an income loss of £400,000 with the Rangers game being played behind closed doors. Determined to avoid staff redundancies and entertain our fans! Stand Free!

2000 in the away end at Pittodrie - assuming not all buy food drink but taking a punt that average ticket+food cost brings in £35-40 p/p that’s £70-80k.

 

If the rest is hospitality, advertising and additional home ticket sales then it should be deeply concerning to Dons fans that no fans results in an income loss of £400k.

[Jambo-Fox]

13 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

Lord Clark interdicts the start of the season and Neil Doncaster is found in contempt of court.

Yes please!!

[Spellczech]

5 minutes ago, George Cowie said:

It’s a good point, I think it is okay to call the vote after the “winning line” has been crossed.

 

But not when there are still key votes to be cast like the Dundee one! Or maybe they had received the Dundee one and then called it as they were in cahoots with Dundee changing their crucial vote !!

 

Hence why release of the emails is a vital part of the case!

Just another string to our bow. If they have a habit of calling votes as soon as a threshold is crossed then they should have called Dundee's 4.48pm vote as having killed the resolution...

[kingantti1874]

Nothing on earth, including a BJ from Michelle Keegan, would give me more pleasure than winning this case and watching these motheruckers bend the ****ing knee (game of thrones not BLM). 

[Jambo-Fox]

10 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Perhaps that is why there is a compensation claim attached to the action? We have to be realistic, the SPFL board have fought us this far (under the guise of letting the 3 promoted clubs appear to be the ones fighting us). If they/Lawell are this vindictive then they must surely be likely to get petty if they lose...I suspect that the decision as to reinstatement vs compensation might not be a board decision, but rather a member vote decision...

If they, SPFL office bearers, board or members go against and refuse to implement the panel ruling it would be unbelievably extremely foolish behaviour. 
But as it Scottish football never say never .......

[Mikey1874]

The bigger picture is the downturn for clubs like Aberdeen.

 

Someone could take advantage. 

 

 

[RS86]

22 hours ago, gnasher75 said:

Now that the reality is slowly beginning to dawn that this case could go either way, why don't Raith or United (or any other club that is anxious about going bust if the SPFL loses this case) put forward a reconstruction proposal now. Call for another indicative vote. Persuade all the other clubs that it is the cheapest way to resolve this and make it all go away. 

 

I half expected this to happen by this stage tbh

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

23 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Pretty irrelevant as it will be senior lawyers, judges or sheriffs on ours and not bowling club committee members. 

I think it always is that type of panel 

[TyphoonJambo]

50 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

That’s it in a nutshell.

But surely with an adjustment to ensure we get our pre compo sum in full. Otherwise we'd be paying a part of our own compensation 

[Spellczech]

9 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

No, I’ve been very clear in what I’m saying. You should either call the league or not. That’s my opinion. Like in England whether they’ve either played on or decided via PPG. I’m not interested in the only-hand-out-things-which-are-positive argument. It’s feeble. Associations should be brave enough to null and void if they don’t want anyone to go down.

I think you can call winners in a league which is curtailed. Positions are finalised and prize money is distributed. However, promotions and relegations mean that the promoted clubs get 2 prizes, and the relegated clubs get a financial prize and a booby prize of a financial hit far greater than the prize they received. This is the crux of the matter. Celtic's title was only at risk if the season was declared Null & Void. If the season had been declared Null & Void ALL the TV money (prize fund) would've needed repaid to the TV companies even though they'd received some benefit from it up to the date of the abandonment...Therefore, no titles, no prizes, no double prizes and no booby-prizes - the season never happened. Now Hearts have purposely not sought the season to be declared null & void, as this would financially hit everyone except the TV companies...

[colinmaroon]

The clubs in the SPFL, if Hearts and Thistle win this case, should be given three options by the SPFL.

 

1 Void the season

2 Pay compensation 

3 Reconstruction

 

Wonder how the vote would go then?

 

 

[Boof]

2 hours 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 

 

Kudos to anyone who has!  

[Hector Riva]

2 minutes ago, colinmaroon said:

The clubs in the SPFL, if Hearts and Thistle win this case, should be given three options by the SPFL.

 

1 Void the season

2 Pay compensation 

3 Reconstruction

 

Wonder how the vote would go then?

 

 

Interesting indeed.

 

[graygo]

17 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Nothing on earth, including a BJ from Michelle Keegan, would give me more pleasure than winning this case and watching these motheruckers bend the ****ing knee (game of thrones not BLM). 

 

Too far.

 

[Spellczech]

12 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

If they, SPFL office bearers, board or members go against and refuse to implement the panel ruling it would be unbelievably extremely foolish behaviour. 
But as it Scottish football never say never .......

I'm not sure if the panel will rule on reinstatement v compensation. I think this decision will be returned to the SPFL for a vote. I think the panel will only determine if the decision to relegate Hearts and Thistle in a curtailed season on the basis in which it was carried out was unfair and prejudicial, and will set an amount of compensation for if the SPFL go that route. If it was prejudicial against these member clubs then the SPFL will have to decide whether to reinstate or pay compensation. 

[Ethan Hunt]

The following link relates to the legislation of the Companies Act 2006, all 761 target rich pages of it. 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/pdfs/ukpga_20060046_en.pdf

 

What we will have to demonstrate to the Arbitration Tribunal is that the SPFL board - by the manner they conducted the companies affairs - showed unfair prejudice toward us. We do not have to prove they acted illegally, that is not one of the essential elements of section 994 of the Act, which states:

 

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

 

For those insisting that we must prove the SPFL did something illegal, the article taken from the internet and posted below may assist with the understanding of the difference between illegal, and unlawful. We are trying to demonstrate what the SPFL did was unlawful. To demonstrate that you do not have to evidence anything they did was illegal, although that would obviously help (and could lead to the identified illegal part being looked at in a criminal court).

 

I’d be happy if any of our Lawyer friends, or those with better legal knowledge than me, want to correct anything, or help to try to explain it better.

 

UNLAWFUL VERSUS ILLEGAL.

 

In the office recently we had a discussion around the two terms. In relation to a recent political decision around Brexit in the UK, Boris Johnson’s actions were said to be unlawful. What does that mean? So why didn’t he go to jail?

 

He wasn’t jailed as his actions were only unlawful – not illegal. Whilst it sounds really crazy there is a simple explanation.

 

Definition of Illegal:

An act is illegal if it breaks a current law or statute that has been passed by the government.  There is a defined ‘law’ to break. If you break it there are consequences.

 

Definition of Unlawful:

Unlawful on the other hand is where there isn’t a specific law passed for such action. If there is no specific statute – then it’s unlawful. However – it might cause action to be taken under a separate law though.

 

[Locky]

Thursday afternoon and no date or time set (that we know of) for this to kick off. I honestly think that in the next couple of weeks, the SPFL will be forced to postpone the start of the season.

 

As I said before, I think the SPFL will be left with no choice at all but to push reconstruction through and obviously that can't be done if the season is started. We are only 3 weeks away from that league being scheduled to get underway and I honestly can't see this being done by then. The SPFL and it's members honestly don't realise the absolute farce of a situation that they have created. It's due to their incompetence that this has dragged on for 3 months, we're just the fall guys.

[SectionDJambo]

1 hour 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?

Happy to be corrected.

But just for clarity, please, only the chairman, who is the one agreed by both parties, has to have the 10 years legal experience? And the bit, said quite a few times on here, about all of them having to have company law experience isn’t the case?

So the SFA provide a list of people, based on Lord Clark’s summary, then Hearts/Thistle pick one, and the SPFL pick one, and these choices don’t have to have the 10 years legal experience.

[NANOJAMBO]

7 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

I think you can call winners in a league which is curtailed. Positions are finalised and prize money is distributed. However, promotions and relegations mean that the promoted clubs get 2 prizes, and the relegated clubs get a financial prize and a booby prize of a financial hit far greater than the prize they received. This is the crux of the matter. Celtic's title was only at risk if the season was declared Null & Void. If the season had been declared Null & Void ALL the TV money (prize fund) would've needed repaid to the TV companies even though they'd received some benefit from it up to the date of the abandonment...Therefore, no titles, no prizes, no double prizes and no booby-prizes - the season never happened. Now Hearts have purposely not sought the season to be declared null & void, as this would financially hit everyone except the TV companies...

Exactly.

The Board & their QC made it clear that N&V meant the risk of having to repay sponsors and even ST holders so it was not a risk the clubs would take. 

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

5 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

No, I’ve been very clear in what I’m saying. You should either call the league or not. That’s my opinion. Like in England whether they’ve either played on or decided via PPG. I’m not interested in the only-hand-out-things-which-are-positive argument. It’s feeble. Associations should be brave enough to null and void if they don’t want anyone to go down.

Feeble? Do you not think justifying your post by saying 'that's my opinion', is not feeble? And I'm not saying 'only hand out things which are positive' either. I am comparing the two actions, one does no harm to others, while the other does great harm when not justified with a points total over a full season.

 

You in your original post stated, quite categorically, but without any attempt to support or justify saying it, that you can't award the title without relegation. You stated it in a way that suggested it was not possible, under any circumstances, to have champions without a club being relegated. That is distinctly not the case, and there are a great many examples in Scottish senior football alone that show it not to be the case. If you don't like the fact that Celtic have been crowned champions (and I'm certain a great many are of the same opinion) then say that, but don't tie it in with (our) relegation, or suggest that our reinstatement (no relegation) might lead to Celtic losing their title, because it's just not the case. 

 

Giving opinions here is fine, but it would be helpful if you are only giving an opinion with no available argument to support it, that you make it clear you are only stating your opinion and not pontificating like someone considered of such a high station that his word is beyond reproach.

[Boof]

2 hours 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  

 

And the same opponents the same number of times...

[Nookie Bear]

34 minutes ago, Clerry Jambo said:

Jim Spence Retweeted

 

 

 

Dave Cormack

 

@CormackDavie

·

12h

 

Next week we’ll update Dons fans on the Club’s cashflow projections for Season 20/21. An example of the reality we face is an income loss of £400,000 with the Rangers game being played behind closed doors. Determined to avoid staff redundancies and entertain our fans! Stand Free!

Stand Free?

 

Stands Shut, more like. 
 

Nice to see them missing their Glasgow friends though. 

[Locky]

8 minutes ago, colinmaroon said:

The clubs in the SPFL, if Hearts and Thistle win this case, should be given three options by the SPFL.

 

1 Void the season

2 Pay compensation 

3 Reconstruction

 

Wonder how the vote would go then?

 

 

Option 3 is the answer to all the SPFL's prayers in making this all just disappear. Of course compo would be great for the club, but ultimately all I want is justice to be served, and justice is preserving our top flight status. We all know the clubs (the only club who sadly matter in the eyes of many) won't opt for option 1 at all, nor can they afford option 2.

 

There is only 2 potential outcomes here for me. Either our case is completely dismissed, which I personally can't see, or option 3 has to be pushed through. There would be some creases to iron out if option 3 goes ahead, but ultimately it could be worked out.