SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[SectionDJambo]

1 hour ago, graygo said:

 

The very section that will be used to hammer Naismith. ☹️

The Sun must have felt the need to give Hearts some space for reply after that disgraceful piece from Leckie. It looks like even they thought it was a idiotic rant from a nitwit, which would do them more harm than good.

[graygo]

27 minutes ago, jackal said:

If a judge threw out their case in CoS why do they think it will help arbitration. Im sure the panel selected will know what LC said in his judgement and doubt they will see anything different.

Also hope the walkers are going to document their journey or are they getting picked up by car north of the bridge. Also all money going to Utd, what about Raith and Cove. 

 

There's also this from the SFA arbitration rules which backs up your point.

 

8.6.8 Where the subject matter of a Case or other matter has been the subject of previous civil or criminal proceedings, the result of such proceedings and the facts and matters upon which such result is based, shall be presumed to be correct and the facts presumed to be true unless it is shown, by clear and convincing 
 evidence, that this is not the case.

 

 

[SectionDJambo]

1 hour ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

I noticed Raith have not so far endorsed this yet on their website, but it could be they have to waith for their web architect to finish playing on the swings

You, my friend, have a marvellous way of illustrating the calibre of our opponents during the sorry affair.

[Cruyff]

5 minutes ago, Clacks Jambo said:

Switched direction in case they get battered apparently 🤷🏼

[Nookie Bear]

7 minutes ago, Clacks Jambo said:

Switched direction in case they get battered apparently 🤷🏼

As someone said earlier, wouldn’t it be amazing if Budge turned up to wish them well on their walk. Maybe take some time to speak to them about why we are doing what we are doing.  
 

She can also ask the fat beardy one about his tweets 😂

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

1 hour ago, August Landmesser said:

1000 times this. The priority should always be the season already underway rather than the season yet to start, but this whole boondoggle was always mostly driven by Celtic and their Euro qualifying.

 

Hopefully Arbitration will confirm that they're only Champions Until Next Tuesday (s)...

I am becoming more and more convinced that Celtic/Lawwell were the main driving force behind the mad scramble to end the season and declare champions/relegation. I can just imagine the wee killer comment after he'd outlined what he required from Doncaster: 'Those resolution 12 guys, Neil, they've not gone away, you know.'

[Kiwidoug]

What a laugh this has been.  Wonder if Ron will fork out his £2,000. Don't think so.

 

Oh what a tangled web we weave....

[indianajones]

11 minutes ago, Clacks Jambo said:

Switched direction in case they get battered apparently 🤷🏼

 

He was expecting a return back to Ninewells via ambulance?

 

 

[milky_26]

Just now, Kiwidoug said:

What a laugh this has been.  Wonder if Ron will fork out his £2,000. Don't think so.

 

Oh what a tangled web we weave....

it would be £5k for peruvian ron

[Phil D. Corners]

8 minutes ago, Dazo said:

I’m now asking myself what right the C3 have to be heard at the Arbitration hearing never mind represented. Fair enough at the COS but they lost now this panel is there to settle a dispute Between us and the SPFL on a point of company law. If the have a grievance upon the outcome of that dispute then again fair enough they can start their own legal proceedings.   

 

This... I assume It’s all part of sneaky Doncaster plan, to divide and conquer.

 

He wants Hearts and partick scrapping with Calpol3 and the rest of League to deflect from SPFL, the dodgy vote, and that dundee were give 5 (FIVE) days to change their vote from that that was received before deadline. 
 

 

[niblick1874]

15 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

There's also this from the SFA arbitration rules which backs up your point.

 

8.6.8 Where the subject matter of a Case or other matter has been the subject of previous civil or criminal proceedings, the result of such proceedings and the facts and matters upon which such result is based, shall be presumed to be correct and the facts presumed to be true unless it is shown, by clear and convincing 
 evidence, that this is not the case.

 

 

 

Well well well, what have we here. Does this change things?

Edited July 9, 2020 by niblick1874

[benny]

2 hours ago, cjambo1993 said:

 

 

 

 

 

You have to laugh at the irony of Utd paying a wedge for compensation for a manager at the beginning of the week and are now out with the begging bowl asking league 1 clubs for a grand each. 🤣

 

Shameless

 

 

Edit: and league 2 clubs ffs 🤣🤣

Plus a manager that thought that his last club relegation was morally wrong.😄

[Maroon tinted glasses 2]

Again, I would like James Anderson to step in and state that should any club who has taken up the good faith offer of financial assistance from him then be involved in contributing any form of financial assistance towards C3 then he will be asking for the good will gesture to be returned as they clearly don't need the cash boost if they can afford to throw money into clubs seeking to cause damage to those involved in a legal dispute against the SPFL.

[Rogue Daddy]

18 minutes ago, Dazo said:

I’m now asking myself what right the C3 have to be heard at the Arbitration hearing never mind represented. Fair enough at the COS but they lost now this panel is there to settle a dispute Between us and the SPFL on a point of company law. If the have a grievance upon the outcome of that dispute then again fair enough they can start their own legal proceedings.   

...if they are to be represented, do they choose a QC from the arbitration list?

[SE16 3LN]

3 minutes ago, benny said:

Plus a manager that thought that his last club relegation was morally wrong.😄

He did say that didn't he 😂

[Lone Striker]

3 minutes ago, Maroon tinted glasses 2 said:

Again, I would like James Anderson to step in and state that should any club who has taken up the good faith offer of financial assistance from him then be involved in contributing any form of financial assistance towards C3 then he will be asking for the good will gesture to be returned as they clearly don't need the cash boost if they can afford to throw money into clubs seeking to cause damage to those involved in a legal dispute against the SPFL.

Absolutely right there, MTG.   I have a feeling Ann may already have had a wee chat with James about this subject.  

[Lone Striker]

4 minutes ago, Rogue Daddy said:

...if they are to be represented, do they choose a QC from the arbitration list?

Its the judges that are on the list, not the QCs.  I think Lord Clark made it clear that the "choosers" will be us and the SPFL - the C3 QC  doesn't get a pick.

[jambo-in-furness]

8 minutes ago, Maroon tinted glasses 2 said:

Again, I would like James Anderson to step in and state that should any club who has taken up the good faith offer of financial assistance from him then be involved in contributing any form of financial assistance towards C3 then he will be asking for the good will gesture to be returned as they clearly don't need the cash boost if they can afford to throw money into clubs seeking to cause damage to those involved in a legal dispute against the SPFL.

 

3 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Absolutely right there, MTG.   I have a feeling Ann may already have had a wee chat with James about this subject.  

 

I would be very wary of advising James Anderson regarding what he does with or where he spends his money.

[Footballfirst]

1 hour ago, Ethan Hunt said:

@Footballfirst do you have the SPFL QC’s legal advice on calling the season?

 

No. I only have extracts from the Rangers Dossier.

 

However, the last time I looked at it, I noted that GM had made an interesting observation about the consequences for promotions and relegations when ending the season, either by voiding it, or as it stood.

 

Whether the choice between (a) voiding or (b) ending the season with clubs as they stand, is made by decision of the Board or by resolution of the members there are consequential issues. If the season is ended as clubs presently stand, promotion and relegation will have to be determined without play-offs. Voiding the season may be thought to provide its own solution to that problem. One would naturally assume that if the season was voided there would be no promotion or relegation and teams would line up next season as they started this season.  While that is a natural assumption, in reality a decision to have no promotion or relegation is a substantive decision. It is not a mere "consequence". There would have to be a conscious decision that that should be the outcome taken either by the members under article 64 or by the Board under article 99.9.

 

I don't know if GM intended that his comments only applied to voiding the season, or if similar "conscious decisions" were at play when ending the season early in any circumstance. If they applied to both, then GM appears to suggest that decisions affecting promotion and relegation are not "consequences", but that either the Clubs or the SPFL Board would have to make a conscious decision on how promotion and relegation would be determined. I'd suggest that "conscious decision" could feature in Hearts/PT's arbitration case about fairness or prejudice. 

 

[Maroon tinted glasses 2]

9 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Absolutely right there, MTG.   I have a feeling Ann may already have had a wee chat with James about this subject.  

I just find it irritating that almost all clubs have taken up the offer (Think i read that somewhere) and some of those are now seeking to donate money towards what has already been established as a pointless fight based on the fact its between Hearts & PT against the SPFL so in effect no reason for the C3 to be involved.  

 

As statement from JA would be good at this point to state that he gave these donations in good faith to support the clubs but if they feel they are flush enough to be throwing money away then they clearly do not need the very kind donation. I would imagine that there would be terms somewhere when applying for the cash boost that would mean clubs cannot use it for certain things.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Maroon tinted glasses 2

[Rogue Daddy]

3 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Its the judges that are on the list, not the QCs.  I think Lord Clark made it clear that the "choosers" will be us and the SPFL - the C3 QC  doesn't get a pick.

Sorry, yes... still begs the question, why are the C3 still involved in this? He quashed their claim to have the case dismissed. Bizarre!

[jambo-in-furness]

1 minute ago, Rogue Daddy said:

Sorry, yes... still begs the question, why are the C3 still involved in this? He quashed their claim to have the case dismissed. Bizarre!

 

This is part of Doncasters charade hoping to convince all it’s clubs against clubs,  instead of his shambles in running the SPFL and rule making as he goes along his merry way to a fantastically overpaid salary and bonuses.

[Lone Striker]

7 minutes ago, jambo-in-furness said:

 

 

I would be very wary of advising James Anderson regarding what he does with or where he spends his money.

Oh indeed - but nothing wrong surely in Ann pointing out to him whats going on here. Then it's up to him, as you say.👍

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

28 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

There's also this from the SFA arbitration rules which backs up your point.

 

8.6.8 Where the subject matter of a Case or other matter has been the subject of previous civil or criminal proceedings, the result of such proceedings and the facts and matters upon which such result is based, shall be presumed to be correct and the facts presumed to be true unless it is shown, by clear and convincing 
 evidence, that this is not the case.

 

 

Would be nice if, after hearing their initial submission, the chair of the tribunal just says, 'thank you for that, now go home'.

[Lone Striker]

36 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

There's also this from the SFA arbitration rules which backs up your point.

 

8.6.8 Where the subject matter of a Case or other matter has been the subject of previous civil or criminal proceedings, the result of such proceedings and the facts and matters upon which such result is based, shall be presumed to be correct and the facts presumed to be true unless it is shown, by clear and convincing 
 evidence, that this is not the case.

 

 

Hmmmm very interesting.  The only "results" from last week's hearings were the rejection of the C3 motion to have our case dismissed, plus the granting of our motion to have all relevant documents disclosed.    That rule implies the C3 QC will have to change his motion in order to be present, does it not ? 

[hughesie27]

I predict those guys won't make it.

[CJGJ]

22 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Absolutely right there, MTG.   I have a feeling Ann may already have had a wee chat with James about this subject.  

Sorry but it is up to him and not you/mtg to decide what he does with his money...you might not like it but it is not right to tell him what to do and any conditions attached

Imagine him reading the post and asking why should I help this bunch of moaners after all I have given them

Just be glad he has helped us (and others)

[benny]

1 hour ago, Jambo-Fox said:

I would imagine that they will need several breaks on their walk perhaps up to 3 hours  total. So if they are aiming to aiming to arrive at Tannadice around 7:30pm they will probably need to Tynecastle on Friday no later than 11pm!

Has the 5 mile rule stopped as well.

[Ethan Hunt]

11 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

No. I only have extracts from the Rangers Dossier.

 

However, the last time I looked at it, I noted that GM had made an interesting observation about the consequences for promotions and relegations when ending the season, either by voiding it, or as it stood.

 

Whether the choice between (a) voiding or (b) ending the season with clubs as they stand, is made by decision of the Board or by resolution of the members there are consequential issues. If the season is ended as clubs presently stand, promotion and relegation will have to be determined without play-offs. Voiding the season may be thought to provide its own solution to that problem. One would naturally assume that if the season was voided there would be no promotion or relegation and teams would line up next season as they started this season.  While that is a natural assumption, in reality a decision to have no promotion or relegation is a substantive decision. It is not a mere "consequence". There would have to be a conscious decision that that should be the outcome taken either by the members under article 64 or by the Board under article 99.9.

 

I don't know if GM intended that his comments only applied to voiding the season, or if similar "conscious decisions" were at play when ending the season early in any circumstance. If they applied to both, then GM appears to suggest that decisions affecting promotion and relegation are not "consequences", but that either the Clubs or the SPFL Board would have to make a conscious decision on how promotion and relegation would be determined. I'd suggest that "conscious decision" could feature in Hearts/PT's arbitration case about fairness or prejudice. 

 

Thanks for that. I’d totally agree. Voiding the league, and promotion and relegation were choices, both of which would have had very negative outcomes for some teams. Interestingly reconstruction was also a choice, and would have had a minimum negative impact in the form of the relatively small drop in prize money available.

 

You are right that “conscious decisions” will feature heavily in our case. The SPFL will be in a tight spot trying to defend the conscious decision they made in deciding not to put reconstruction at the forefront of the resolution.
 

AB stated that the language used in the briefing notes was extremely negative about options other than the one promoted by the SPFL board. They will do well to defend that wasn’t an attempt to unduly influence clubs, particularly as they were only given 48 hours to digest the information.
 

When you look at the Companies Act it is indeed a target rich environment for us.

[davemclaren]

Dundeh Utd position seems to be one of ‘we have undoubtedly been rightfully promoted and will defend that but, just in case we are wrong, give us £5k each please.’  😄

[Flimsy]

All that the four title winners, or even just one of them, had to do at any point in the last three months was to release a statement saying something like-

 

'We are delighted to have been awarded the league title following the decision that the season could not be completed. However, we recognise that many of our fellow clubs have not been so fortunate and will have lost the opportunity to achieve promotion or avoid relegation by not being able to complete their fixtures. We endorse league reconstruction so that as many clubs as possible are not disadvantaged during this crisis. We urge all other clubs to support this, so that Scottish football can move forward together and come out the other side with all SPFL clubs intact.'

 

 

 

Unfortunately they are all a bunch of cxxxs. Hell mend them.

[Kiwidoug]

Surely this tribunal will find serious fault with a vote which specified a financial penalty for voting in a particular way.

 

Laughable.

[Lone Striker]

15 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

Sorry but it is up to him and not you/mtg to decide what he does with his money...you might not like it but it is not right to tell him what to do and any conditions attached

Imagine him reading the post and asking why should I help this bunch of moaners after all I have given them

Just be glad he has helped us (and others)

Woooooah there, lad.   How is it even possible for me or anyone else to decide what JA does with his money ?  And I can't see anything in my post to suggest I was even telling him what to do.   If Ann chooses to speak to him on the matter, that's between the 2 of them.  Sorry, but I'm baffled why you've got a bee in your bonnet over this.   

 

And for avoidance of doubt, I'm very grateful that he has chosen Hearts under Ann's stewardship to support financially - and proud that he has also come to the aid of "good causes" supported by Scottish football clubs. 

Edited July 9, 2020 by Lone Striker

[Spellczech]

30 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

No. I only have extracts from the Rangers Dossier.

 

However, the last time I looked at it, I noted that GM had made an interesting observation about the consequences for promotions and relegations when ending the season, either by voiding it, or as it stood.

 

Whether the choice between (a) voiding or (b) ending the season with clubs as they stand, is made by decision of the Board or by resolution of the members there are consequential issues. If the season is ended as clubs presently stand, promotion and relegation will have to be determined without play-offs. Voiding the season may be thought to provide its own solution to that problem. One would naturally assume that if the season was voided there would be no promotion or relegation and teams would line up next season as they started this season.  While that is a natural assumption, in reality a decision to have no promotion or relegation is a substantive decision. It is not a mere "consequence". There would have to be a conscious decision that that should be the outcome taken either by the members under article 64 or by the Board under article 99.9.

 

I don't know if GM intended that his comments only applied to voiding the season, or if similar "conscious decisions" were at play when ending the season early in any circumstance. If they applied to both, then GM appears to suggest that decisions affecting promotion and relegation are not "consequences", but that either the Clubs or the SPFL Board would have to make a conscious decision on how promotion and relegation would be determined. I'd suggest that "conscious decision" could feature in Hearts/PT's arbitration case about fairness or prejudice. 

 

Interesting.

 

Since the season was curtailed by members vote under Article 64 surely this would prevent the "conscious decision" being made by the Board re Relegation/Promotion under Article 99.9?  

 

So we have an incorrectly administered members vote; and also there should have been a separate or conjoined vote specifically on relegation/promotion...?

 

They really have made an utter balls up of pretty much everything...

[Mr Rabbit]

I’m doubtful that we’ll end up being reinstated however if we do I’d love if we did something like Legia Warsaw, would be worth the fine 🤣 

 

https://youtu.be/va_Nb7vVcRI

[colinmaroon]

4 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Woooooah there, lad.   How is it even possible for me or anyone else to decide what JA does with his money ?  And I can't see anything in my post to suggest I was even telling him what to do.   If Ann chooses to speak to him on the matter, that's between the 2 of them.  Sorry, but I'm baffled why you've got a bee in your bonnet over this.   

 

 

Poster responds to post with a statement that's not based on the tenet or a particular point of the original post.

 

How very JKB.

 

PS Not having a personal dig at CJGJ by the way,  Just a general observation.

[SectionDJambo]

48 minutes ago, jonesy said:

I don't think it can even be up for debate. Celtic have run the show in Scotland ever since Rangers Mk1 went pop, and the SPFL is merely their vehicle for making it look marginally less corrupt.

Their silence, other than Lennon and Brown shouting for the title whilst many people were dying from the pandemic which caused the suspension of play, is deafening.

Even the “rousing speech“, to discourage an independent inquiry, was behind closed doors, with no anecdotes of what was orated to the lemmings.  

[Captain Canada]

ND seems to want the best of both worlds. He's always saying he's just there to do what the clubs want, but I don't remember all clubs deciding on the resolution and timing of it before it was put to a vote.

 

He can't be the admin assistant and the CEO at the same time. 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2020 by Captain Canada

[Gmcjambo]

Just now, Captain Canada said:

ND seems to want the best of noth worlds. He's always saying he's just there to do what the clubs want, but I don't remember all clubs deciding on the resolution and timing of it before it was put to a vote.

 

He can't be the admin assistant and the CEO at the same time. 

 

 

Spot on 👌

[jambostuart]

4 minutes ago, Mr Rabbit said:

I’m doubtful that we’ll end up being reinstated however if we do I’d love if we did something like Legia Warsaw, would be worth the fine 🤣 

 

https://youtu.be/va_Nb7vVcRI

 

This one is a belter

 

 

[graygo]

30 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Hmmmm very interesting.  The only "results" from last week's hearings were the rejection of the C3 motion to have our case dismissed, plus the granting of our motion to have all relevant documents disclosed.    That rule implies the C3 QC will have to change his motion in order to be present, does it not ? 

 

I can't see how they can be doing anything other than supporting the SPFL against our petition, they certainly can't be arguing for theirs (dismissal) as that's already been dealt with.

[CJGJ]

16 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Dundeh Utd position seems to be one of ‘we have undoubtedly been rightfully promoted and will defend that but, just in case we are wrong, give us £5k each please.’  😄

Once this case moved to Arbitration there is no need whatsoever for them to be involved

 

Simply at it acting as though they are the leaders in this war against those 2 terrible clubs when we all know they are being backed by clubs some of whom owe money to their players and are pleading poverty

 

If I was due money at one of those clubs I would be asking why and if I was in the media I would be asking the same question...chances ?

[Rogue Daddy]

Getting absolutely no sympathy from all supporters! Embarrassment!

Edited July 9, 2020 by Rogue Daddy

[Mr Rabbit]

4 minutes ago, jambostuart said:

 

This one is a belter

 

 

Just whack Doncaster’s face on the pig 😂

[Cruyff]

5 minutes ago, jambostuart said:

 

This one is a belter

 

 

That's fricken ace  

[colinmaroon]

7 minutes ago, jambostuart said:

 

This one is a belter

 

 

 

 

That is stunning!

 

 

[credit card]

5 hours ago, TWF said:

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!

That would be perfect if it became a ruling for years to come like a Bosman. Would need to think of an appropriate name for it though. A Budge Nudge? Doncaster Blaster? Jambojagzfekoffredtopragz? 

[Ethan Hunt]

6 hours ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

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.

Absolutely correct. The Rangers/Hearts/Inverness proposal to release the money without calling the leagues was deemed “incompetent” by McKenzie due to one word. McKenzie was also accused by Rangers of giving no meaningful help with compiling the resolution, choosing only to say why it wasn’t competent, rather than advising what was required to make it competent.  Championship clubs knew the day before Rangers/Hearts/Inverness did that the proposed resolution had been deemed “incompetent”. It could well be they were informed by Ross McArthur - Dunfermline - who is a Championship Rep on the SPFL board. 

 

The Rangers/Hearts/Inverness proposal was always going to be blocked. The SPFL board were determined to end the leagues in the manner they had decided, despite their own QC providing legal advice that it would be open to legal challenge.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

1 minute ago, Spellczech said:

Interesting.

 

Since the season was curtailed by members vote under Article 64 surely this would prevent the "conscious decision" being made by the Board re Relegation/Promotion under Article 99.9?  

 

So we have an incorrectly administered members vote; and also there should have been a separate or conjoined vote specifically on relegation/promotion...?

 

They really have made an utter balls up of pretty much everything...

I don't know if it will form a part of our case, but I've never been able to understand why it was seen as necessary to hold a single vote on four different issues, particularly as one issue would cause harm to three clubs if passed and another issue would incentevise causing that harm. There can be so little doubt that this incentive would blind a large number of members from the impact the full motion would have that it's hard not to imagine it was a deliberate ploy. And to think the SPFL board/Doncaster have been claiming that they were in favour of reconstruction, so why, if they were being serious and honest about it, did they not include reconstruction instead of relegation in the motion?

 

Whether or not it's significant to our case, I'd like to think that our QC will seek answers to these conundrums.

[Darkblue]

On 21/06/2020 at 10:57, Ethan Hunt said:

Can I ask what representations the Dundee fans have made to the Dundee board in respect of how the fans feel? I would assume there is an association of Dundee supporters clubs? Have they made a public statement?

 

I’ve been on the Dundee forum and didn’t sense there was a great deal of animosity toward Nelms.  

 

I appreciate that there may be some Dundee supporters that are pissed off, but I can assure you if we were in your position the Hearts fans would be making their feelings known to the board privately, and the rest of Scottish football publicly.

 

 

Sorry for the late reply.

 

I've been informed by a former Dundee director that Nelms is effectively a dictator at Dens. There are no other directors with any influence, and the fans do not have a look-in. He hates the DFCSS, our most prominent fans' group, so no we do not have an opportunity to let him know when we are unhappy.

 

One of the most most hated figures among Dundee fans is Billy Dodds. Dodds had already been offered the assistant's job by the time it reached Nelms that Dundee fans were furious.

 

Dees are grateful that our American investors are paying our bills but we have next to no input on decision-making. 

 

I can assure you that 99% of Dees were against the Nelms U-turn but we were powerless to stop it.

 

Anyway, the reason I came on here today is to ask if there is a way Dees can donate to the Hearts legal fund?