SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Trained One]

10 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Bit like a Naval  court martial. They can be held on both a shore establishment or a Warship, regardless of venue the rules remain the same, this is the same for arbitration.

 

Wish it was...we could get ND to walk the plank.

[7628mm]

5 minutes ago, Trained One said:

 

Wish it was...we could get ND to walk the plank.

 

Would be fantastic to see a plank on a plank

[Rods]

22 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

I still dont get what the C3 are doing just let the SPFL argue it.

 

Trust issues with the SPFL. 

 

They want to be in the room when SPFL fold so they can stand their own ground.

[Celtic1ICT3]

7 minutes ago, 7628mm said:

 

I suspect that there are rules written into company law about the behaviour of Board members of a Limited Company. 

https://companieshouse.blog.gov.uk/2019/02/21/7-duties-of-a-company-director/

 

There has been comment on here that after the tribunal sees the evidence regarding the Dundee no vote (and the vote received after the deadline) that the SPFL may  if found in breach of the Companies Act, offer to re-run the vote. However, unless it can be proven that the count was a clear administrative error or similar, some or all Director's may have a problem. Re-running the vote may not be possible for them.  That is where things could get messy for the SPFL in terms of offering a solution. Remember that prejudice is potentially harder to prove than a breach of the Companies Act and in this case if the count was invalid prejudice could apply to the non league clubs, Ayr, Dunfermline and ICT for instance who missed out on a play off possibility. 

[Ethan Hunt]

37 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

If this is indeed correct then it strongly suggests to me they want to lose. The only reason being they do not want their dirty washing aired in public. 

The clubs if they had any sense and backbone should be demanding that this board resign enmasse immediately.

You cannot if you are a board member separate it from what you do at your club. It is an immediate conflict of interest.

For the good of Scottish football the whole governance needs ripped up and started again from scratch.

Presently it is ROTTEN TO THE CORE.

I think exactly the same.

 

After I saw @DETTY29‘s post I listened to the podcast. Other than it being raised by Brian McLaughlin no-one else spoke about that particular bit. I find it incredible that club Chairmen - who are also members of the SPFL board - are actively going round clubs begging for money on behalf of the C3. When you are a member of a board that has been petitioned at court (and are about to enter arbitration) due to the manner in which you have conducted your affairs has shown unfair prejudice to two clubs (more in reality), you cannot realistically be seen to be doing anything than working on behalf on that board. For anyone to suggest otherwise would be ridiculous. 

 

What would also be apparent is that there is little drive coming from anywhere other than C3 and the SPFL board in relation to begging. No reasonably minded person could think it a coincidence that those (other than C3) who feel most passionately about this also just happen to be members of the SPFL board. 

 

What has always been a target rich environment continues to become bigger. An asthmatic blind man, with a pea shooter, standing half a mile away, couldn’t fail to hit this target.

[7628mm]

9 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

We do have to wonder if these actions (by SPFL board members, who, for the purposes of funding clubs who just happen to be on their side in a legal dispute, are not acting as members of the SPFL board when asking other members of the SPFL to help fund them in that legal dispute) have been authorised by the SPFL's legal team to act in this way.

 

Now, I'm in no way able to say that these SPFL board members are doing anything outwith their duties as board members (though it somehow makes sense to me to think they are) but if they feel the need to say to the press that they are doing this, but not in their capacity as office bearers of the SPFL, it makes me think that they, at least, believe that to do so as office bearers must be wrong.

 

Regarding the "expectations" of board members of the SPFL who are in this case "directors" here is a snippet from the website below.

 

Although more about business with other companies the 1st sentence is quite interesting

 

Duty to avoid conflicts of interest

This dictates that, as a director, you must avoid a situation in which you have, or may have, a direct or indirect interest which conflicts, or could conflict, with the interests of the company.

This duty applies in particular to a transaction entered into between you and a third party, in relation to the exploitation of any property, information or opportunity. It does not apply to a conflict of interest which arises in relation to a transaction or arrangement with the company itself.

This clarifies the previous conflict of interest provisions, and makes it easier for directors to enter into transactions with third parties by allowing directors not subject to any conflict on the board to authorise them, as long as certain requirements are met.

 

From the website

https://www.ritsonsca.com/resources/your-business/limited-companies/directors-responsibilities

 

 

[Captain Canada]

This is laughable. Anyone can do and say anything and just say "I had a different hat on". It would certainly explain why ND jumps seamlessly from daft laddie to incompetent CEO. 

 

Where will this lead to? "I broke the player's legs last night ahead of the big game but it was in my capacity as a private citizen and not chairman of a club." 

[7628mm]

3 minutes ago, Celtic1ICT3 said:

https://companieshouse.blog.gov.uk/2019/02/21/7-duties-of-a-company-director/

 

There has been comment on here that after the tribunal sees the evidence regarding the Dundee no vote (and the vote received after the deadline) that the SPFL may  if found in breach of the Companies Act, offer to re-run the vote. However, unless it can be proven that the count was a clear administrative error or similar, some or all Director's may have a problem. Re-running the vote may not be possible for them.  That is where things could get messy for the SPFL in terms of offering a solution. Remember that prejudice is potentially harder to prove than a breach of the Companies Act and in this case if the count was invalid prejudice could apply to the non league clubs, Ayr, Dunfermline and ICT for instance who missed out on a play off possibility. 

 

I should have used the companies house site rather than the one I used a moment ago. Thanks for the info 👍

[Ethan Hunt]

16 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

We do have to wonder if these actions (by SPFL board members, who, for the purposes of funding clubs who just happen to be on their side in a legal dispute, are not acting as members of the SPFL board when asking other members of the SPFL to help fund them in that legal dispute) have been authorised by the SPFL's legal team to act in this way.

 

Now, I'm in no way able to say that these SPFL board members are doing anything outwith their duties as board members (though it somehow makes sense to me to think they are) but if they feel the need to say to the press that they are doing this, but not in their capacity as office bearers of the SPFL, it makes me think that they, at least, believe that to do so as office bearers must be wrong.

I got the impression from listening to Brian Mclaughlin that he has been told by other chairmen that members of the SPFL board have been going round the clubs (but not in their SPFL capacity) rather than by the Chairman/SPFL board members themselves.

[Turkishcap]

7 minutes ago, Celtic1ICT3 said:

https://companieshouse.blog.gov.uk/2019/02/21/7-duties-of-a-company-director/

 

There has been comment on here that after the tribunal sees the evidence regarding the Dundee no vote (and the vote received after the deadline) that the SPFL may  if found in breach of the Companies Act, offer to re-run the vote. However, unless it can be proven that the count was a clear administrative error or similar, some or all Director's may have a problem. Re-running the vote may not be possible for them.  That is where things could get messy for the SPFL in terms of offering a solution. Remember that prejudice is potentially harder to prove than a breach of the Companies Act and in this case if the count was invalid prejudice could apply to the non league clubs, Ayr, Dunfermline and ICT for instance who missed out on a play off possibility. 

So Dundee would get 3 votes

Wednesday was the day for the paperwork to be handed over, this gets juicer by the day.

[Nookie Bear]

21 minutes ago, Jambomuzz said:

Thats good. Its just so frustrating seeing and hearing people acting to brazen and getting away with it. Honestly question what the point in following football. If i didnt love hearts so much i would have washed my hands of the lot of it. 

It’s a bloody joke, mate. I follow Football to support my team, meet up with mates, have a beer, moan and cheer and then go home to look forward to the next game. 
 

Spent the entire summer watching this farce unfold in boardrooms and courtrooms and it’s exhausting. 
 

Hate the whole thing now and I’m almost past caring what happens, as long as many clubs go under, taking Doncaster with them. 

[Spellczech]

Just now, Ethan Hunt said:

I got the impression from listening to Brian Mclaughlin that he has been told by other chairmen that members of the SPFL board have been going round the clubs (but not in their SPFL capacity) rather than by the Chairman/SPFL board members themselves.

It's absurd though - why would the Chairman of Alloa want to ask the Chairman of St Mirren to give money to Raith Rovers which act in itself is not allowed, when no other chairmen who are not SPFL Board Members are doing likewise...Anyone who has been doing this should be forced to resign. These idiots just bend, break & ignore their own rules whenever it suits them.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Just now, Ethan Hunt said:

I got the impression from listening to Brian Mclaughlin that he has been told by other chairmen that members of the SPFL board have been going round the clubs (but not in their SPFL capacity) rather than by the Chairman/SPFL board members themselves.

I very much doubt, but don't know, that it would be possible for a member of a company board to lobby for support for another member of the company (SPFL) in a dispute with yet another member of the company in a dispute with the actual company, and not be seen as acting for the company in his capacity as a board member. For one thing, the weight of probability would be like lead to puff pastry. 

Edited July 10, 2020 by AllyjamboDerbyshire
Bad grammar

[Nookie Bear]

5 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

It's absurd though - why would the Chairman of Alloa want to ask the Chairman of St Mirren to give money to Raith Rovers which act in itself is not allowed, when no other chairmen who are not SPFL Board Members are doing likewise...Anyone who has been doing this should be forced to resign. These idiots just bend, break & ignore their own rules whenever it suits them.

It’s corrupt, pure and simple. 

[true-jambo]

1 hour ago, DETTY29 said:

Wow on Sportsound podcast.

 

SPFL board members have been going out clubs to ask them to support the C3 financially.

 

But not in their capacity as SPFL board members. 

Surely proof positive, if any more were needed, that the structure of the board is fundamentally flawed.

The executive board should be independent of any club loyalties, in order to act responsibly for the greater good of football as a whole. Members can still hold an independent board to account if they fail to deliver that requirement.

 

As things stand we already have virtually every board member voting to protect their own club's interests, to the detriment of three others not represented on the board. Then to top it off they have clandestine discussions with other clubs to persuade them to endorse their actions against the petitioners, but wait for it, not as members of the board. You really couldn't make it up they really are a dishonourable, self serving bunch of charlatans.

I hope we really do bring the whole structure of the SPFL tumbling down around their heads

[1971fozzy]

That podcast is unreal. If We win and are reinstated then the league will have to be postponed as we haven’t started training. Brian McLaughlins tears and snorters will be arousing.

1st August is not guaranteed.

I really do hate these roasters

[Don Dan]

This bun fight is a complicated three ring circus lead by a clown of a ring master Doncaster. It’s Hearts and Partick in one ring with the other two rings linked with the SPFL, The Calpol 3 and two headed freaks jumping between rings. Its an unnatural alliance that can’t be legal and if nothing else is a conflict of interests by the two headed snakes masquerading as board members. 
I hope Lord Clark is watching and could well step in and end this unnatural bed swapping.

[One five]

10 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

It’s a bloody joke, mate. I follow Football to support my team, meet up with mates, have a beer, moan and cheer and then go home to look forward to the next game. 
 

Spent the entire summer watching this farce unfold in boardrooms and courtrooms and it’s exhausting. 
 

Hate the whole thing now and I’m almost past caring what happens, as long as many clubs go under, taking Doncaster with them. 

I think we are doing the correct thing  taking these tossers all the way but Yeah I’m the same mate just looking forward to getting back to tynecastle as I said on a previous post beers and a laugh wi the mates before the game 👍

[Toxteth O'Grady]

1 hour ago, DETTY29 said:

Wow on Sportsound podcast.

 

SPFL board members have been going out clubs to ask them to support the C3 financially.

 

But not in their capacity as SPFL board members. 

That isn't a valid excuse - they changed the rules so they could fine Romanov when he wasn't even on the board.

[Brave Hearts]

2 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Hibs players go through the history books to see how often they finish top 4. "Ah, no sorry Ron we'll take the regular bonuses thanks"

 

Fraser Wishart still nowhere to be seen.

 

Our players must undoubtedly be the favourites of Fraser Wishart.

 

Any time there is a threat to a Hearts players wages or contract conditions, then Wishart is immediately raising their case in the media and highlighting their position to our club management.

 

Immediate responses and supportive actions by your union against your employers is what all union members want from their union and its head spokesperson.

 

I feel sorry for the players of the other clubs as Wishart does not represent them with the vigour and rigour that he always represents our players with .................

 

[pharmaceutical01]

1 hour ago, John Findlay said:

If this is indeed correct then it strongly suggests to me they want to lose. The only reason being they do not want their dirty washing aired in public. 

The clubs if they had any sense and backbone should be demanding that this board resign enmasse immediately.

You cannot if you are a board member separate it from what you do at your club. It is an immediate conflict of interest.

For the good of Scottish football the whole governance needs ripped up and started again from scratch.

Presently it is ROTTEN TO THE CORE.

Absolutely Spot on, JF. In normal board meetIng, you have to excuse yourself from the meeting if there is any conflict. These people are willingly looking for a conflict and acting on it.

 

I think if Hearts lose this case, my faith in any sort of natural justice will be gone.....it is already gone with Scottish Football.

 

Edited July 10, 2020 by pharmaceutical01

[Glamorgan Jambo]

A judge and indeed an arbitration panellist if they have a legal background would see through the ‘two hatted’ excuse a mile away.

[martoon]

1 hour ago, Jamboelite said:

I wonder what Tam McManus thinks of this.....the utter weapon he is.

 

He'll take his lead from .nut. They loons are bound to come up with some shite that justifies what the holy Hibees have done, whist simultaneously slating Hearts as immoral for signing Craig Gordon whilst wages are cut. 

 

And we haven't even made staff redundant like they have. 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

Fraser Wishart is another reason to despise Tommy McLean.

[Darkblue]

6 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

Here, @Darkblue, @DUFCFan said all Dundee fans are scum. You going to take that?

 

Couldn't care less. We mock them for being soulless shitty club with no morals that drops its identity at the drop of a hat. Don't really care how they attempt to talk down the city's historic club.

[Ethan Hunt]

19 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

It's absurd though - why would the Chairman of Alloa want to ask the Chairman of St Mirren to give money to Raith Rovers which act in itself is not allowed, when no other chairmen who are not SPFL Board Members are doing likewise...Anyone who has been doing this should be forced to resign. These idiots just bend, break & ignore their own rules whenever it suits them.

The board positions are up for election. I don’t know if any of the current board are up for re-election. The ones that aren’t maybe don’t give a feck. They didn’t give a feck when they were in position, so I doubt they will when they are on the way out.

 

 

[Darkblue]

10 hours ago, pablo said:

 

I'm rather suspicious of this post and it's intentions. Perhaps my suspicion is just a sad indictment of Scottish football right now rather than remembering Dundee fans holding up "were you crying in 86?" banners at Tynecastle and singing about Albert Kidd. 

 

I hate that part of history denying that formidable Hearts team a deserved title to gift the league to Celtic. Hearts are rivals though. It's only natural that some Dees are going to taunt Jambos about this game.

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 hour ago, Fitba' broke my Heart said:

 

Clubs do this already by loaning players to other clubs half way through the season.

This is one of many things that upset my sense of fair play.

 

Getting in loan players is open to all though where getting a £4million bung probably isn't.

[John Findlay]

1 minute ago, Ethan Hunt said:

The board positions are up for election. I don’t know if any of the current board are up for re-election. The ones that aren’t maybe don’t give a feck. They didn’t give a feck when they were in position, so I doubt they will when they are on the way out.

 

 

The boy Burrows at Motherwell is not daft. Distancing himself before the shit well and truly hits the fan.

No matter what the outcome is at arbitration. The entire SPFL board should be disbanded immediately with a new fairer  way FOR ALL CLUBS found for the governance of Scottish football.

PETER LAWELL  should be nowhere near it either.

[Jambo66]

3 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

The boy Burrows at Motherwell is not daft. Distancing himself before the shit well and truly hits the fan.

No matter what the outcome is at arbitration. The entire SPFL board should be disbanded immediately with a new fairer  way FOR ALL CLUBS found for the governance of Scottish football.

PETER LAWELL  should be nowhere near it either.

The governance of Scottish football should not be in the hands of the clubs at all. It is a bit like the future of our club where we will be fan owned, but not fan run.

Scottish football should be owned by the clubs, but run by people who have honesty and integrity and an intention to improve Scottish football.

Edited July 10, 2020 by Jambo66

[Zico]

9 minutes ago, martoon said:

 

He'll take his lead from .nut. They loons are bound to come up with some shite that justifies what the holy Hibees have done, whist simultaneously slating Hearts as immoral for signing Craig Gordon whilst wages are cut. 

 

And we haven't even made staff redundant like they have. 

A quick swatch on twitter suggests that according to the Lochenders, it’s all made up by The Sun. Although apparently the same newspaper is gospel when writing a negative story about us, whether factually accurate or not. 

[Ethan Hunt]

20 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

I very much doubt, but don't know, that it would be possible for a member of a company board to lobby for support for another member of the company (SPFL) in a dispute with yet another member of the company in a dispute with the actual company, and not be seen as acting for the company in his capacity as a board member. For one thing, the weight of probability would be like lead to puff pastry. 

I agree. Yet the Dunfermline Chairman - and SPFL board member - managed to get away with it when supposedly bullying - sorry having robust conversations with - Championship clubs prior to the vote on the first resolution. He said he was having those ‘robust conversations’ as the Dunfermline Chairman, rather than as a SPFL board member. Difficult to argue that when the robust conversations you are having were in relation to a decision you agreed to as a SPFL board member I’d have thought.

[Beast Boy]

12 minutes ago, Darkblue said:

 

Couldn't care less. We mock them for being soulless shitty club with no morals that drops its identity at the drop of a hat. Don't really care how they attempt to talk down the city's historic club.

That was my thinking too, but he was really insistent. Said something about your Mum too. It was all rather unsavoury.

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

No date yet for the commencement of festivities 

[doctor jambo]

10 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Getting in loan players is open to all though where getting a £4million bung probably isn't.

Quite, there is a big difference between loaning people players, and handing over cash to a competitor to scupper a rival.

[Darkblue]

1 minute ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

That was my thinking too, but he was really insistent. Said something about your Mum too. It was all rather unsavoury.

 

I enjoy our rivalry but I try to keep it good-natured.. Maybe because I'm in my 40s now. Don't know how you feel about Hibs but I don't see the point in 24/7 hatred towards rivals. Come derby day though it's a different story.

[Shanks]

9 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

The governance of Scottish football should not be in the hands of the clubs at all. It is a bit like the future of our club where we will be fan owned, but not fan run.

Scottish football should be owned by the clubs, but run by people who have honesty and integrity and an intention to improve Scottish football.

 

Exactly.  Asking clubs to vote on big issues is ridiculous,  we need someone in command that will make the big decisions that are best for the Scottish game as a whole - not individual clubs all voting for their own selfish needs. 

[Jamboelite]

3 minutes ago, Sir Gio said:

No date yet for the commencement of festivities 

Tick tock.

 

if there isnt a date soon or confirmation paperwork has been handed over then we are back to court.

 

This is gone so far beyond bizarre and as someone said we have spent the whole of the last 4 momths talking about this shit show than football.

[Cruyff]

11 minutes ago, Sir Gio said:

No date yet for the commencement of festivities 

They better get a move on or we'll be taking it back to Lord Clark

[Ethan Hunt]

35 minutes ago, Brave Hearts said:

Our players must undoubtedly be the favourites of Fraser Wishart.

 

Any time there is a threat to a Hearts players wages or contract conditions, then Wishart is immediately raising their case in the media and highlighting their position to our club management.

 

Immediate responses and supportive actions by your union against your employers is what all union members want from their union and its head spokesperson.

 

I feel sorry for the players of the other clubs as Wishart does not represent them with the vigour and rigour that he always represents our players with .....

Undoubtedly unfair prejudice against the players of other clubs. If I were one I’d be demanding to know why I pay my subs when all he is interested in is the welfare of Hearts players. He doesn’t even try to hide his bias towards Hearts players. Complete favouritism. Shocking.

[neilnunb]

13 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

Tick tock.

 

if there isnt a date soon or confirmation paperwork has been handed over then we are back to court.

 

This is gone so far beyond bizarre and as someone said we have spent the whole of the last 4 momths talking about this shit show than football.

 

That podcast today seemed to suggest the documents would need to be with us by close of play today.

 

If not...

 

💣

[JimmyCant]

2 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Exactly if we win it's a 13 team Premiership. It's the SPFL's problem to make that work. 

If we win it’s a 12 team premiership. It’s the SPFL’s problem to get Dundee Utd into the top league if they so choose. That would require a reconstruction vote.

[gator]

1 minute ago, JimmyCant said:

If we win it’s a 12 team premiership. It’s the SPFL’s problem to get Dundee Utd into the top league if they so choose. That would require a reconstruction vote.

The irony!

[jollyjams]

Wonder who will get the 1874 post 😀

[JimmyCant]

2 hours ago, Dazo said:

Can I ask why you think the C3 can legally and lawfully argue their case ? I completely disagree but base that on nothing other than my own thought process. To my mind our dispute is with the SPFL board over company law. I accept these clubs may be called as witnesses but actually working alongside the spfl against us ? I see no basis for this. 

Good point. Also, how can the C3 proceed with their case which has already been dismissed by the COS ? 

[Jambo66]

1 minute ago, JimmyCant said:

If we win it’s a 12 team premiership. It’s the SPFL’s problem to get Dundee Utd into the top league if they so choose. That would require a reconstruction vote.

Exactly. A reconstruction vote is one thing arbitration cannot force. 

If the Dundee vote is a no, then we are in the premiership and they are in the championship.

[Jammy T]

So, do we have an arbitration panel yet?

 

Thought not.

 

Hearts need to get this interdict sorted out. We are beyond “good of the game stuff” now.

[HMFC01]

Is it possible they could start the tribunal on a Saturday or Sunday?  I mean if it's all prepared there's no reason not to surely.

 

[JimmyCant]

2 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

Exactly. A reconstruction vote is one thing arbitration cannot force. 

If the Dundee vote is a no, then we are in the premiership and they are in the championship.

A reconstruction vote to get Dundee Utd into the top league would be very interesting. Then you’d tell what was really going on in previous votes.

[maroonlegions]

So any sign of those papers Lord Clark ORDERED the SPLF to produce??

 

What time is the close of play on them??