SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[graygo]

7 minutes ago, jackal said:

The 28 day rule is pointless unless everyone votes yes then apparently you cant change it , the results were given and then Dungdee found out they had the supposed vote even though they had technically voted. If everyone then decided to ask to have their votes returned after they knew the results whats the point or the vote results should not be given until 28days later. Its effectively voting once you know if it suits you or not and weighting the vote. On the other hand if everyone votes no do they have 28 days to change their mind.

Tbf the SPFL would muck up peoples requests to return votes. This is why I would have loved this going to CoS rather than arbitration so everyone can see the SPFL/SFA are useless. So many are just happy to accept the status quo just to make ends meet.

 

It's the "no" votes that are pointless.

 

It's a pretty common method of voting on a resolution, you put forward your motion and have 28 days to get the required number of "yes" votes. There is no need to vote "no", an abstention has the same effect as a "no" vote. Yes it allows for discussion and debate, sometimes robust, but that's the point of it. It gives the proposer the best opportunity to get their proposal passed. 

 

Hopefully the fact that the ballot paper asked for an accept/reject response screws them up.

[Mikey1874]

16 minutes ago, Fitba' broke my Heart said:

Very true, yet I'm sure Dundee Utd., Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers were confident that their case was sound.

 

Again that remains very curious.

 

Dundee United etc getting involved suggest they are not confident in SPFL. 

[Ethan Hunt]

34 minutes ago, Allowayjambo1874 said:

I have no idea if this will be debated at length but suspect the SPFL will argue that the rules state you have 28 days to put in your vote and that Dundee asked them to disregard the vote they had submitted. We all know there was coercion. We all know that the initial request was for vote to be put in by 1700 hours on the Friday. The SPFL may say that the deadline was just a request and that by default the rules should stand. I am only second guessing what argument they are going to use. It absolutely stinks but from a ‘rules are rules’ perspective this may be where they head with this.

 

I am just trying to get my head round what their argument will be in trying to defend the overall decision.

There would be a massive amount of having your cake and eating if the SPFL try to claim the clubs had 28 days. McLennan admitted the normal 28 days was not possible as per the bit in bold below. The SPFL requested votes be submitted by 1700 hours on Good Friday. Every club - with the exception of one whose vote didn’t matter as the resolution had been passed in their division albeit I believe they resent their vote 15 minutes later - had submitted their vote by the 1700 hour deadline. The SPFL requested a specific deadline.with the votes cast by 1700 hours the resolution had been rejected. McLennan’s own words will come back to haunt him if they try to argue the 28 days.

 

What needs to be robustly discussed is - having made part of the urgency to end the leagues the financial crisis clubs were facing and how they could start to go under - how have we arrived at a stage more than 12 weeks after the vote was declared passed, with no clubs actually going under. Are the SPFL seriously going to argue that the £2k Forfar (I think it was their Chairman who quoted that) received in prize money 12 weeks ago is what saved them from going under? 

 

The SPFL acted too quickly. Ultimately it has been the Governments furlough scheme, coupled with fans raising money that has saved a lot of clubs from going under. Forfar’s £2k from the SPFL is long gone. 

 

The SPFL rushes the whole thing as they did not want the league null and void. End of story.

 

https://www.expressandstar.com/sport/uk-sports/2020/04/29/a-closer-look-at-the-spfl-boards-approach-to-ending-the-season/

 

Did he have any regrets?

 

MacLennan claimed the Dundee voting situation was not of the SPFL board’s making. But he admitted they should have given clubs into the following week to vote after issuing the resolution on Wednesday and asking them to vote by 5pm on Friday. He added that waiting the normal 28 days for votes was not possible because the board judged clubs would face a financial crisis and “start to go under”, although clubs were told they could take 28 days. MacLennan also admitted they should have been quicker to express concern and regret to relegated Partick Thistle and Stranraer.

[graygo]

9 minutes ago, Jambo61 said:

Surely if they argue that 28 days was the actual cut off and votes could be changed until then they had no right to call any result for 28 days until finalised?

 

They can call the vote as soon as they have the required number of yes votes, these can't be changed so the result won't change.

[tightrope]

55 minutes ago, Allowayjambo1874 said:

I have no idea if this will be debated at length but suspect the SPFL will argue that the rules state you have 28 days to put in your vote and that Dundee asked them to disregard the vote they had submitted. We all know there was coercion. We all know that the initial request was for vote to be put in by 1700 hours on the Friday. The SPFL may say that the deadline was just a request and that by default the rules should stand. I am only second guessing what argument they are going to use. It absolutely stinks but from a ‘rules are rules’ perspective this may be where they head with this.

 

I am just trying to get my head round what their argument will be in trying to defend the overall decision.

They certainly shouldn't be announcing results until everyone has voted, also if they are accepting changes after 5pm, then everyone should be afforded the same courtesy until the 28 days are up.

[graygo]

Decent summary of where we are from the Hootsmon for a change.

 

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/hearts/arbitration-process-set-hearts-and-partick-thistle-meet-spfl-again-2910256

[graygo]

6 minutes ago, tightrope said:

They certainly shouldn't be announcing results until everyone has voted, also if they are accepting changes after 5pm, then everyone should be afforded the same courtesy until the 28 days are up.

 

Everyone who voted "no" could change their vote before the 28 days were up, what difference would that make?

The rules stipulate that a "yes" vote can't be changed.

[Ethan Hunt]

30 minutes ago, TheBigO said:

My take on the Dundee vote, which I stress again is only a part of our case (the resolution in itself being full of half truths and omissions) :

 

The SPFL maintain their legal counsel advised Dundee could change a no to a yes.

 

This was lazy counsel. It seems quite unprecedented a vote be laid out like this. He's really meant that you can't change a yes. No mention of a no. Very different things.

 

But as things have moved on they've had to bunker down on that opinion and it is flimsy at best.

 

Basically in my view they got a "yeh, seems fine" rather than a thoroughly investigated opinion.

 

It's shoddy, rushed and on assumption of no scrutiny, like everything the SPFL have done for a long long time. That arrogance is about to bite them hard.

 

Yummy.

 

I’ve highlighted it before but worth repeating, the voting slip was adopt or reject and not yes and no. A subtle but very important difference when you look up the definitions of the words no and reject.

[DETTY29]

@Ethan Hunt

 

Do you know if there are any precedents / test cases in law where members have changed their votes after having been submitted and were permitted to do so?

 

If not, and the Dundee vote is key for the way the Arbitration Panel reasons it's  ultimate decision, then surely that would be a permissible reason for the 'loser' to go back to the Court of Session on the basis of a flawed judgement, or a judgement not within the scope of the Arbitration Panel?

 

Lord Clark was clear in his summary and the draconian 'oot the gemme' punishment in that you can have your rules if you want, but they must be aligned to the law of the land.

[Mikey1874]

2 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Everyone who voted "no" could change their vote before the 28 days were up, what difference would that make?

The rules stipulate that a "yes" vote can't be changed.

 

It's a fair point.

 

You don't normally ask for Yes or No votes. You simply ask for Resolution to be approved. 

 

SPFL might have messed up. Partick QC advised the Resolution failed because they asked for Yes and No votes and Dundee voted No. 

[graygo]

15 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

It's a fair point.

 

You don't normally ask for Yes or No votes. You simply ask for Resolution to be approved. 

 

SPFL might have messed up. Partick QC advised the Resolution failed because they asked for Yes and No votes and Dundee voted No. 

 

Agreed, I said that a few posts ago. They asked for an adopt/reject answer.

Edited July 11, 2020 by graygo

[Ethan Hunt]

6 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

It's a fair point.

 

You don't normally ask for Yes or No votes. You simply ask for Resolution to be approved. 

 

SPFL might have messed up. Partick QC advised the Resolution failed because they asked for Yes and No votes and Dundee voted No. 

The voting slip was adopt or reject and Dundee voted reject

 

 

Edited July 11, 2020 by Ethan Hunt

[Ethan Hunt]

10 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

@Ethan Hunt

 

Do you know if there are any precedents / test cases in law where members have changed their votes after having been submitted and were permitted to do so?

 

If not, and the Dundee vote is key for the way the Arbitration Panel reasons it's  ultimate decision, then surely that would be a permissible reason for the 'loser' to go back to the Court of Session on the basis of a flawed judgement, or a judgement not within the scope of the Arbitration Panel?

 

Lord Clark was clear in his summary and the draconian 'oot the gemme' punishment in that you can have your rules if you want, but they must be aligned to the law of the land.

I’ve not spent a lot of time looking to be honest. I’ll multi task while listening to people slaver pish on Sportsound. 

[7628mm]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

 

It was Appendix 3 of the Rangers dossier, 15 pages of notes and 11 pages of the "written resolution" itself.

 

Warning - it is an OCR conversion from page images so there are formatting and spelling errors. The document claims legal privilege, although it was conceded in the CoS that it is already in the public domain, so that should not be an issue.

2020-04-08 TRFC Dossier App 3 (Briefing paper).docx 539.14 kB · 33 downloads

 

Pedant here

FF I would personally not take any of the document posted seriously purely for the fact that it is in Word format and as such could have been and still can be modified to suit any particular agenda by anyone and reposted.

I would fully expect that this word document would not be admissible in any court of law or even with the arbitration panel.

[AlimOzturk]

47 minutes ago, TypoonJambo said:

Bearing in mind the absolute stupidity of the situation we, scottish football as a whole, find ourself in. Then, taking into account  the various other options availble and the short shrift they were given and add in the complete lack of guidance and control shown by our governing bodies, it leads to the suspicion that this could all be part of a bigger plan to bring about the collapse of the scottish leagues. Its important to then consider the silence from Celtic and the very real fact that the ultimate puppetmaster, Peter Lawell, a name seldom brought up in any media debate, is the man masterminding all this. 

I genuinely believe theres something bigger, more devious and corrupt going on . A lot of people are being played here. 

Could be truth in this. Mauve Lawell sees this as opportunity to merge the Scottish and English leagues and finally realise his dream of Celtic being part the English system. Who knows

[DETTY29]

2 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

I’ve not spent a lot of time looking to be honest. I’ll multi task while listening to people slaver pish on Sportsound. 

Cheers,

 

I recall during the preliminary hearing Thomson saying that we would be challenging the legitimacy of the Dundee vote but neither Boreland providing a case reference to argue for dismissal of our petition or Thomson to back up our argument. 

 

Perhaps the preliminary hearing wasn't the place to do this albeit other cases were mentioned for other arguments notably around arbitration.    

[TheBigO]

18 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

I’ve highlighted it before but worth repeating, the voting slip was adopt or reject and not yes and no. A subtle but very important difference when you look up the definitions of the words no and reject.

Which kinda adds to my theory of a half-arsed opinion from their counsel on the issue back at the time

[graygo]

3 minutes ago, 7628mm said:

 

Pedant here

FF I would personally not take any of the document posted seriously purely for the fact that it is in Word format and as such could have been and still can be modified to suit any particular agenda by anyone and reposted.

I would fully expect that this word document would not be admissible in any court of law or even with the arbitration panel.

 

I also wondered why anyone needed to convert it, OCR is used primarily so that you can change it.

[David Black]

As Ethan Hunt has pointed out, there is quite a significant difference in the definition of No as opposed to Reject. I was quite surprised by that.

[Jammy T]

8 hours ago, bazman said:

It's all confidential so we won't know who is on the panel

Ffs are you all bipolar? We will find out at the very least that we have a tribunal  - I don’t understand why how many of you are so stupid

[Ethan Hunt]

18 minutes ago, 7628mm said:

 

Pedant here

FF I would personally not take any of the document posted seriously purely for the fact that it is in Word format and as such could have been and still can be modified to suit any particular agenda by anyone and reposted.

I would fully expect that this word document would not be admissible in any court of law or even with the arbitration panel.

Probably just as well FF is not providing  the documentary evidence to the court/arbitration tribunal then so you can stand easy.

Edited July 11, 2020 by Ethan Hunt

[1874robbo]

12 minutes ago, Jammy T said:

Ffs are you all bipolar? We will find out at the very least that we have a tribunal  - I don’t understand why how many of you are so stupid

You posted the same thing 9 hours ago.

whats the matter? Did nobody bite.

 

 

[Whatever]

12 minutes ago, Jammy T said:

Ffs are you all bipolar? We will find out at the very least that we have a tribunal  - I don’t understand why how many of you are so stupid

Such an angry, weird individual.

[Ethan Hunt]

8 minutes ago, David Black said:

As Ethan Hunt has pointed out, there is quite a significant difference in the definition of No as opposed to Reject. I was quite surprised by that.

Yeah. And when you look at the definition of reject, then see the documentary evidence provided in the SPFL QC’s notes in the Rangers dossier where he stated that Doncaster is talking to Nelms (after it has been discovered that Dundee’s vote has been ‘lost’) about reconstruction if the resolution is passed. Then you look at McLennan stating that they were in discussion with Dundee over the weekend. Then you look at what Nelms was doing negotiating payments to PT and Stranraer and  friendlies with “big hitters” it is clear that the SPFL were attempting to sort what Nelms considered inadequate, unacceptable, or faulty, about the resolution. The problem for the SPFL is that it meant that Nelms was effectively voting on a different resolution to everyone else. They’ll come unstuck big time with that.

 

reject

verb

/rɪˈdʒɛkt/

1. dismiss as inadequate, unacceptable, or faulty.

[Cruyff]

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

8 minutes ago, Whatever said:

Such an angry, weird individual.

 

He's not really but he does seem overly exercised about this point. 

[David McCaig]

Can the voting slip be classed as the agreement?

 

You either agree to adopt the resolution or you agree to reject the resolution? Whichever way you signify your agreement is irrevocable.

 

Therefore, after Dundee's vote was cast... The clubs agreed to reject the resolution put forward by the SPFL Board

 

 

[Footballfirst]

38 minutes ago, 7628mm said:

 

Pedant here

FF I would personally not take any of the document posted seriously purely for the fact that it is in Word format and as such could have been and still can be modified to suit any particular agenda by anyone and reposted.

I would fully expect that this word document would not be admissible in any court of law or even with the arbitration panel.

 

33 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

I also wondered why anyone needed to convert it, OCR is used primarily so that you can change it.

 

I have a PDF copy of the dossier, or should I say I have a copy that came in three files. The files are image based and are approx 8mb, 16mb and 18mb, so are far too big to post on JKB. I, personally, ran them through an OCR tool in order to create word files.  The word files are small enough to be posted here and it also allow you to copy and paste sections without the hassle of creating further image files. Being text based also allows you to search for something.

 

I am not seeking for it to be used in a court of law. I'm only trying to share the information in the easiest possible way.

Edited July 11, 2020 by Footballfirst

[kila]

2 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I have a PDF copy of the dossier, or should I say I have a copy that came in three files. The files are image based and are approx 8mb, 16mb and 18mb, so are far too big to post on JKB. I, personally, ran them through an OCR tool in order to create word files.  The word files are small enough to be posted here and it also allow you to copy and paste sections without the hassle of creating further image files, and being text based, allows you to search for something.

 

I am not seeking for it to be used in a court of law. I'm only trying to share the information in the easiest possible way.

 

Can you not just resize the images to a lower resolution so they're  <1MB and will be uploadable? The OCR scan is helpful though so posting the original source images plus an OCR version would be good.

 

[upgotheheads]

There were two conversations weren't there? One with Aberdeen when they were told that there was no need for them to vote because there were already enough votes to carry the motion, which as I understand it took place around 5pm when the SPFL claimed to still not have received the Dundee vote for rejection, although it was 'hiding' in the system somewhere. 

 

If it was not so absurd you might think that Doncaster was manipulating the votes to get the result he and Celtic wanted.

  

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

What are we fighting about?

[No longer active]

Interesting that Dundee are obviously in difficulty financially - how many clubs would it need to go bust to make League 2 pointless and force reconstruction ? 
 

I reckon only 3, or maybe 5 if Kelty and Brora invited in

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

1 minute ago, upgotheheads said:

There were two conversations weren't there? One with Aberdeen when they were told that there was no need for them to vote because there were already enough votes to carry the motion, which as I understand it took place around 5pm when the SPFL claimed to still not have received the Dundee vote for rejection, although it was 'hiding' in the system somewhere. 

 

If it was not so absurd you might think that Doncaster was manipulating the votes to get the result he and Celtic wanted.

  

Premier outcome was known but doesn't excuse the need to influence 

[Bazzas right boot]

2 hours ago, gashauskis9 said:

It’s the million dollar question.  The play offs, in themselves, are dictated by the end standings in the league rather than part of the domestic fixtures.  The rules have been bent here and nobody seems to want to challenge this particular decision, or the fact that a board member (Brechin bloke) had an absolute conflict of interest in that decision.  
 

Even down south, where they ended leagues 1 and 2, play offs are taking place as normal.  

 

Well done for deciphering that jibbar jabber I typed.

But, yes I agree 100%.

If you end the league you do it 100%, although still unfair imo, it is more logical than doing it the pick n' mix way we seem to have gone down. 

Just a shambles all round. 

 

[upgotheheads]

1 minute ago, Sir Gio said:

Premier outcome was known but doesn't excuse the need to influence 

 

I though they only needed two rejections from the SPFL to scupper the deal, and if they didn't know the Dundee vote then the Aberdeen vote might still have been crucial. I could easily be wrong on the numbers.

[graygo]

11 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

 

I have a PDF copy of the dossier, or should I say I have a copy that came in three files. The files are image based and are approx 8mb, 16mb and 18mb, so are far too big to post on JKB. I, personally, ran them through an OCR tool in order to create word files.  The word files are small enough to be posted here and it also allow you to copy and paste sections without the hassle of creating further image files. Being text based also allows you to search for something.

 

I am not seeking for it to be used in a court of law. I'm only trying to share the information in the easiest possible way.

 

Sorry FF, didn't know it was you who had converted it. 👍

[Mikey1874]

3 minutes ago, Sir Gio said:

Premier outcome was known but doesn't excuse the need to influence 

 

The Aberdeen situation is still curious.

 

It led to the 'unanimous agreement to end Premiership' meeting that led to the 'Hearts voted to end season' controversy. 

 

Confusion as to whether SPFL agreed to Dave Cormack asking for further consultation before ending Premiership. 

[Bazzas right boot]

1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Again that remains very curious.

 

Dundee United etc getting involved suggest they are not confident in SPFL. 

 

They were named in the original petition from us, they were forced to get involved. 

[graygo]

8 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

There were two conversations weren't there? One with Aberdeen when they were told that there was no need for them to vote because there were already enough votes to carry the motion, which as I understand it took place around 5pm when the SPFL claimed to still not have received the Dundee vote for rejection, although it was 'hiding' in the system somewhere. 

 

If it was not so absurd you might think that Doncaster was manipulating the votes to get the result he and Celtic wanted.

  

 

That Aberdeen vote didn't matter if the premiership teams had voted for the resolution, it wasn't in any way effected by the Dundee vote.

Why they would then vote for the resolution is anyone's guess.

[graygo]

4 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

 

I though they only needed two rejections from the SPFL to scupper the deal, and if they didn't know the Dundee vote then the Aberdeen vote might still have been crucial. I could easily be wrong on the numbers.

 

Dundee are a championship side. 🥺

[Footballfirst]

6 minutes ago, kila said:

 

Can you not just resize the images to a lower resolution so they're  <1MB and will be uploadable? The OCR scan is helpful though so posting the original source images plus an OCR version would be good.

 

That's not really practical. Some of the pages are poor quality with shadows or blurring.

 

Here's an example single page of reasonable quality (and interesting content)

 

[Mikey1874]

2 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

They were named in the original petition from us, they were forced to get involved. 

 

Not true.

 

See Hearts / Partick statement from yesterday.

 

https://www.heartsfc.co.uk/news/article/joint-club-statement-1-2-3

[upgotheheads]

Just now, graygo said:

 

That Aberdeen vote didn't matter if the premiership teams had voted for the resolution, it wasn't in any way effected by the Dundee vote.

Why they would then vote for the resolution is anyone's guess.

 

OK, but the point I'm trying to make is that Doncaster claimed that the Dundee vote had not been received because it had been sent in the wrong format and rejected, or somesuch. Doncaster therefor must have though it could still be in the balance when he talked to Aberdeen, if two votes were enough to scupper it of course.

[Bazzas right boot]

2 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Not true.

 

See Hearts / Partick statement from yesterday.

 

https://www.heartsfc.co.uk/news/article/joint-club-statement-1-2-3

 

It is true, they were named in out petition. 

Says in the first line you linked. 

 

The were named as it could directly effect them. 

Therefor they got involved, as we named them. 

[Bazzas right boot]

7 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

That Aberdeen vote didn't matter if the premiership teams had voted for the resolution, it wasn't in any way effected by the Dundee vote.

Why they would then vote for the resolution is anyone's guess.

 

Yip, that line of reasoning Dundee taken on the change of their vote is bizarre. 

 

[DETTY29]

6 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

 

OK, but the point I'm trying to make is that Doncaster claimed that the Dundee vote had not been received because it had been sent in the wrong format and rejected, or somesuch. Doncaster therefor must have though it could still be in the balance when he talked to Aberdeen, if two votes were enough to scupper it of course.

Wasn't it...

 

Doncaster advised Aberdeen that he had the 9 'adopt' votes he needed from the Premiership so they way he voted didn't matter however, Cormack is also said to have been told the resolution was going to fail anyway as he was assured there was a resolution failing block within the Championship.   Due to the double edged sword, it didn't matter which way he voted, so he changed his mind to a 'yes'

Edited July 11, 2020 by DETTY29

[upgotheheads]

10 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Dundee are a championship side. 🥺

 

Which is the point I always forget, thanks for reminding me. So the the SPFL could stand an 11-1 vote (if the other leagues vote in the correct proportions)

 

So now I'm wondering why the Dundee vote was considered crucial, and it appears that the whole thing turned on Dundee changing their vote from reject to accept.

 

 FFS what's going on?

Edited July 11, 2020 by upgotheheads

[manaliveits105]

2 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

Wasn't it...

 

Doncaster advised Aberdeen that he had the 9 'adopt' votes he needed from the Premiership so they way he voted didn't matter however, Cormack is also said to have been told the resolution was going to fail anyway as he was assured there was a resolution failing block within the Championship and due to the double edged sword, it didn't matter which way he voted, so he changed his mind to a 'yes'

and in a nutshell there we have the intelligence of people like this Abergreen buffoon running Scottish clubs 

Im voting No

you dont have to 

OK Im voting Yes

[Ethan Hunt]

1 hour ago, graygo said:

 

I also wondered why anyone needed to convert it, OCR is used primarily so that you can change it.

@Footballfirst has stated previously in this thread that he converts the documents into that format to make it easy for people to copy and paste from when discussing its content in here. Nothing sinister involved.

[DETTY29]

17 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

and in a nutshell there we have the intelligence of people like this Abergreen buffoon running Scottish clubs 

Im voting No

you dont have to 

OK Im voting Yes

He might have as well have said

 

'I decided by playing stones, scissors, paper with Derek McInnes, via Zoom of course'

Edited July 11, 2020 by DETTY29