SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[graygo]

13 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.

 

I don't think you understand how the voting process works mate, the premiership vote was counted separate from the championship vote, they both had to pass independently 

[upgotheheads]

1 minute ago, graygo said:

 

I don't think you understand how the voting process works mate, the premiership vote was counted separate from the championship vote, they both had to pass independently 

👍

[kila]

12 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

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. 

 

You said they were forced to get involved by being named in the petition 🤷‍♂️

 

They weren't forced. It wasn't like they were summoned.

[Neon]

2 hours 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 · 54 downloads

Thanks for that FF.

 

Not quite sure how fourth place gets more than third - Just skimmed the document so there may be something relating to that.

[graygo]

10 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

 

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?

 

The premiership vote had passed.

The bottom 2 leagues vote had passed.

The Dundee vote was crucial in getting the championship vote passed, if they had voted reject then the whole motion would have failed.

[graygo]

5 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

@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.

 

Yes, he's explained that it was him who converted it and why, I've apologised.

[Ethan Hunt]

29 minutes ago, Sir Gio said:

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

Especially when the influence that was exerted helped take the percentage in favour to the endlessly repeated 81%, even though it only actually passed by one vote, one extremely dodgy vote.

[upgotheheads]

Just now, graygo said:

 

The premiership vote had passed.

The bottom 2 leagues vote had passed.

The Dundee vote was crucial in getting the championship vote passed, if they had voted reject then the whole motion would have failed.

 

Ta. So that makes more sense of the Aberdeen conversation and makes the Dundee change of vote all the more suspicious. 

[graygo]

3 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

 

Ta. So that makes more sense of the Aberdeen conversation and makes the Dundee change of vote all the more suspicious. 

 

Bingo. 👍

[Footballfirst]

Just an observation from the two document extracts I have posted today.

 

The Briefing note to clubs, only makes mention of costs associated with broadcasting contracts in the context of voiding the season.  However, the second extract is part of the QC's advice to the SPFL Board, where he states that he couldn't exclude a claim for "unjustified enrichment" for games not played/broadcast. He also notes that the SPFL was already on notice of a risk of a claim should games not be played.

 

That potential liability was not communicated to the clubs, therefore the arbitration panel could consider it to be a serious omission from the resolution.

[Ethan Hunt]

2 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Yes, he's explained that it was him who converted it and why, I've apologised.

I didn’t see his response prior to me posting, apologies. In fairness to FF he has explained the reason he converts the documents a few times on this thread.

[GorgieRules22]

1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

Just an observation from the two document extracts I have posted today.

 

The Briefing note to clubs, only makes mention of costs associated with broadcasting contracts in the context of voiding the season.  However, the second extract is part of the QC's advice to the SPFL Board, where he states that he couldn't exclude a claim for "unjustified enrichment" for games not played/broadcast. He also notes that the SPFL was already on notice of a risk of a claim should games not be played.

 

That potential liability was not communicated to the clubs, therefore the arbitration panel could consider it to be a serious omission from the resolution.

Encouraging.

 

Do you reckon things are looking favourable for us and Thistle heading into the arbitration ?

[Lone Striker]

Without posting all of Ethan's post at the top of this page, this extract comment (3rd party reporting presumably) is rather bizarre -

 

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

 

 

CONCERN, eh ?      What an admission !!   That he actually admits regret over  not  making an empty public statement  about being concerned  over the damage being done to Thistle & Stranraer (no mention of Hearts .....hmm ... bit of a giveaway there)  is beyond astonishing.   

 

They knew fine well when they formulated the resolution just who would be doomed to enforced relegation if it passed.   What CONCERN did they have or show at that point ?    Can we conclude that these 2 clubs were seen as just collateral damage in the plot to avoid a potential n&v decision by UEFA .... with the added "bonus" of  getting it right up these Edinburgh "mini-huns" and the old wifey that owns them ?

 

Reading stuff like this gets my blood boiling.....

[Footballfirst]

Just now, GorgieRules22 said:

Encouraging.

 

Do you reckon things are looking favourable for us and Thistle heading into the arbitration ?

I'm still on the glass half empty side. 

 

There are arguments to be made that favour both sides, so I wouldn't like to guess how it will play out.

[Boof]

2 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

Especially when the influence that was exerted helped take the percentage in favour to the endlessly repeated 81%, even though it only actually passed by one vote, one extremely dodgy vote.

 

So Aberdeen's 1/42 vote would have taken the percentage below 80%. If they had voted no, as Cormack contends, there would have been 33 clubs in favour of adopting the resolution for an overall total of 78.6%

 

Hold on, though...how many of those 33 clubs voted FOR the resolution  under threat of having to wait a significant length of time for their end-of-season cash?

 

How many of those clubs voting FOR the resolution had a vested interest - other than end-of-season money - for that vote?

 

I'm thinking, at least, 9th, 10th and 11th in the Premiership, Motherwell to secure 3rd, Aberdeen (perhaps on the promise of the Cup winners' Euro spot?), Hibs to stick it up the Yams, the 4 teams being awarded their 0.79 of a title (Sellik + Calpol3)...how long can this list be?

[Bazzas right boot]

7 minutes ago, kila said:

 

You said they were forced to get involved by being named in the petition 🤷‍♂️

 

They weren't forced. It wasn't like they were summoned.

 

They never got themselves involved  for the banter tho. We named them.

. 

Either way it's nothing to do with how they feel about the SPFL defence being weak or otherwise as was my original comment. 

 

Compelled to get involved would be a better turn of phrase. Force is incorrect. 

 

We named them as it could directly affect them, they got involved as anyone would imo. 

 

Silly thing to argue about tho. 

The important thing is we are directly against the SPFL and not individual clubs like the media are trying to make out. 

[Footballfirst]

1 minute ago, Boof said:

 

So Aberdeen's 1/42 vote would have taken the percentage below 80%. If they had voted no, as Cormack contends, there would have been 33 clubs in favour of adopting the resolution for an overall total of 78.6%

 

Hold on, though...how many of those 33 clubs voted FOR the resolution  under threat of having to wait a significant length of time for their end-of-season cash?

 

How many of those clubs voting FOR the resolution had a vested interest - other than end-of-season money - for that vote?

 

I'm thinking, at least, 9th, 10th and 11th in the Premiership, Motherwell to secure 3rd, Aberdeen (perhaps on the promise of the Cup winners' Euro spot?), Hibs to stick it up the Yams, the 4 teams being awarded their 0.79 of a title (Sellik + Calpol3)...how long can this list be?

The way the briefing note to clubs presents it, was to vote "yes" and get cash immediately, or wait until the end of August.

[graygo]

7 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

I didn’t see his response prior to me posting, apologies. In fairness to FF he has explained the reason he converts the documents a few times on this thread.

 

I'm not apologising for not reading every fecking post. 😀

[Mikey1874]

2 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

They never got themselves involved  for the banter tho. We named them.

. 

Either way it's nothing to do with how they feel about the SPFL defence being weak or otherwise as was my original comment. 

 

Compelled to get involved would be a better turn of phrase. Force is incorrect. 

 

We named them as it could directly affect them, they got involved as anyone would imo. 

 

Silly thing to argue about tho. 

The important thing is we are directly against the SPFL and not individual clubs like the media are trying to make out. 

 

No need for them to get involved.

 

Though probably worth it for giving the motive for the epic fundraiser walk. 

 

Won't help them stop their promotion. There is nothing they can say that can stop that should the tribunal so decide. 

 

They are better waiting and taking separate action then. 

Edited July 11, 2020 by Mikey1874

[Bazzas right boot]

Just now, Mikey1874 said:

 

No need for them to get involved.

 

Though probably worth it for giving the motive for the epic fundraiser walk. 

 

Won't help them stop their promotion. 

 

They are better waiting and taking separate action then. 

 

After a think, I think you may have had point. 

 

They might have not been confident that the SPFL wouldn't "have hung them out to dry!" 

😂

[Lone Striker]

36 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

Correct Mikey.        I just wish they hadn't included the line   "However, encouraging clubs to fund anyone’s costs in this process could create further division."   

 

It sounds a bit sloppy and unnecessary.     The statement would have been better without it (imo)

 

 

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

After a think, I think you may have had point. 

 

They might have not been confident that the SPFL wouldn't "have hung them out to dry!" 

😂

 

That is an interesting question.

 

We might find out when the dust settles. 

[Ethan Hunt]

33 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

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)

 

That is indeed very interesting content.

 

One thing that has constantly grated on me throughout this debacle is Doncaster representing the SPFL QC’s opinion as fact, rather than one QC’s legal opinion. Doncaster has repeatedly been heard and/or quoted telling clubs they were wrong about how payments could be made, about TV deal payback money, and that there was no other way to end the league, etc. None of that is actually fact. It is all opinion, and that opinion, whether the SPFL boards, or their QC’s, is what will ultimately be under scrutiny at arbitration. Can you trust that an organisation that can’t even agree minutes of previous board meeting before commencing a new board meeting will have done everything by the book? Doubt it.

[Taffin]

It would be good if people could read (or search the thread) as the same things just get posted over and over making it harder to follow new information or opinions.

 

I appreciate there's a lot of posts but there'd be a significant amount less if people didn't go over the same ground and ask the same questions every day.

[John Findlay]

16 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Without posting all of Ethan's post at the top of this page, this extract comment (3rd party reporting presumably) is rather bizarre -

 

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

 

 

CONCERN, eh ?      What an admission !!   That he actually admits regret over  not  making an empty public statement  about being concerned  over the damage being done to Thistle & Stranraer (no mention of Hearts .....hmm ... bit of a giveaway there)  is beyond astonishing.   

 

They knew fine well when they formulated the resolution just who would be doomed to enforced relegation if it passed.   What CONCERN did they have or show at that point ?    Can we conclude that these 2 clubs were seen as just collateral damage in the plot to avoid a potential n&v decision by UEFA .... with the added "bonus" of  getting it right up these Edinburgh "mini-huns" and the old wifey that owns them ?

 

Reading stuff like this gets my blood boiling.....

Hearts were not expelled at this point, hence why the are not mentioned.

The resolution was to call all leagues except the top league. Top league being called later by the SPFL board.

Edited July 11, 2020 by John Findlay

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, John Findlay said:

Hearts were not relegated at this point, hence why the are not mentioned.

The resolution was to call all leagues except the top league. Top league being called later by the SPFL board.

 

But the Premiership ending was from the Resolution vote. 

[Boof]

12 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The way the briefing note to clubs presents it, was to vote "yes" and get cash immediately, or wait until the end of August.

 

But wasn't it the Forfar guy who admitted it amounted to a few thousand? FFS that would be in James Anderson's shrapnel jar after a few nights on the skite! But hey - they'll get a few more PT fans through their gates, eh? Wouldn't be counting those chickens Mr Forfar.

[John Findlay]

Just now, Mikey1874 said:

 

But the Premiership ending was from the Resolution vote. 

No the resolution was to give the board authority to call the top league at a later date. Which they duly did, by saying it was unanimously agreed by the top league clubs. Which was untrue as Hearts and Sevco opposed.

[Lone Striker]

2 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Hearts were not relegated at this point, hence why the are not mentioned.

The resolution was to call all leagues except the top league. Top league being called later by the SPFL board.

That's true John - but the principle behind the resolution was almost certain to be followed by the SPFL board once they were given the power to end the Premiership without further consultation.    It's rather hard to believe that  they weren't aware of which club was sitting bottom of the  Premiership league table when formulating the resolution. 

[lost in space]

30 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

I'm not apologising for not reading every fecking post. 😀

Bloody part-timer!!

 

😊

[Bazzas right boot]

5 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

That's true John - but the principle behind the resolution was almost certain to be followed by the SPFL board once they were given the power to end the Premiership without further consultation.    It's rather hard to believe that  they weren't aware of which club was sitting bottom of the  Premiership league table when formulating the resolution. 

 

This gets me as well. 

 

By deciding the other 3 league's and relegating teams officially, reconstruction was dead there. 

 

Not calling the top league with the pretence of league reconstruction then seems obsolete as reconstruction would have overturned the original solution as by default it effects the relegated clubs that were relegated by the resolution in the first place. 

 

Surley if league reconstruction was remotely serious nothing would have been called at that early stage. 

 

It's a ridiculous turn of events that make no sense in any practical way. 

 

Not that any of that is illegal, it's just highlights what a shambles of an  organisation and the processes were in the first place, even if legitimate 

[The Wrinkly Ninja]

1 hour 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

 

Are you asking if people have bipolar disorder?

 

Poor choice of insult if so!

[Bull's-eye]

1 hour ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

What are we fighting about?

 

Shut it yoooooo.

[HMFC01]

Robbie Neilson on Sportsound today.  O Donnell as well, ex kilmarnock

Edited July 11, 2020 by HMFC01

[kila]

Tune into Sportsound here:

 

https://www.radio.net/s/bbcradioscotland

 

[Mikey1874]

 

21 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

No the resolution was to give the board authority to call the top league at a later date. Which they duly did, by saying it was unanimously agreed by the top league clubs. Which was untrue as Hearts and Sevco opposed.

 

Resolution vote was the key factor in Premiership ending. 

 

Just rubber stamped afterwards. 

[SectionDJambo]

1 minute ago, HMFC01 said:

Robbie Neilson on Sportsound today.

Have they had a breakout of neutrality, or just decided that maybe they better look more balanced in their approach? 

Rather like if Willie Collum gave us a late penalty against Celtic, after sending off 3 Hearts players, giving them a couple of dodgy penalties and we're 5-0 down.

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, SectionDJambo said:

Have they had a breakout of neutrality, or just decided that maybe they better look more balanced in their approach? 

Rather like if Willie Collum gave us a late penalty against Celtic, after sending off 3 Hearts players, giving them a couple of dodgy penalties and we're 5-0 down.

 

Gone back to covering the actual football. 

[Cruyff]

Richard Gordon is an utter helmet of a man. 

[Horatio Caine]

Just now, Cruyff said:

Richard Gordon is an utter helmet of a man. 

He seems to have recovered his arrogance having been put in his box last week.

[Tennant's 6's]

1 minute ago, Cruyff said:

Richard Gordon is an utter helmet of a man. 

He truly does know how to infuriate even the most mild mannered  Hearts fan.

 

Cant stand that prick

[Cruyff]

Just now, Horatio Caine said:

He seems to have recovered his arrogance having been put in his box last week.

He can't help himself, he needs to get in his weekly snipe shot at us.

[tcjambo]

"Pot and kettle black" comment right out of order

[DETTY29]

Avoiding the 'against the rules' question....

[Horatio Caine]

1 minute ago, tcjambo said:

"Pot and kettle black" comment right out of order

Yep.  First comment he makes.

[Whatever]

Be productive. If you think he’s lacking neutrality then make a complaint.

 

Or be like me and not listen to the *****.

[Cruyff]

Robbie on now. 

[Don Dan]

Biased Richard Gordon straight into us. 

[Cruyff]

Hearts boys still on furlough. Robbie can't send them training programmes because we'd be breaking the law. 

 

[Don Dan]

Robbie saying we can’t do anything with the players. Thanks to the SPFL which must be a restriction of trade not allowing us to train. 

Edited July 11, 2020 by Dannie Boy