Jump to content

SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )


Heres Rixxy

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 93.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mikey1874

    2099

  • Pasquale for King

    1723

  • Ethan Hunt

    1598

  • Beast Boy

    1415

1 minute ago, mitch41 said:

The SFA and SPFL have offices at Hampden have they not. They will be best buddies and Doncaster and his committee will be sharing meals and drinks with the SFA lot. They will be working together to stop Hearts & Partick Th. rocking their boat and showing them up for the self interest that they want to protect  their cushy jobs that they enjoy.

doncaster is on both boards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heartsofgold
8 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

SF A obviously don't like this new look arbitration. 

That’s exactly my thought. They thought the SFA board would control the arbitration panel and are not shitting bricks that they have no input or influence on the decision that the said panel makes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

This has Mulraney's paws all over this.

 

 

 

Does he need to approve it.

 

Or does Compliance Officer raise these herself on her own. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

How come DU, RR and CV as they petitioned directly against us, where we went against the SPFL and NOT a member club nor the SFA

And are courting financial support likely outside of SPFL rules - and the clubs who have pledged support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, loveofthegame said:

 

I genuinely believe there could be legs in this. Dirty cheat is putting it lightly.


Maybe he’s been a bit over exuberant recently? It happens... 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horatio Caine
Just now, Hungry hippo said:

We are definitely a Championship club at this time so surely a £500k maximum rather than £1m.

Is there not something about suspension too?

 

Oot the gemme!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Compliance Officer might think she has no alternative but to raise this action.

 

The thinking being others could say 'how are you taking against us when Hearts and Partick got away with a 'serious breach of rules'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get them in Court. Get it back to CoS. ****ing absolute scum. I feel like burning Hampden to the ground right now. We should withdraw from the Scottish Cup, ****ing arseholes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, milky_26 said:

doncaster is on both boards


Bet he takes two lunches too, giving the extra one to this guy...

 

A98F8DF2-E2EB-40BD-A0ED-A77BB506810F.thumb.jpeg.bbb830a795416e5245aa078d166fb5e6.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hagar the Horrible

This point needs to be thrown back at the SFA and the SMSFM 

 

I was taken to the SFA’s Judicial Panel Protocol and shown a provision which applies where a member or an associated person takes a dispute, which is referable to arbitration in terms of Article 99, toa court of law, in circumstances other than those expressly provided by the terms of Article 99. The provision refers to penalties of up to £1,000,000 and/or suspension or termination of the club’s membership of the SFA being imposed if a court action israised. In my opinion, the existence of that potential penalty (which includes expulsion or as Mr Moynihan put it, being put “out of the game”) is a factor which requires to be considered when analysing the lawfulness or otherwise of Article 99.15.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Horatio Caine said:

Is there not something about suspension too?

 

Oot the gemme!!

 

That was picked up on by Lord Clarke was it not?

 

Pretty sure his comments on it made clear that wasn't okay. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers certainly have questions to answer.

 

Compliance Officer may need a bit more time for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AllyjamboDerbyshire
5 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

How come DU, RR and CV as they petitioned directly against us, where we went against the SPFL and NOT a member club nor the SFA

That was one of my first thoughts also. I suppose they could argue that they were only protecting themselves from an action by the petitioners, but maybe that's a miscalculation as was their decision to challenge the petition in the first place.

 

Seems more than a little odd that the SFA is taking action against two clubs for taking the SPFL to court while simultaneously having the same case heard in arbitration under their own authority. How can the SFA be considered as a neutral and suitable arbiter (I know it's being heard by independent arbiters) when it's acting against the parties for taking the action that has led to the arbitration being heard in the name of the SFA?

 

I wonder if something has gone wrong with the SPFL's defence and they, and the SFA, fear it's heading back to the CoS, with this being a shot across the two clubs' bows? Though I don't suppose it would be all that clever a tactic if it is (though clever is not a word I'd use to describe the incompetents running Scottish football) as the court would surely take a dim view and have something to say -  and maybe even take appropriate action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

This point needs to be thrown back at the SFA and the SMSFM 

 

I was taken to the SFA’s Judicial Panel Protocol and shown a provision which applies where a member or an associated person takes a dispute, which is referable to arbitration in terms of Article 99, toa court of law, in circumstances other than those expressly provided by the terms of Article 99. The provision refers to penalties of up to £1,000,000 and/or suspension or termination of the club’s membership of the SFA being imposed if a court action israised. In my opinion, the existence of that potential penalty (which includes expulsion or as Mr Moynihan put it, being put “out of the game”) is a factor which requires to be considered when analysing the lawfulness or otherwise of Article 99.15.

 

Absolutely.

 

Unlawful and unethical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SFA & SPFL will be fuming as

1) They wanted to go straight arbitration.

2) They would have had full control of the process

3) No documents from SPFL

4) Lord Clarke f--cked up all the above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chuck Berry

You just have to laugh and shake yer heid at the state this game is in.  Run by incompetent, corrupt charlatans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately without having gone to court we’d have been stuck with an arbitration panel made of from SFA Football people, and we’d have had no access to the required documentation,  surely those in themselves is the defence that the court was an absolute requirement. 
 

Surely the SFA have to be careful with this now as well due to the fact that Lord Clark clearly stated that he seriously questioned the legality of a club being unable to take the SPFL to court, especially when it came to company law 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gjcc said:


Bet he takes two lunches too, giving the extra one to this guy...

 

A98F8DF2-E2EB-40BD-A0ED-A77BB506810F.thumb.jpeg.bbb830a795416e5245aa078d166fb5e6.jpeg


Shady looking creep absolutely screams Celtic. 
 

 

 

 

Edited by Special Officer Doofy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, flecktimus said:

SFA & SPFL will be fuming as

1) They wanted to go straight arbitration.

2) They would have had full control of the process

3) No documents from SPFL

4) Lord Clarke f--cked up all the above.

 

Spot on.

 

They will be... incredulous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Withdraw from the cup

 

Hopefully we force it to be cancelled. Unreal it's still being considered! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Gambo said:

I'd love it if Lord Clark called this back to court pronto.

Can he do that or will he have to let the independent tribunal go first? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't make it up. Is this an attempt to get us to withdraw from arbitration in protest?

**** them Hearts. Keep the heid. Running scared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Franksluckypants

Do as much damage to them all with Interdict, would be my response!

 

However Hearts have been super controlled and measured throughout this whole affair, with no knee jerking...our QC and legal team are going to sit down and ponder the next stage in the chess game!

 

Bring it on!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, gjcc said:


Bet he takes two lunches too, giving the extra one to this guy...

 

A98F8DF2-E2EB-40BD-A0ED-A77BB506810F.thumb.jpeg.bbb830a795416e5245aa078d166fb5e6.jpeg

 

Even Jabba the Hutt moves with more grace.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Hearts and Partick win their case at arbitration next week and are reinstated.  The SFA comes along and suspends the membership of both clubs for a season for taking the case to the CoS.  Dundee Utd and Raith find themselves back in the top tier and championship respectively. 

 

Job done at minimal cost to the SPFL and SFA (no compensation).

Exactly what I thought or they relegate us both after the SFA Arbitration Panel reinstates us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroongoals
On 27/06/2020 at 21:36, David McCaig said:

It's clear that the SPFL play is SFA arbitration.  If this goes to full trial they will cave.

Lets go for the interdict, that would focus the minds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank Sidebottom
7 minutes ago, flecktimus said:

SFA & SPFL will be fuming as

1) They wanted to go straight arbitration.

2) They would have had full control of the process

3) No documents from SPFL

4) Lord Clarke f--cked up all the above.


To be fair to Lord Clark, I think his hands were pretty much tied with respect to whether he was required to refer the dispute to arbitration.  He did indicate that preventing clubs from taking disputes to court could be considered unlawful and contrary to public policy.

 

What I don’t get is why this notice has been served now. Surely the SFA would have had the sense to wait until those proceedings had concluded?? Obviously not though. 
 

 

Edited by Frank Sidebottom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Benny Factor
1 hour ago, sac said:

The comfort blanket for me was the Deloitte Enquiry.

Prior to this, Doncaster had said on more than one occasion that it would be costly & time consuming.

 

Then a few days later we saw the report from the “forensic” enquiry carried out by Deloitte, with no indication of cost, carried out  in a couple of days if that? & the scope of the enquiry so narrow that it was always going to produce the minimal amount of information to satisfy the extremely gullible or those stupid enough to believe it but maybe just enough for Doncaster to put people off the scent.

 

So let’s hope our QC’s have demanded every email, phone record, snapchat, sportsound audio, & anything else deemed pertinent to our case.

Would be sound as **** if Doncaster, Maclennan, Blair, & Nelms had to give witness testimony under oath as well.

 

Lets get every piece of dirt there is on these scumbags cause if our legal team can prove to the Arbitrators that dirty dealings took place(which I’m 100% convinced there was) we’ll get a favourable hearing. Guilty as sin.

 

I think one of the smoking guns in the documents will be who paid for the Deloitte investigation. I don't think there'll be any record of it as it was paid for by another party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heatonjambo
12 minutes ago, Cade said:

Got them rattled.

 

INTAE them.

They are now petrified 

 

they know there is a serious risk they are losing this so they are raising the stakes to scare us.

 

bring it on you lying tow faded gits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gordon Ramsay
Just now, heatonjambo said:

They are now petrified 

 

they know there is a serious risk they are losing this so they are raising the stakes to scare us.

 

bring it on you lying tow faded gits

 

That's all it is. 

 

They won't know what to do if we win. Even changing the fixtures would be too complicated for these cretins. 

 

Just keep going Hearts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am 100% sure this will be fought tooth and nail.

SFA and SPFL are trying to intimidate us and PT let us get this back to COS for fair and independent trial.

I suspect these threats are not just unfair but against the law!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

babertonjambo

If the SFA refuse our request to review the timing then surely this could be classed as an obstruction to the Arbitration process that they are meant to be overseeing and we can take this straight back to the CoS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NaturalOrder74 said:

Definitely looks like a panic move to me 

 

Yeah, it seems a clear attempt to try and get us to back down from Arbitration because its not went the way they wanted it to. 

 

Is this even legal? There must be rules in place to prohibit what is clearly an attempt to pressure us into backing down?

 

With Doncaster on both boards, surely the court would nail them for that ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chuck Berry

As it was put to me by someone who sits on one of the SFA's committee's,  "The SPFL run the SFA"

 

You just need to look at who sits on the SFA Board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AllyjamboDerbyshire
11 minutes ago, Hungry hippo said:

We are definitely a Championship club at this time so surely a £500k maximum rather than £1m.

Or maybe they expect/know that we are about to become a Premiership club again, and if the offending vote is to be declared null and void, then the SFA might then declare that we've always been a Premiership club and so fine us the £1m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I missing something? The new thread Regarding the SFA notice of complaint seems to have disappeared. Has it been merged with this thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • jkbmod 9 changed the title to SPFL declare league (2019/20) due to Covid (Arbitration panel upholds SPFL decision )
  • davemclaren changed the title to SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...