SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Mikey1874]

7 minutes ago, Rods said:

Is there any way this can slow up the arbitration process?

 

I suppose we could say we have to work on the SFA disciplinary response first. 

[M3 JAMBO]

What's the chances of being awarded £500K compensation following arbitration and subsequently fined £1m by the SFA for going to the CoS!

[graygo]

4 minutes ago, Frank Sidebottom said:

The key issue is whether that limited company has previously agreed to be bound by certain contractual terms, such as agreeing to resolve any “football disputes” by arbitration, as is the case here.  Whether we like it or not, the Court is Session has said this is a football dispute that must be arbitrated given that is provided for the in the “contract” of membership of the SFA. 
 

 

He said that rule was ok, that doesn't mean all the rules are ok. In fact he mentioned the "Draconian punishment" for going to court as being particularly questionable in court.

I posted earlier that just because something is in the rules and we signed up to those rules does not mean that it can't be challenged in court.

[Kidd’s Boots]

10 minutes ago, Frank Sidebottom said:

As far as the compliance officer is concerned, the outcome of the arbitration is irrelevant. 
 

It is the act of proceeding with an action in the Court of Session in the first instance which she says is a breach of the rules.

And yet, a High Court Judge disagrees and stated quite plainly in his summation. If I was looking for legal guidance, I know which opinion I'd take. This could well be the final roll of the dice for the SPFL/SFA. Yes, it's our rules and yes you will abide by them, and yes we will punish you, but this will not go unnoticed by the Court of Session. The only reason we are in the Arbitration process is because of specific conditions applied by Lord Clark regarding the panel, otherwise it would have been heard only in The CoS and in public. If the ruling had gone this way, there is not a thing the SFA Independent Compliance Officer could have done apart from pushed more paper around the desk. The SFA think they are playing a strong hand here, but I'm not so sure.

[GinRummy]

11 minutes ago, Frank Sidebottom said:

The key issue is whether that limited company has previously agreed to be bound by certain contractual terms, such as agreeing to resolve any “football disputes” by arbitration, as is the case here.  Whether we like it or not, the Court of Session has said this is a football dispute that must be arbitrated given that is provided for the in the “contract” of our membership of the SFA. 
 

No it’s not. You can sign contracts waiving your legal rights but you still have those legal rights. So the contract in itself is not legally binding. I’m not saying you’re wrong (and I know I sound like a dick) but it’s definitely not the case that if you’ve signed a contract you must stick to it even if it contradicts your rights as an individual or in this case a limited company. 
 

The court of session decided it had to go to arbitration but that doesn’t mean we didn’t have the legal right to allow the court of session to make that decision. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by GinRummy

[NANOJAMBO]

7 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

No, but it could interfere with the preparation of our case for arbitration. I.e. having to fight a battle on two fronts simultaneously could undermine the presentation of our case. Which I suspect is precisely what is intended.

AB should simply say that she'll deal with it when the arbitration process is finished but if the SFA want a battle she'll get an interdict to delay them. We're not going to be bullied on this. 

[RobNox]

Quite easy to give the SFA Compliance Officer a response by 20th July.

 

First, we refer them to Lord Clark's ruling, where he calls into question the legality of the SPFL Articles on this point, but would require further legal scrutiny to determine if this was the case.

 

Then we offer to help decide one way or another by taking the SFA to court if they impose any sanction on us whatsoever.  

[Dazo]

8 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

Timing stinks but it’s a minor distraction IMO. Anything other than token punishment for it lands them in court where the concern re possible serious punishments on the books has already been seriously questioned. The SFA and the SPFL are constantly driving down blind alleys on this. Their only hope here is a seriously biased and contrived arbitration hearing followed by us chucking the towel in. I just can’t see us halting now until we’ve exhausted everything we can possibly do. That would include getting this back into court and the SFA may well have Unwittingly just opened a door to that.

Yep I agree it is only a minor distraction at the moment. 

[7628mm]

8 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

Too late for that imo. 

 

I have a feeling we will be answering the SFA note of complaint on 20/07/2020 before Arbitration has even started

[8skacel8]

28 minutes ago, Selkirkhmfc1874 said:

6th August sfa to hear complaint against ourselves and partick Thistle 

 

Isn't it fantastic for them that they can quickly arrange a specific date for this case but we are still waiting to know when the arbitration hearing will commence.

[Holyrood_Hearts]

18 minutes ago, kwizbet09 said:

My point is we could leave Scottish  Football through buying another club , but we would have to sell Tyncastle an play at the home of who we buy.

****ing hell 

[Jambo61]

4 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

He said that rule was ok, that doesn't mean all the rules are ok. In fact he mentioned the "Draconian punishment" for going to court as being particularly questionable in court.

I posted earlier that just because something is in the rules and we signed up to those rules does not mean that it can't be challenged in court.

Would that not mean another SFA charge and a 2nd expulsion?

[Smoked-Glass]

Just now, 7628mm said:

 

I have a feeling we will be answering the SFA note of complaint on 20/07/2020 before Arbitration has even started

Thought arbitration was tomorrow - 15th July.? 

[Kidd’s Boots]

1 minute ago, RobNox said:

Quite easy to give the SFA Compliance Officer a response by 20th July.

 

First, we refer them to Lord Clark's ruling, where he calls into question the legality of the SPFL Articles on this point, but would require further legal scrutiny to determine if this was the case.

 

Then we offer to help decide one way or another by taking the SFA to court if they impose any sanction on us whatsoever.  

I'd second that

[North Berwick Jambo]

42 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

and this Maxwell guy is Partick Thistle too (although rumour he takes son to Darkheid) - Petrie is suddenly ill - Compliance officer looks sellicky - this has these 2 all over it Pete and Donkey 

 

 

Looks more like Boris & Rees-Mogg 😉

[Jamstomorrow]

1 hour ago, Gorgieshed said:

I've honestly no clue what is going on anymore! Scottish football is the laughing stock of the world just now.

My brother lives down south.  Says it is not mentioned.   

[Frank Sidebottom]

3 minutes ago, Kidd’s Boots said:

And yet, a High Court Judge disagrees and stated quite plainly in his summation. If I was looking for legal guidance, I know which opinion I'd take. This could well be the final roll of the dice for the SPFL/SFA. Yes, it's our rules and yes you will abide by them, and yes we will punish you, but this will not go unnoticed by the Court of Session. The only reason we are in the Arbitration process is because of specific conditions applied by Lord Clark regarding the panel, otherwise it would have been heard only in The CoS and in public. If the ruling had gone this way, there is not a thing the SFA Independent Compliance Officer could have done apart from pushed more paper around the desk. The SFA think they are playing a strong hand here, but I'm not so sure.

He actually said that the issue raises questions about it possibly being contrary to public policy but that he would need to consider it fully before he could reach a view on it.  At this stage, there are no guarantees that it could be successfully challenged. 

[7628mm]

1 minute ago, Smoked-Glass said:

Thought arbitration was tomorrow - 15th July.? 

 

I must have missed that where is the info?

[1971fozzy]

1 minute ago, Jamstomorrow said:

My brother lives down south.  Says it is not mentioned.   

sums it up. Can you imagine if this was the case in England .

[One five]

4 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

AB should simply say that she'll deal with it when the arbitration process is finished but if the SFA want a battle she'll get an interdict to delay them. We're not going to be bullied on this. 

Yep

this this and this.

[jambone]

11 minutes ago, jambone said:

 

Aye - I got that the wrong way round. Anyway the point is they stayed in Airdrie.

 

Though just why anyone would want to stay in Airdrie is anyone's guess.

[Smoked-Glass]

1 minute ago, 7628mm said:

 

I must have missed that where is the info?

Me too. Thought someone said Wednesday 

[Kidd’s Boots]

Just now, Frank Sidebottom said:

He actually said that the issue raises questions about it possibly being contrary to public policy but that he would need to consider it fully before he could reach a view on it.  At this stage, there are no guarantees that it could be successfully challenged. 

And debated legally, which would require a further petition, which may still arise.

[Big Slim Stylee]

2 minutes ago, North Berwick Jambo said:

 

Looks more like Boris & Rees-Mogg 😉

 

I'll give you Boris but never seen donkey that looks anything like Himmler Pencil Balls tbf...

[GinRummy]

3 minutes ago, 7628mm said:

 

I have a feeling we will be answering the SFA note of complaint on 20/07/2020 before Arbitration has even started

it won’t stop arbitration though. Arbitration has been ordered by the court of session so the sfa can’t hit us with punishments or potential punishments to try and interfere with that process.  

[Jambo61]

1 minute ago, 7628mm said:

 

I must have missed that where is the info?

Even if so would it be finished/ finalised by 20th?

[Fire_At_The_Disco]

1 minute ago, Jambo61 said:

Would that not mean another SFA charge and a 2nd expulsion?

One expulsion ....2 expulsion ...3 expulsion ..4

They couldnie expel a smelly shite.

Only folk actually getting expelled at the end of this will be the SPFL board, closely followed by their horrible Celticy cousins at the SFA 

[RobNox]

2 minutes ago, Frank Sidebottom said:

He actually said that the issue raises questions about it possibly being contrary to public policy but that he would need to consider it fully before he could reach a view on it.  At this stage, there are no guarantees that it could be successfully challenged. 

 

True, but it does cast some doubt over the legality of the clause, and the SFA might be reluctant to have us take them to court to prove it one way or another, because if we win, that blows the clause out of the window.  

 

It would be great if we ended up doing the double over the governing bodies.  Prove that the SPFL Board failed in carrying out its duty to act in the utmost good faith towards all member clubs, then prove that the SFA acted unlawfully in imposing a sanction on us for exercising our legal rights.  

[graygo]

11 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

No it’s not. You can sign contracts waiving your legal rights but you still have those legal rights. So the contract in itself is not legal. I’m not saying you’re wrong (and I know I sound like a dick) but it’s definitely not the case that if you’ve signed a contract you must stick to it even if it contradicts your rights as an individual or in this case a limited company. 
 

The court of session decided it had to go to arbitration but that doesn’t mean we didn’t have the legal right to allow the court of session to make that decision. 

 

Correct.

[hmfc1984]

10 minutes ago, Kidd’s Boots said:

And yet, a High Court Judge disagrees and stated quite plainly in his summation. If I was looking for legal guidance, I know which opinion I'd take. This could well be the final roll of the dice for the SPFL/SFA. Yes, it's our rules and yes you will abide by them, and yes we will punish you, but this will not go unnoticed by the Court of Session. The only reason we are in the Arbitration process is because of specific conditions applied by Lord Clark regarding the panel, otherwise it would have been heard only in The CoS and in public. If the ruling had gone this way, there is not a thing the SFA Independent Compliance Officer could have done apart from pushed more paper around the desk. The SFA think they are playing a strong hand here, but I'm not so sure.

He didn't say his judgement on it though. He simply questioned the lawfulness of it which is completely different and stated he would need to hear detailed submissions on the point to come to a decision. 

[Jambo61]

1 minute ago, Tambo_The_Jambo said:

One expulsion ....2 expulsion ...3 expulsion ..4

They couldnie expel a smelly shite.

Only folk actually getting expelled at the end of this will be the SPFL board, closely followed by their horrible Celticy cousins at the SFA 

This needs to happen but the TV requiring 4 New Firm games holds us to ransom forever!

Close the SPFL, close the SFA and tell the New Firm 2 games, equal shares of monies from TV etc or gtf!

Let them find a league!

[graygo]

15 minutes ago, M3 JAMBO said:

What's the chances of being awarded £500K compensation following arbitration and subsequently fined £1m by the SFA for going to the CoS!

 

As a championship club the maximum fine is £500k

Edited July 14, 2020 by graygo

[7628mm]

7 minutes ago, Smoked-Glass said:

Me too. Thought someone said Wednesday 

 

I have only gone back 3 pages today so assume had been reported in the media. If no date has yet been set then I feel that the CoS is iminent as we surely have the right to go back due to the SFA dragging their heels

 

I am fairly sure that LC asked how soon the Arbitration could get underway and the SPFL QC said Monday meaning 06/07/2020

Edited July 14, 2020 by 7628mm

[Nookie Bear]

Just now, graygo said:

 

As a championship club the maximum fine I'd £500k

What might Partick pay as a League 1 club?

[Jambo61]

1 minute ago, 7628mm said:

 

I have only gone back 3 pages today so assume had been reported in the media. If no date has yet been set then I feel that the CoS is iminent as we surely have the right to go back due to the SFA dragging their heels

Dragging their heels and intimidating witnesses!

[kawasakijambo]

2 hours ago, neilnunb said:

 

Even Jabba the Hutt moves with more grace.

 

 

Is that his "Piece" he is pulling?

[22games nro]

The law states "You have to accept the arbitration decision "

UNLESS THERE HAS BEEN SOME SORT OF LEGAL WRONGDOING /BREACH OF GUIDLINES

 

Now if we lose the case survey Hearts and Patrick now have a trump card by being able to say that having to deal with this notice of complaint whilst trying to focus on the Arbitration was in fact just that

It is reasonable to conclude it could not have been a fair hearing due to having to try to focus on 2 massive situations at the same time?

Edited July 14, 2020 by 22games nro

[Andrew Gilbert Wauchope]

5 hours ago, Lone Striker said:

Whether Hearts are top or not when a future event happens is  not really the point.    The glee which many clubs showed when we were invited to take our medicine occurred mainly because they knew who the "relegated" clubs were. The whole point of trying to put a set of rules in place NOW to deal with a future event is to make the process completely blind to whichever clubs are sitting top & bottom at the time.  

 

Your comment about something gone badly wrong is a bit naive/ironic, after the season we've just had.   Something did indeed go badly wrong, and there were several teams we feared being above us. 🙄   - all of them actually

 

 

It was slightly tongue in cheek, but yours is a fair point.

[MarkDevriesScores4]

Doing the double over the 2 governing bodies would be something special 

[Deevers]

17 minutes ago, Tynehead said:

You would think any normal people would take his Lordships comments as a clear warning that he would be happy to hear a legal debate as to the "extreme sanctions" available to the SFA in his court, obviously the SFA think they are the law.

This is the problem - both the SFA and SPFL think they are above the law. Maybe time this was tested in the Court of Session. We should push them all the way after today’s event.  Get to court, get an interdict stopping the season from starting. Watch the upper lips quiver the .

[Hungry hippo]

8 minutes ago, Smoked-Glass said:

Me too. Thought someone said Wednesday 

 

A fairly ITK poster said yesterday that it was delayed for up to a week but I've not seen it mentioned anywhere else.

[Kidd’s Boots]

1 minute ago, hmfc1984 said:

He didn't say his judgement on it though. He simply questioned the lawfulness of it which is completely different and stated he would need to hear detailed submissions on the point to come to a decision. 

He can't give a judgement on it as it's not in the original petition. He was advising all parties that there was a pathway available through the Court, in his opinion, for further petitions should they have concerns over sanctions imposed by the SFA. As I said in another post, this would form another, separate legal debate before he could give a ruling on the SFA Article.

[SuperstarSteve]

10 minutes ago, Smoked-Glass said:

Me too. Thought someone said Wednesday 

August 6th arbitration was delayed untill i believe. 

[Rods]

So it goes as follows

 

Win Arbitration

In front of the SFA 

Back to the COS against the SFA

Edited July 14, 2020 by Rods

[maroonlegions]

Next roll of the dice is Budges.

 

Our legal team better be on the ball here, no fecking about with  half arsed ,poorly judged actions or rebuttals.

 

We need a water tight fight back.

 

This is now going all the way.

What other  football governing   body  in europe would go about trying to get  their THIRD biggest club in their country kicked out their league.

 

This is a action by  a cartel  of self serving vermin COWARDS ,who are willing to hide, cheat, lie , do anything  to save their own corrupt skins.

 

No other way to see this now, their latest sneaky , snake like action, timed not by  coincident   , but by  a planned move.   

 

The SPLF"s latest action is an open admission of their guilt, an open admission of  trying to save their own skins.

 

No more mr nice guy.Gloves are off. 

[John Findlay]

28 minutes ago, Snedescu said:

That’s a fair point Frank. A bit sneaky but I suppose it had to be done before the arbitration started. If that is to start in the next couple of days, then that would make sense. 

The court didnt say it was a football dispute. Lord Clark said his hands were tied legally due to us signing up to the SFA articles. Hence all members of the arbitration panel are law people and not football.

[MarkDevriesScores4]

“Interdict” card should be played at the last possible moment in order to maximise the damage in my opinion 

[Hungry hippo]

2 minutes ago, 22games nro said:

The law states "You have to accept the arbitration decision "

UNLESS THERE HAS BEEN SOME SORT OF LEGAL WRONGDOING /BREACH OF GUIDLINES

 

Now if we loose the case survey Hearts and Patrick now have a trump card by being able to say that having to deal with this notice of complaint whilst trying to focus on the Arbitration was in fact just that

It is reasonable to conclude it could not have been a fair hearing due to having to try to focus on 2 massive situations at the same time?

 

I'd be all for going to CoS but seriously doubt this would be sufficient ground for it.

 

The timing is the only big issue as it's  fair to say we are in breach of the rule. We will be able to argue strongly though that we were justified in doing so.

[frankblack]

1 minute ago, Rods said:

So its following

 

Win Arbitration

In front of the SFA 

Back to the COS against the SFA

 

Nope - looks like the SFA have delayed Arbitration so they can dish out disciplinary action against us.

 

To me, that says arbitration is over, back to COS for an interdict.

[graygo]

7 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

What might Partick pay as a League 1 club?

 

Same. £500k maximum.