SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Eldrik]

1 minute ago, graygo said:

 

No, he's right. You can go to court if you ask them first and give approval.

Eh no, which is why Lord Clark ruled that any disputes needed to be heard through the SFA Arbitration system firstly, as per the SFA rules,

[Francis Albert]

6 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

But when we were top under vlad the Scots game was big news in England - a Leicester type story .

if only our gurus realised that the duopoly lowers the interest in our game

I think.briefly then Hearts games were pulling in.more Sky viewers than the Old Firm.

[will-i-am-a-jambo]

4 minutes ago, Voxpop said:

If sfa want to chuck us out the cup fine.

 

looks like I am going to be chucking in my scotland supporters club membership after 30 years. Pricks.

 

Yep me too, lm chucking my Scotland supporters membership after 22 years. It was with heavy heart but l can no longer find myself giving money to a corrupt organisation.

[Maple Leaf]

34 minutes ago, Rogue Daddy said:

Who’s interested in a league that has had the same 2 winners for the last 35 years. 
😴😴😴😴

 

That's what makes the Scottish game the biggest joke of all.

[troy]

21 minutes ago, harrywragg said:

don't forget to add on the cost of the additional legal representation - round it up to 20 mil

Send for rumpole 😂

[7628mm]

28 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

Of course it does M.

 

Lord Clark alluded so.  Even Donald Findlay did agree today but said it should always be kept in-house however.

 

Cool I feel better now.

 

In other news

 

If by some miracle the SFA manage to fine us, say, £500,000. I would suggest that the FOH offer to pay the money to the SFA in cash.

We could put a skip in the centre circle of Tynie with 1,000,000 50 pence coins in and invite the SFA to pop round to our place and pick their fine money up.

FOH members will be invited to sit in the stands obeying social distancing rules and watch the SFA come and "TRY" to collect.  

Edited July 14, 2020 by 7628mm

[Beast Boy]

41 minutes ago, tcjambo said:

We are debating the actions of the GFA - do you think we will get a sympathetic hearing from the Scottish Govt then?

I don’t think the Scottish Government would be influenced by something like that. I think they would take a very neutral position In such matters, if it somehow found its way in front of them for some kind of hearing. 

[John Findlay]

1 hour ago, Leveins Battalion said:

I hope I am massively wrong but imo Budge has had the piss taken out of her from day 1 of all of this.I just can't see anything changing,we are going to get shafted either way.

 

If we had been relegated and let's be honest it was heading that way she would of been hounded out of Gorgie.This could end up even worse than that.

Dont talk shite.

[Aussie Jambo]

Stupid Feckin Arseholes..

 

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Aussie Jambo
No little stars required

[jambostevo]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but is this not exactly what we have done?
 

99.12 A member, an associated person and/or the Scottish FA shall not take a Scottish FA Dispute to a court
of law except with the prior approval of the Board. For the avoidance of doubt, this Article 99.12 does
not prevent a member, associated person and/or the Scottish FA from raising proceedings for time bar purposes, subject to such proceedings being sisted at the earliest opportunity for resolution in accordance with this Article 99.

[Jambof3tornado]

Was it not pointed out that the articles of association dont actually state which things the SFA can arbitrate and which they cannot so we'd have an argument on that front too.

[Last Laff]

1 hour ago, Shanks said:

I take it Dundee Utd raith and cove going to court doesn’t count now? 

I don’t think they took the League to court.  Simply defending their case.  

[7628mm]

3 minutes ago, jambostevo said:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but is this not exactly what we have done?
 

99.12 A member, an associated person and/or the Scottish FA shall not take a Scottish FA Dispute to a court
of law except with the prior approval of the Board. For the avoidance of doubt, this Article 99.12 does
not prevent a member, associated person and/or the Scottish FA from raising proceedings for time bar purposes, subject to such proceedings being sisted at the earliest opportunity for resolution in accordance with this Article 99.

 

Welcome back it has only been two and a half years. What you been up to all this time?

[Section Q]

14 minutes ago, troy said:

Send for rumpole 😂

Digby Brown........

[Psychedelicropcircle]

The SFA should stick to its full time occupation of consistently keeping the national team the endless embarrassment it is.  

[Morgan]

1 hour ago, Leveins Battalion said:

I hope I am massively wrong but imo Budge has had the piss taken out of her from day 1 of all of this.I just can't see anything changing,we are going to get shafted either way.

 

If we had been relegated and let's be honest it was heading that way she would of been hounded out of Gorgie.This could end up even worse than that.

I hate this.

[Aussie Jambo]

19 minutes ago, troy said:

Send for rumpole 😂

I can see him now listening to Donkey-Ass-ter. 

[Jambo66]

12 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

I don’t think the Scottish Government would be influenced by something like that. I think they would take a very neutral position In such matters, if it somehow found its way in front of them for some kind of hearing. 

A public inquiry would be chaired by a judge or recently retired judge. The Scottish government would only be involved in insisting that an inquiry took place.

 

The alternative would be a parliamentary committee "inviting" relevant parties to come and be quizzed about their actions. That would be pointless because it would be partisan.

[Newton51]

Daily keef

 

SFA left with no choice over Hearts and Partick Thistle notice as full list of punishments revealed

The governing body hit the M8 alliance with notices of complaint and have a hearing date set for August 6.

(Image: Gary Hutchison/SNS Group)

Scottish football’s raging civil war took another explosive twist last night as the SFA opened fire on Hearts and Partick Thistle over their £10million relegation ransom note.

Hampden chiefs have charged the M8 alliance for allegedly breaking the articles of association after they dragged the game into the Court of Session.

The legal move was an attempt to overturn the controversial decision to send them down during the coronavirus crisis.

It included a demand from Hearts for an £8m compensation package if they were forced to drop into the Championship with Thistle looking for a £2m parachute for being jettisoned into the third tier - as well as a threat to serve an interim interdict on the SPFL preventing the top flight from kicking off on August 1.

But, even though Lord Clark kicked the row back to Hampden’s sixth floor for an arbitration process which is now underway, the Compliance Officer has ploughed on with the plans to throw the book at both clubs – a move Record Sport first revealed on June 19.

At 4pm Scottish football’s governing body announced the rebel clubs have been hit with a notice of complaint for taking the matter to the courts without first asking for permission from the SFA board - a rule breach which carries the ultimate threat of being kicked out of the game.

In a joint statement released minutes later Hearts and Thistle revealed they had requested a delay to any Compliance Officer action until after the arbitration has been resolved.

They hit back: “We are incredulous to have received a notice of complaint from the SFA in the circumstances.

“It is oppressive of them to require submissions from both clubs by 20 July when we are, in terms of their own articles of association, actively engaged in arbitration.

“As our focus must be squarely on that, we have already requested the SFA to review the timing to allow us to be properly prepared and represented. That is the very least we should expect from the process.”

(Image: SNS Group)

But both clubs will now be hauled back up into the dock at Hampden for a hearing on August 6 when their fate will be decided

Under article 99 entitled ‘Resolution of Disputes between Members’ the SFA insist any such dispute should be brought before the governing body for arbitration rather than taken into the law courts.

It is also made clear that any club wishing to raise a legal action at the court of session must ask for permission from the SFA before doing so.

It reads: “A member, an associated person and/or the Scottish FA shall not take a Scottish FA Dispute to a court of law except with the prior approval of the Board.”

(Image: SNS Group)

Under the rules any breach of the articles of association is punishable by a raft of sanctions ranging from cash fines of anything between £5k and £500k and/or ‘suspension’ and even ‘expulsion’.

The rules state: “A recognised football body, club, official, team official or other member of team staff, player, referee or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA if found to have infringed the Articles shall be liable to censure or to a fine or to a suspension or to an expulsion or to ejection from the Challenge Cup Competition, to any combination of these penalties or such other penalty, condition or sanction as the Judicial Panel considers appropriate.”

A Hampden source told us last night: “It’s obviously a sensitive issue but the SFA had no choice but to stick to the letter of the law where its own rule book is concerned.

“The fact that this matter has already been taken to the Court of Session is in itself a prima facie breach of the SFA articles of association. As awkward as the timing might be, the Compliance Officer was really left with no option but to be seen to be applying the rules.”

But the Court of Session lawlord, when delivering his judgment on July 3, questioned the legality of the petitioners facing further punishment from the SFA.

Lord Clark said at the time: “In my view, a further issue arises from a point made by Mr Moynihan QC on behalf of the SPFL about the disciplinary process and the potential sanctions applicable to SFA members. 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 to a 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 is raised. 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.

“In response to a question from the court, Mr Borland QC, on behalf of Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers, accepted that this matter should form part of the context in which the lawfulness or otherwise of the terms of Article 99.15 fall to be assessed.”

[1971fozzy]

38 minutes ago, 7628mm said:

 

I would think that LAW trumps SPORT

100%   And that’s the whole point here. In all walks of life institutions have their rules but does it make them lawful ?  
the facts why we bypassed the procedure (for reasons that have been explained many times) are obvious.

The SFA and their bint are taking a huge risk here.   For instance if (as likely) we go to court and contest this in court , the obvious question would be why did the SFA wait until now to slap us with this in the midst of preparing for the very arbitration they trumpet.

Its absolutely ludicrous for them to think we won’t challenge it and win.

feking dinosaurs and I hope more than anything we destroy their empires and bring hell and fury upon all these rat clubs and owners.

[Zico]

36 minutes ago, Voxpop said:

 

looks like I am going to be chucking in my scotland supporters club membership after 30 years. Pricks.

Mine will be getting posted back to the *****.

Edit: member for about 15 years, been going for over 30. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Zico

[Beast Boy]

Just now, Jambo66 said:

A public inquiry would be chaired by a judge or recently retired judge. The Scottish government would only be involved in insisting that an inquiry took place.

 

The alternative would be a parliamentary committee "inviting" relevant parties to come and be quizzed about their actions. That would be pointless because it would be partisan.

Cool. Either way we would not be treated with prejudice.

[Spellczech]

This stuff just gets pettier and pettier... So the SFA now want to sanction us because we went to court and secured access to SPFL documents we were not meant to have because we knew we would not get them if we went direct to SFA arbitration...

 

This reeks of SFA Doncaster being so infuriated that we have got hold of SPFL Doncaster's documentation that he has the SFA beaks rallying behind him. Well F them all...

 

Let them hit us for £1m then watch Lord Clark strike that down like he strongly hinted he would...

 

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Spellczech

[Eldrik]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

I had a look back at the SFA's announcement that the matter was being referred to arbitration on 6 July.

 

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/news/notice-of-referral-to-arbitration/?rid=13929

 

The announcement included the following statement.

 

"As this process is entirely independent, the Scottish FA will make no further comment." 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is issuing a "notice of complaint" directly related to the matter being referred to Arbitration not making a "comment".

No!

 

The SFA have issued a notice of complaint to Hearts and Thistle because they chose to pursue their case direct to the COS rather than go down the route of using their arbitration system that is required in their rules as the first course of action to raise a complaint.

 

Completly separate of any ongoing cases

 

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 hour ago, Leveins Battalion said:

I hope I am massively wrong but imo Budge has had the piss taken out of her from day 1 of all of this.I just can't see anything changing,we are going to get shafted either way.

 

If we had been relegated and let's be honest it was heading that way she would of been hounded out of Gorgie.This could end up even worse than that.

 

Beyond risible.

Edited July 14, 2020 by Seymour M Hersh

[Thomaso]

4 hours ago, 4171 said:

Mulraney and lawell behind this..time for a few other clubs to unite behind us..

Not a chance! 

[Gmcjambo]

3 minutes ago, Eldrik said:

No!

 

The SFA have issued a notice of complaint to Hearts and Thistle because they chose to pursue their case direct to the COS rather than go down the route of using their arbitration system that is required in their rules as the first course of action to raise a complaint.

 

Completly separate of any ongoing cases

 

 

How can they be separate when Lord Clark commented on this, specific article and questioned its legality?   He would only have done so if he felt it relevant.     The SFA is instigating a disciplinary process related to our approach to this particular case.    The timing also prejudices Hearts and PTs capacity to fully focus and prepare for arbitration.    It's not unreasonable to question the intention and timing of this and I can't see how a reasonable observer wouldn't take a step back and consider all of this related. 

[SectionDJambo]

How can any reasonable person not be able to understand how Hearts and Partick felt they had to take a legal route to reverse the skullduggery of Good Friday, after seeing the way the the SFA and SPFL are so obviously intertwined, and colluding together. This is similar to organised crime gangs operating a protection racket.

The media in Scotland should hang their heads in shame at their support for this vile thirst for punishment , at worst, or their refusal to ask definitive and hard questions about the motives and behaviour of so many people in positions of authority, at best.

They are all culpable. Scottish football will take years to recover from this, if it ever does. And to think there was a simple solution to help every club, from top to bottom, and not just give Celtic another league title. Nothing else mattered to those people.

I live in hope that Hearts and Partick win in the end, and some exposure of the corruption and arrogance of power of the SFA and SPFL, is laid bare despite the attempts of their media friends to hide it.
 

[Thomaso]

1 hour ago, jockmac said:

It makes me wonder how much Rod Petrie is the driving force behind these new measures. That man is still suffering the trauma of that glorious humiliation we gave his beloved Hibbies.

 

It reeks of him inflicting max damage to us at any cost. If the worst were to happen and we were expelled, it would be the worst mistake these muppets on the SFA board ever did.

A great club like ours, with 146 years of history and a huge support, would never let this be forgotten, it would end up haunting these bitter individuals for the rest of their days!

I never had any doubt Petrie would stick the knife in Hearts!

As for him regretting it it - not a chance!

[Taffin]

28 minutes ago, jambostevo said:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but is this not exactly what we have done?
 

99.12 A member, an associated person and/or the Scottish FA shall not take a Scottish FA Dispute to a court
of law except with the prior approval of the Board. For the avoidance of doubt, this Article 99.12 does
not prevent a member, associated person and/or the Scottish FA from raising proceedings for time bar purposes, subject to such proceedings being sisted at the earliest opportunity for resolution in accordance with this Article 99.

 

Is there a similar SPFL article? I wasn't aware we were in a dispute with the Scottish FA, rather the SPFL until the SFA decided to involve themselves.

[stuart500]

Maybe the pressure is being ramped up on the SFA by celtic*. 

 

Fear of corruption being exposed and fear of league being challenged as null and void if we win.

 

I really hope we have grounds to get this back to CoS which we could use to add a motion to challenge the SFA rule. Lord Clark would I suspect like the opportunity to rule on that as part of the overall petition.

 

Winning the petition and getting rid of that rule would be a real GIRUY to these rats.

 

 

 

[Eldrik]

1 minute ago, Gmcjambo said:

How can they be separate when Lord Clark commented on this, specific article and questioned its legality?   He would only have done so if he felt it relevant.     The SFA is instigating a disciplinary process related to our approach to this particular case.    The timing also prejudices Hearts and PTs capacity to fully focus and prepare for arbitration.    It's not unreasonable to question the intention and timing of this and I can't see how a reasonable observer wouldn't take a step back and consider all of this related. 

Not arguing about the timing!

 

But the process we chose to take was against the SFA rules for raising a complaint, ie. We raised action in the COS first rather than go down the route of taking it through their Arbitration panel.

 

[jambostevo]

7 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Is there a similar SPFL article? I wasn't aware we were in a dispute with the Scottish FA, rather the SPFL until the SFA decided to involve themselves.

We are a member of the SFA, as are the SPFL

[graygo]

55 minutes ago, Eldrik said:

Eh no, which is why Lord Clark ruled that any disputes needed to be heard through the SFA Arbitration system firstly, as per the SFA rules,

 

Eh yes, we never got permission from the SFA to go to court which is why Lord Clark made the ruling he did.

 

99.15 A member or an associated person may not take a Football Dispute to a court of law except with the 
prior approval of the Board. For the avoidance of doubt, this Article 99.15 does not prevent a member 
or associated person from raising proceedings for time bar purposes, subject to such proceedings being
sisted at the earliest opportunity for resolution in accordance with this Article 99.

[Kiwidoug]

Staggering.  I wish to God we could get rid of the OF and appoint a totally independent panel to run the game.

 

Speaking personally, I would accept a heartfelt apology from every club which has attempted to damage us.  Failing that, I would boycott them.

 

No rangers money, no Celtic money, no Hearts money.  I think they'd start to notice.

[Aussie Jambo]

I just googled SFA for ‘a laugh’ and apart from 3 shit tabloids online as opening headers... my search showed ... nixie!

Says if all really, doesn’t it?

 

 

[HMFC01]

49 minutes ago, 7628mm said:

 

Cool I feel better now.

 

In other news

 

If by some miracle the SFA manage to fine us, say, £500,000. I would suggest that the FOH offer to pay the money to the SFA in cash.

We could put a skip in the centre circle of Tynie with 1,000,000 50 pence coins in and invite the SFA to pop round to our place and pick their fine money up.

FOH members will be invited to sit in the stands obeying social distancing rules and watch the SFA come and "TRY" to collect.  

 

You've done this before!  Too professional  

[SMJ_1874]

I thought you might be interested in the attached statement I'm releasing to the media. 

You may post this on Kickback. 

I would hope that even the Kickback members who do not approve of my comments appearing on the forum , will accept that the interests of our club should be defended as widely and comprehensively as possible. Perhaps my comments might assist in that. 

Leslie Deans. 

 

It is with complete astonishment that I learn the SFA have charged the clubs with having the temerity to defend themselves in the Court of Session. This action is nothing more than a blatant and unsubtle attempt to influence the outcome of the arbitration tribunal.  The SFA  are attempting to pressurise the tribunal members to find against the clubs. Have the clubs accepted there is a breach of article 99?  Even if such a breach has taken place , why are the SFA  attempting to interfere with administration of justice?. Do they think they are above Scotland's supreme civil court?
Why could this not have been left until after the proceedings are terminated?

It would seem that their actions are an attempt to undermine the courts authority and the judicial process.  That is tantamount to contempt of court which is a criminal offence.

Any finding against the clubs will  inevitably be viewed as tainted. One wonders what kind of message that sends about Scottish football and Scotland as a whole?  
 

Leslie  Deans 

[Sid]

46 minutes ago, jambostevo said:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but is this not exactly what we have done?
 

99.12 A member, an associated person and/or the Scottish FA shall not take a Scottish FA Dispute to a court
of law except with the prior approval of the Board. For the avoidance of doubt, this Article 99.12 does
not prevent a member, associated person and/or the Scottish FA from raising proceedings for time bar purposes, subject to such proceedings being sisted at the earliest opportunity for resolution in accordance with this Article 99.

Our defence of the case is clear. We believed this was not a “Footballing Matter”. We accept the rulings of the Court that it is and, therefore agree we have technically breeched the rules. We did so unknowingly, on our legal advice, and apologise for our error. 

This should be concluded by a token fine. Should anything more severe happen, we then challenge the rule in Court as an unfair contract term and ask for Lord Clark to hear our case and get the money back. 

 

[Lone Striker]

14 minutes ago, Eldrik said:

Not arguing about the timing!

 

But the process we chose to take was against the SFA rules for raising a complaint, ie. We raised action in the COS first rather than go down the route of taking it through their Arbitration panel.

 

Does anyone have any inside info on what the response from Hearts & Partick was when the SFA asked them to explain why they did not ask them (SFA) to arbitrate ?   Perhaps  our response has angered them somewhat !!

[Cruyff]

The language used in that Keef Jackson article is horrific. "Rebel clubs", "Random note," what an absolute feckin c0ckwomble. 

[Eldrik]

6 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Eh yes, we never got permission from the SFA to go to court which is why Lord Clark made the ruling he did.

 

99.15 A member or an associated person may not take a Football Dispute to a court of law except with the 
prior approval of the Board. For the avoidance of doubt, this Article 99.15 does not prevent a member 
or associated person from raising proceedings for time bar purposes, subject to such proceedings being
sisted at the earliest opportunity for resolution in accordance with this Article 99.

Eh you have quoted rule 99.15 which specifically says that we cannot take a football dispute to a Court of Law ,"WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE BOARD ( ie.The SFA Board)

 

Did we have SFA approval to raise an action in COS or did we not?

 

Lord Clark seens to suggest that we jumped the gun and should have followed the governing body's dispute resolution procedures

before going down raising an action in the COS?

 

[Spellczech]

6 minutes ago, Sid said:

Our defence of the case is clear. We believed this was not a “Footballing Matter”. We accept the rulings of the Court that it is and, therefore agree we have technically breeched the rules. We did so unknowingly, on our legal advice, and apologise for our error. 

This should be concluded by a token fine. Should anything more severe happen, we then challenge the rule in Court as an unfair contract term and ask for Lord Clark to hear our case and get the money back. 

 

Um the idea that it was a "footballing matter" was the defence of the C3 clubs and was rejected by the court. This is a Company Law matter but the court decided that the correct place for it to be heard was SFA arbitration. Furthermore, the court ensured we had access to SPFL documentation for bringing the case at arbitration, something we would never have got from the SFA...

 

We breached the rules because we knew the rules would have cost us the case. If the SFA hits us with a big punitive fine they will probably end up getting it struck down by the court, which will make them look a bit silly and Article 99 will be blown to Hell...

[kila]

2 minutes ago, Eldrik said:

Eh you have quoted rule 99.15 which specifically says that we cannot take a football dispute to a Court of Law ,"WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE BOARD ( ie.The SFA Board)

 

Did we have SFA approval to raise an action in COS or did we not?

 

Lord Clark seens to suggest that we jumped the gun and should have followed the governing body's dispute resolution procedures

before going down raising an action in the COS?

 

 

 

Lord Clark said we were absolutely right to go to the CoS first. Had we not, key documents would not have been released.

 

Imagine spending your evening on a rival fan's board writing that pish.

 

[Byyy The Light]

I’ll be gutted if Hearts back down now. This is beyond belief. Not unexpected it would get dirty but if we don’t see this through to the bitter end then I’ll not be back. Can’t stomach putting any of my hard earned money in to a “sport” that is as fecked up and morally bankrupt as this. 

 

I don’t care if we don’t win, we just need to fight and take it to the end of every available route.  Burn the whole lot to the ground. 

[Lone Striker]

2 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Um the idea that it was a "footballing matter" was the defence of the C3 clubs and was rejected by the court. This is a Company Law matter but the court decided that the correct place for it to be heard was SFA arbitration. Furthermore, the court ensured we had access to SPFL documentation for bringing the case at arbitration, something we would never have got from the SFA...

 

We breached the rules because we knew the rules would have cost us the case. If the SFA hits us with a big punitive fine they will probably end up getting it struck down by the court, which will make them look a bit silly and Article 99 will be blown to Hell...

Para 1 - Correct

Para 2 - Let's hope so !!

[graygo]

1 hour ago, graygo said:

 

No, he's right. You can go to court if you ask them first and give approval.

 

1 hour ago, Eldrik said:

Eh no, which is why Lord Clark ruled that any disputes needed to be heard through the SFA Arbitration system firstly, as per the SFA rules,

 

19 minutes ago, Eldrik said:

Eh you have quoted rule 99.15 which specifically says that we cannot take a football dispute to a Court of Law ,"WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE BOARD ( ie.The SFA Board)

 

Did we have SFA approval to raise an action in COS or did we not?

 

Lord Clark seens to suggest that we jumped the gun and should have followed the governing body's dispute resolution procedures

before going down raising an action in the COS?

 

Read my original post which you felt compelled to pick me up on.

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by graygo
Removed the personal abuse although it was warranted

[Pans Jambo]

9 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

The language used in that Keef Jackson article is horrific. "Rebel clubs", "Random note," what an absolute feckin c0ckwomble. 

“Dragged” Scottish football through the courts!

 

Thats as far as I got. Cant read any of his utter rotten shite!!!

[Oneneilberry]

11 minutes ago, Eldrik said:

Eh you have quoted rule 99.15 which specifically says that we cannot take a football dispute to a Court of Law ,"WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE BOARD ( ie.The SFA Board)

 

Did we have SFA approval to raise an action in COS or did we not?

 

Lord Clark seens to suggest that we jumped the gun and should have followed the governing body's dispute resolution procedures

before going down raising an action in the COS?

 

Hibs fans tying themselves in knots over this😂😂

2012 absolutely decimated their arseholes 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Oneneilberry

[Byyy The Light]

6 minutes ago, Eldrik said:

Eh you have quoted rule 99.15 which specifically says that we cannot take a football dispute to a Court of Law ,"WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE BOARD ( ie.The SFA Board)

 

Did we have SFA approval to raise an action in COS or did we not?

 

Lord Clark seens to suggest that we jumped the gun and should have followed the governing body's dispute resolution procedures

before going down raising an action in the COS?

 

Having an absolute Zibby here. Do us a favour and **** right off.