SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Sooperstar]

 

[Locky]

It's a very valid question. But the rest of Scottish football will have you believe that those 3 are the victims of big bad Hearts and our nasty ways.

[AndrewB]

3 hours ago, colinmaroon said:

I posted this under the National Team thread but it really belongs here:

 

Its not really about the team.  Its about the archaic cabal that is the SFA.

 

Just look at the level of CEO for example.  The likes of Fuhrer Ferry, Gordon Smith, Maxwell.  Filled with "Brechin-like" blazers.  A refereeing politburo, which operates under a cloak of darkness, according to their own rules, differing somewhat from the actual rules of Association Football. 

 

 

 

I presume a wee typo but I got a shudder when I was reminded of that few wee git Jim Farry.  

And David Will of Brechin always swanned around with the air of "look how great Scottish football is because I get to be on UEFA (FIFA?) committees."

 

 

2 hours ago, jbee647 said:

Don’t care if it’s Hibs or Albion Rovers.....every single team should get dogs abuse from now on, they have all shat on us, I want 27 straight wins next season, shame and humiliate every opponent, no letting up, no mercy, minimum of 5 goal victories every week 

Absolutely.  Must let the players and staff know the feelings and treat every game like it was a Derby.

 

 

2 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

The sooner we lose bowling club metal mickies wearing more metal on their blazers than Louis Mountbatten the better imo.

Yes - as posted by others a few times, need to rip the whole thing up and strip things into (a) a proper professional league and (b) a league of part-time, zero-ambition, OF-loving no-marks.  Influence of these little clubs and their bowling club metal mickies needs blown out of the water.

[Mikey1874]

20 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

Dundee Utd, Raith and Cove were annoyed we went to the CoS and they joined us there to state their case.

Why did they not go through the SFA's arbitration process?

and

have they also been cited for not going through "the proper channels"?

 

PS:   By way of analogy

On the field of play, if A whacks B and B retaliates, both are likely be sent off.  You can't just claim self defence.

 

The way the Compliance Officer seems to work things take a certain amount of time.

 

I think we are 2 or 3 weeks away from any action. 

 

But if there is nothing in that time it shows there won't be. 

[colinmaroon]

35 minutes ago, Brave Hearts said:

spot on

 

however i would say

 

Scottish Football stinks to Low Hell

 

 

 

I give thanks for the blessed sub-editor.

 

 

[colinmaroon]

6 minutes ago, AndrewB said:

 

I presume a wee typo but I got a shudder when I was reminded of that few wee git Jim Farry.  

And David Will of Brechin always swanned around with the air of "look how great Scottish football is because I get to be on UEFA (FIFA?) committees."

 

 

 

Again, thanks for the sub edit.

 

 

[EIEIO]

1 hour ago, mitch41 said:

And yet Celtic, Rangers, Aberdeen, Hibs sit back and stay silent. They leave it to their ex-players and media friends to spread the poison against Hearts & Partick Th. After the Arbitration is over and no matter the outcome I’d love Ann Budge to come out and thank Scotland’s so called big clubs for all their lack of support. Heart of Midlothian F.C. who have been leaders and promoters of Scottish Football since 1874 have been treated to a level of disrespect that would never be given to the ugly sisters from Glasgow. I hope from now on whatever the outcome we only help our friends Falkirk, Inverness CT, and a few more. 

I can't believe I'm saying this but , to be fair to the huns they did propose an independent inquiry and produce a dossier which is quite helpful to us.

[Rods]

I would expect us to challenge any fine or punishment straight away as we having the backing of Lord Clark and also the obvious conflicts of interest. 

 

The compliance officer had to act but the timing was off and that will be noted during our challenge.

 

We will not be challenging the SFA we will challenging the rule itself as there is no scope or direction for conflicts of interest. 

[soonbe110]

29 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said:

 

My dream outcome, is reinstatement after season has started. Glorious mayhem.

Dundee Utd winning first couple of games and getting ejected.

I’d expect arbitration panel to state the three clubs should be reinstated and that’s it. No change for United et al ie they stay in current division ie Utd in premier. Just means a season of 13/10/10/9. Least controversial solution given how close we are to season starting. Only challenge left for SPFL is how many get relegated from top league and is there any promotion/ play-off in place in lower leagues  next season. 

[Hagar the Horrible]

1 hour ago, dazinho88 said:

FIFA insist upon a rule for each association that clubs should not use the court system for disputes, rightly or wrongly. 

No it does not, we took the SPFL to court who have no such rules in their statutes?  But under Scots Law we can go to court to clarify any legal clarification and as the court to enact any powers it sees fit, especially when the SFA have noi legal juristiction.

 

We were bound by article 99 a point that was clarified.  It was NOT a football Mater but company law?  FIFA have no rules regarding that!

[Newton51]

We would challenge any charge by sfa that seemed unreasonable. Can’t believe we don’t have a start date for the arbitration 

[soonbe110]

19 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

The way the Compliance Officer seems to work things take a certain amount of time.

 

I think we are 2 or 3 weeks away from any action. 

 

But if there is nothing in that time it shows there won't be. 

Our hearing is on 6 August. 

[Gordon Ramsay]

1 hour ago, mitch41 said:

And yet Celtic, Rangers, Aberdeen, Hibs sit back and stay silent. They leave it to their ex-players and media friends to spread the poison against Hearts & Partick Th. After the Arbitration is over and no matter the outcome I’d love Ann Budge to come out and thank Scotland’s so called big clubs for all their lack of support. Heart of Midlothian F.C. who have been leaders and promoters of Scottish Football since 1874 have been treated to a level of disrespect that would never be given to the ugly sisters from Glasgow. I hope from now on whatever the outcome we only help our friends Falkirk, Inverness CT, and a few more. 

 

There are reasons for this to be fair. 

 

Celtic are obviously praying nothing comes out which affects that precious title so they are effectively in hiding and have been since the vote was passed. Apart from Lawwells impassioned speech of course. 

 

Hibs are delighted we are out the league so they don't have to get pissed on at Easter Road again. 

 

Aberdeen are a non entity. 

 

Rangers is an interesting one. They know the system is corrupt and everything that has happened since April has been to appease Celtic. They tried to do something but it didn't work. I'd imagine they are waiting for the right opportunity to strike. Wouldn't mind if they did tbh, it might be useful. 

 

Rest of the clubs just keep their heed doon and do what their master (Lawwell) tells them.

[colinmaroon]

48 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

Dundee Utd, Raith and Cove were annoyed we went to the CoS and they joined us there to state their case.

Why did they not go through the SFA's arbitration process?

and

have they also been cited for not going through "the proper channels"?

 

PS:   By way of analogy

On the field of play, if A whacks B and B retaliates, both are likely be sent off.  You can't just claim self defence.

 

In fact, it is more common for the one who retaliates to get sent off.

 

 

[Hagar the Horrible]

So having reviewed Rule 99 it more or less states that it is based on Scot law 2010 for arbitrations, so I went digging and in about 1 hour found these points, worthy of debate but more so I think we have a strong case to return this back to the CoS that is assuming our QC wants to or I am talking bollox, but never the less look at these points:

 

1.     Founding principles

This section has no associated Explanatory Notes

The founding principles of this Act are—

1 (a)that the object of arbitration is to resolve disputes fairly, impartially and without unnecessary delay or expense,

 

Ok so I don’t think the Compliance Officer and as a representative of the SFA has acted impartially by issuing a complaint notice and thus finding us guilty in the middle of arbitration and there the CoS has NOT!

 

13 Court intervention in arbitrations

This section has no associated Explanatory Note

(1) Legal proceedings are competent in respect of—

(a) a tribunal's award, or

(b) any other act or omission by a tribunal when conducting an arbitration,

 

I think issuing us with a notice of complaint constitutes an ACT

 

Rule 13 The Outer House may dismiss the tribunal if satisfied on the application by a party that substantial injustice has been or will be caused to that party because the tribunal has failed to conduct the arbitration in accordance with—

(a)the arbitration agreement,

(b)these rules (in so far as they apply), or

(c)any other agreement by the parties relating to conduct of the arbitration.

Well I think a notice of complaint is a complete breach of rule 13

 

Rule 41 The Outer House may, on an application by any party, determine any point of Scots law arising in the arbitration.

We did that and as such clarified the subject of the SPFL being a person and to obtain all relevant documentation, All we did was question everything on Scots Law!

 

Rule 81 A tribunal (or arbitrator) who treats any party unfairly is, for the purposes of these rules, to be deemed not to have treated the parties fairly.

Again  I think a notice of complaint is a complete breach of rule 81

 

I left this bit until last:

Rule 16 (6)Despite rule 40, parties to a statutory arbitration may not agree to—

(a) consolidate the arbitration with another arbitration,

(b) hold concurrent hearings, or

(c) authorise the tribunal to order such consolidation or the holding of concurrent hearings,

unless the arbitrations or hearings are to be conducted under the same enactment.

 

16b The Compliance Officer has by her actions breached their own rules but in doing so She may have deemed to have broken the law!   Based on all the rules and my maroon coloured specs?????

 

[Mikey1874]

2 hours ago, RobNox said:

 

That assumes that the SFA agreed to an arbitration panel.  They may well have determined that it was a footballing matter, therefore referred it to themselves to rule on, which is what the Calpol 3 were arguing for at the CoS.  In which case, we'd have had no chance of an impartial hearing.

 

When Rod Petrie was interviewed on Sportsound a couple of months ago he mentioned he was waiting on an appeal to the SFA Not arbitration.

[Simmo]

1 hour ago, mitch41 said:

There must be a few clubs/owners out there that are not happy with the SPFL and SFA. Time for them to speak up against this injustice.

They had their chance to speak up with the Rangers Investigation motion but only 13 joined in then  No point in thinking they would act any differently now.

[dazinho88]

1 minute ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

No it does not, we took the SPFL to court who have no such rules in their statutes?  But under Scots Law we can go to court to clarify any legal clarification and as the court to enact any powers it sees fit, especially when the SFA have noi legal juristiction.

 

We were bound by article 99 a point that was clarified.  It was NOT a football Mater but company law?  FIFA have no rules regarding that!

 

FIFA certainly do have a requirement that each FA sets out a rule that states clubs cannot go through the courts. The statute FIFA use, and oblige associations to use is;

 

" Recourse to ordinary courts of law is prohibited unless specifically provided for in the FIFA regulations "

 

I only confirmed another posters suggestion of such a rule existing as a result of either UEFA or FIFA insistence, not that said rule was correct to be insisted upon, lawful or that it should apply in this instance so I'm not clear on why you've suggested so. 

[colinmaroon]

Listen, we know that the Compliance officer is a Celtic stooge.  We know that Bully Boy Llawell likes flinging his weight about.

 

We know that the SFA charge is designed to put Thistle particularly in fear of a fine from the Cabal.

 

We know that Celtic are scared stiff that arbitration may even go as far as to declare that the season should be null and void or, at least that a finding for Hearts and Thistle further diminishes their Eight and 3/4 in a row.

 

 

[John Findlay]

3 minutes ago, dazinho88 said:

 

FIFA certainly do have a requirement that each FA sets out a rule that states clubs cannot go through the courts. The statute FIFA use, and oblige associations to use is;

 

" Recourse to ordinary courts of law is prohibited unless specifically provided for in the FIFA regulations "

 

I only confirmed another posters suggestion of such a rule existing as a result of either UEFA or FIFA insistence, not that said rule was correct to be insisted upon, lawful or that it should apply in this instance so I'm not clear on why you've suggested so. 

The clue is in the letters FA. Football Associations. The SPFL are not a Football Association. Us taking the SPFL to court has not broken or infringed any UEFA/FIFA rules. It is highly unlikely we have broken any SFA ones too.

[mitch41]

1 hour ago, ToadKiller Dog said:

Falkirk certainly have shown support amongst a few others Inverness but I sense the threats made against them quieted them.

I'm sure some clubs will have a cheer if we do win ,some have shown sympathy even Les Gray of Hamilton . I just can't see them taking the jump to stand up beside us .

Doesn't seem to be in their nature .

A few bottle merchants out there I guess. If the media were doing their job they’d be asking what their thoughts were. Even if they were to say “no comment” at least that would be something. But the media are only in talking to has been who crawl up the Ugly Sisters arseholes. 

[mitch41]

1 hour ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

I think you’re being a bit naive there. It’s not their fight and wtf would Hibs in particular try to help us?

I don’t want Hibs help !  Where did I say that ?

[Spellczech]

17 minutes ago, Rods said:

I would expect us to challenge any fine or punishment straight away as we having the backing of Lord Clark and also the obvious conflicts of interest. 

 

The compliance officer had to act but the timing was off and that will be noted during our challenge.

 

We will not be challenging the SFA we will challenging the rule itself as there is no scope or direction for conflicts of interest. 

What is peculiar is that the SFA went down this path at all. They could have sat on their laurels, namely that Lord Clark decided the case, though Company Law and not Footballing, should be heard at SFA arbitration, but rather they have decided to try to bring a case against us for having the temerity to not go to the SFA ourselves...They must know that Lord Clark hinted that the £1m fine and "oot the game" as sanctions are questionable and likely to be struck down if carried out, so what the Hell are they actually doing????

 

Are they testing their raison d'etre by trying to test their supremacy vs the Scottish Court System? That would be rather foolish as they are the only ones with anything to lose...

 

Are they trying to influence their own arbitration panel? Certainly the timing of both their pronouncements do indicate that this is the tactic - again thin ice to be stepping upon though...

 

It is of course paramount to the existence of an SFA that they be the arbiter of rights and wrongs in Scottish Football, but they must know that they are not the final arbiter - Courts, CAS, UEFA & FIFA are all above them. Strikes me that they've taken offence that we implied they are not impartial, but let's be honest, when you conduct your business behind closed doors all the time, nobody is ever going to believe you are impartial and fair...

[Rogue Daddy]

26 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

I’d expect arbitration panel to state the three clubs should be reinstated and that’s it. No change for United et al ie they stay in current division ie Utd in premier. Just means a season of 13/10/10/9. Least controversial solution given how close we are to season starting. Only challenge left for SPFL is how many get relegated from top league and is there any promotion/ play-off in place in lower leagues  next season. 

Should have been this from day 1 as part of the resolution. 1 season only, bottom 2 relegated & playoffs for 3rd bottom. Easy.

The reason for not doing this can only be answered by SPFL board... can only reason it was personal IMO.

[JamboAl1965]

17 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

So having reviewed Rule 99 it more or less states that it is based on Scot law 2010 for arbitrations, so I went digging and in about 1 hour found these points, worthy of debate but more so I think we have a strong case to return this back to the CoS that is assuming our QC wants to or I am talking bollox, but never the less look at these points:

 

1.     Founding principles

This section has no associated Explanatory Notes

The founding principles of this Act are—

1 (a)that the object of arbitration is to resolve disputes fairly, impartially and without unnecessary delay or expense,

 

Ok so I don’t think the Compliance Officer and as a representative of the SFA has acted impartially by issuing a complaint notice and thus finding us guilty in the middle of arbitration and there the CoS has NOT!

 

13 Court intervention in arbitrations

This section has no associated Explanatory Note

(1) Legal proceedings are competent in respect of—

(a) a tribunal's award, or

(b) any other act or omission by a tribunal when conducting an arbitration,

 

I think issuing us with a notice of complaint constitutes an ACT

 

Rule 13 The Outer House may dismiss the tribunal if satisfied on the application by a party that substantial injustice has been or will be caused to that party because the tribunal has failed to conduct the arbitration in accordance with—

(a)the arbitration agreement,

(b)these rules (in so far as they apply), or

(c)any other agreement by the parties relating to conduct of the arbitration.

Well I think a notice of complaint is a complete breach of rule 13

 

Rule 41 The Outer House may, on an application by any party, determine any point of Scots law arising in the arbitration.

We did that and as such clarified the subject of the SPFL being a person and to obtain all relevant documentation, All we did was question everything on Scots Law!

 

Rule 81 A tribunal (or arbitrator) who treats any party unfairly is, for the purposes of these rules, to be deemed not to have treated the parties fairly.

Again  I think a notice of complaint is a complete breach of rule 81

 

I left this bit until last:

Rule 16 (6)Despite rule 40, parties to a statutory arbitration may not agree to—

(a) consolidate the arbitration with another arbitration,

(b) hold concurrent hearings, or

(c) authorise the tribunal to order such consolidation or the holding of concurrent hearings,

unless the arbitrations or hearings are to be conducted under the same enactment.

 

16b The Compliance Officer has by her actions breached their own rules but in doing so She may have deemed to have broken the law!   Based on all the rules and my maroon coloured specs?????

 

tribunal and compliance officer are not the same thing. Think her actions are correct but the timing is extremely suspect. I think the club should be clear that the impartiality and competence of the SFA is in question and/ or we were taking companies to court   

[mitch41]

53 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Hibs are silent as their fans would not accept them siding with us, in fact want them to stick the knife in which their owner duly did.

 

Aberdeen are parochial and only interested in things concerning Aberdeen.

 

Celtic are pulling strings behind the scenes for sure.

 

Rangers are trying to work out if this is an opportunity for them to wrest back control of the SFA from Celtic. They already have a whistleblower at the SPFL who was straight on the blower to Douglas Park over the Dundee vote, and they likely see an opportunity to become the "Establishment" club once again, which Celtic managed to pinch from them following the Referees Strike and Rangers liquidation.

Poker players who never put their cards on the table. How can anyone trust a corrupt league that threaten and bully clubs as well as a governing body like the SFA who just want to punish clubs for standing up to a league that panders to the ugly sisters. 

[Thunderstruck]

14 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

So having reviewed Rule 99 it more or less states that it is based on Scot law 2010 for arbitrations, so I went digging and in about 1 hour found these points, worthy of debate but more so I think we have a strong case to return this back to the CoS that is assuming our QC wants to or I am talking bollox, but never the less look at these points:

 

1.     Founding principles

This section has no associated Explanatory Notes

The founding principles of this Act are—

1 (a)that the object of arbitration is to resolve disputes fairly, impartially and without unnecessary delay or expense,

 

Ok so I don’t think the Compliance Officer and as a representative of the SFA has acted impartially by issuing a complaint notice and thus finding us guilty in the middle of arbitration and there the CoS has NOT!

 

13 Court intervention in arbitrations

This section has no associated Explanatory Note

(1) Legal proceedings are competent in respect of—

(a) a tribunal's award, or

(b) any other act or omission by a tribunal when conducting an arbitration,

 

I think issuing us with a notice of complaint constitutes an ACT

 

Rule 13 The Outer House may dismiss the tribunal if satisfied on the application by a party that substantial injustice has been or will be caused to that party because the tribunal has failed to conduct the arbitration in accordance with—

(a)the arbitration agreement,

(b)these rules (in so far as they apply), or

(c)any other agreement by the parties relating to conduct of the arbitration.

Well I think a notice of complaint is a complete breach of rule 13

 

Rule 41 The Outer House may, on an application by any party, determine any point of Scots law arising in the arbitration.

We did that and as such clarified the subject of the SPFL being a person and to obtain all relevant documentation, All we did was question everything on Scots Law!

 

Rule 81 A tribunal (or arbitrator) who treats any party unfairly is, for the purposes of these rules, to be deemed not to have treated the parties fairly.

Again  I think a notice of complaint is a complete breach of rule 81

 

I left this bit until last:

Rule 16 (6)Despite rule 40, parties to a statutory arbitration may not agree to—

(a) consolidate the arbitration with another arbitration,

(b) hold concurrent hearings, or

(c) authorise the tribunal to order such consolidation or the holding of concurrent hearings,

unless the arbitrations or hearings are to be conducted under the same enactment.

 

16b The Compliance Officer has by her actions breached their own rules but in doing so She may have deemed to have broken the law!   Based on all the rules and my maroon coloured specs?????

 

My reading of that is that it refers to the actions/inactions of the Tribunal which is only set up under the auspices of the SFA but is (should be) otherwise independent of the SFA. I don’t think that clause restricts the SFA itself from taking action. 
 

Whether the SFA is acting ethically in the notice of complaint is, of course, an entirely different matter. It seems vindictive and an overt attempt to intimidate - a suggestion that has already caused Lord Clark to raise a metaphorical eyebrow. 

[kingantti1874]

Not sure how the time bar clauses help us tbh.. can anyone explain

[mitch41]

37 minutes ago, EIEIO said:

I can't believe I'm saying this but , to be fair to the huns they did propose an independent inquiry and produce a dossier which is quite helpful to us.

True

[mitch41]

29 minutes ago, Gordon Ramsay said:

 

There are reasons for this to be fair. 

 

Celtic are obviously praying nothing comes out which affects that precious title so they are effectively in hiding and have been since the vote was passed. Apart from Lawwells impassioned speech of course. 

 

Hibs are delighted we are out the league so they don't have to get pissed on at Easter Road again. 

 

Aberdeen are a non entity. 

 

Rangers is an interesting one. They know the system is corrupt and everything that has happened since April has been to appease Celtic. They tried to do something but it didn't work. I'd imagine they are waiting for the right opportunity to strike. Wouldn't mind if they did tbh, it might be useful. 

 

Rest of the clubs just keep their heed doon and do what their master (Lawwell) tells them.

True

[mitch41]

24 minutes ago, Simmo said:

They had their chance to speak up with the Rangers Investigation motion but only 13 joined in then  No point in thinking they would act any differently now.

Then again if they were honourable just owners of a club in the Scottish Leagues I’d expect them to say to the SFA that it is against the spirit of the game to charge 2 clubs while they are waiting to go to arbitration on the advice of Lord Clark at the Court of Session.

[Abiola Dauda]

13 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Not sure how the time bar clauses help us tbh.. can anyone explain

They don't - they would only kick in if we were going to lose our right to take it to Court due to statutory limits on the timeframes you have to raise a claim.  Whilst we arguably were short on time as our action had to be brought before the season started, our time constraints were entirely separate from time bar which still had a long time to run. 

 

My reading of the SFA rules is that taking this to the Court of Session is a clear breach of the rules.  Whether or not this particular rule is legally enforceable or not is a different question and (as hinted at by Lord Clark) may very well be contrary to public policy.  

 

Annoyingly, the only way to find out if the rule is enforceable or not is to break it again by taking the SFA to Court.  I strongly suspect all parties want to avoid that (the SFA wont want this rule declared unenforceable in Court) and that we will get a relatively lenient punishment. 

Edited July 15, 2020 by Abiola Dauda

[colinmaroon]

56 minutes ago, EIEIO said:

I can't believe I'm saying this but , to be fair to the huns they did propose an independent inquiry and produce a dossier which is quite helpful to us.

 

But all gas and no gaiters.

[martoon]

Is it possible that Arbitration has started but on the quiet?

 

No idea how these things work but I'm kind of expecting a sudden announcement that it's done and dusted (Hearts reinstated, hopefully). A bit like getting told the final score of a game that we didn't even know had kicked off. 

[JimmyCant]

18 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Not sure how the time bar clauses help us tbh.. can anyone explain

Time bar usually means there is an expiry date on proceeding with certain claims. 
There might be a case for saying our reinstatement has a form of time bar attached to it simply because if the league starts without our reinstatement, it’s next to impossible that we could be reinstated. Note sure that’s the intention of the time bar part referred to but we could see how it flies I suppose.

[JimmyCant]

2 minutes ago, martoon said:

Is it possible that Arbitration has started but on the quiet?

 

No idea how these things work but I'm kind of expecting a sudden announcement that it's done and dusted (Hearts reinstated, hopefully). A bit like getting told the final score of a game that we didn't even know had kicked off. 

Glasgow Times says next week but doesn’t elaborate

[Rogue Daddy]

1 minute ago, martoon said:

Is it possible that Arbitration has started but on the quiet?

 

No idea how these things work but I'm kind of expecting a sudden announcement that it's done and dusted (Hearts reinstated, hopefully). A bit like getting told the final score of a game that we didn't even know had kicked off. 

I'm guessing that will be the case... on yesterdays Sportsound podcast, TE stated that those responsible for retrieving the documents had been 'quick off the mark' and that clubs had been contacted for their version of events.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

1 hour ago, EIEIO said:

I can't believe I'm saying this but , to be fair to the huns they did propose an independent inquiry and produce a dossier which is quite helpful to us.

The Huns were interested for as long as they thought they might stop nine in a row. After that they couldn’t have cared less. They weren’t motivated by helping us in the slightest

[mitch41]

38 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

So having reviewed Rule 99 it more or less states that it is based on Scot law 2010 for arbitrations, so I went digging and in about 1 hour found these points, worthy of debate but more so I think we have a strong case to return this back to the CoS that is assuming our QC wants to or I am talking bollox, but never the less look at these points:

 

1.     Founding principles

This section has no associated Explanatory Notes

The founding principles of this Act are—

1 (a)that the object of arbitration is to resolve disputes fairly, impartially and without unnecessary delay or expense,

 

Ok so I don’t think the Compliance Officer and as a representative of the SFA has acted impartially by issuing a complaint notice and thus finding us guilty in the middle of arbitration and there the CoS has NOT!

 

13 Court intervention in arbitrations

This section has no associated Explanatory Note

(1) Legal proceedings are competent in respect of—

(a) a tribunal's award, or

(b) any other act or omission by a tribunal when conducting an arbitration,

 

I think issuing us with a notice of complaint constitutes an ACT

 

Rule 13 The Outer House may dismiss the tribunal if satisfied on the application by a party that substantial injustice has been or will be caused to that party because the tribunal has failed to conduct the arbitration in accordance with—

(a)the arbitration agreement,

(b)these rules (in so far as they apply), or

(c)any other agreement by the parties relating to conduct of the arbitration.

Well I think a notice of complaint is a complete breach of rule 13

 

Rule 41 The Outer House may, on an application by any party, determine any point of Scots law arising in the arbitration.

We did that and as such clarified the subject of the SPFL being a person and to obtain all relevant documentation, All we did was question everything on Scots Law!

 

Rule 81 A tribunal (or arbitrator) who treats any party unfairly is, for the purposes of these rules, to be deemed not to have treated the parties fairly.

Again  I think a notice of complaint is a complete breach of rule 81

 

I left this bit until last:

Rule 16 (6)Despite rule 40, parties to a statutory arbitration may not agree to—

(a) consolidate the arbitration with another arbitration,

(b) hold concurrent hearings, or

(c) authorise the tribunal to order such consolidation or the holding of concurrent hearings,

unless the arbitrations or hearings are to be conducted under the same enactment.

 

16b The Compliance Officer has by her actions breached their own rules but in doing so She may have deemed to have broken the law!   Based on all the rules and my maroon coloured specs?????

 

I like this post and I hope our council has these points in their case notes. And remember the ‘ piece de resistance ‘ the Dundee vote debacle where Dundee’s vote was received and ignored in the time allocated.

[Tommy Brown]

59 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

I’d expect arbitration panel to state the three clubs should be reinstated and that’s it. No change for United et al ie they stay in current division ie Utd in premier. Just means a season of 13/10/10/9. Least controversial solution given how close we are to season starting. Only challenge left for SPFL is how many get relegated from top league and is there any promotion/ play-off in place in lower leagues  next season. 

That would be a glorious outcome.

Plenty mayhem, rejigging fixtures.

Every other team's  support would be furious. Bring it on.

[TheBigO]

1 hour ago, 7628mm said:

Just listened to some sports news on radio Scotland and in Hearts news JJ is back as we already knew. However when a reporter was asked about Arbitration he had no idea what stage we are at as it is all in private unlike the CoS the other week. He did however say he hoped there would be a decision soon.

 

As I have said before I think the SFA/SPFL are just kicking the can down the road until the SPL has started thinking that everything will be OK and the season cannot be stopped.

 

I still think we may go for an interdict but leave it until after the 1st round of fixtures just to get it right up them

 

 

I've always assumed we'd know when it started at the very least, and a kind of rough timeframe.  But imagine it's all going on and hush hush as we speak and then BAM on Friday 3pm the news comes out the blue that we're back in the top flight, this place explodes with jizz n fannybatter and MSM start scrambling around trying to find someone to say it'll be OK.  Tam McManus and Terry Christie both curl up in a ball under a table together, skeletons to be found in 10 years time, by Leann Dempster in her new cleaning job, her old employers having gone bust as every Hibs season ticket holder handed it back in when they decided football no longer exists if they just can't beat us at anything.  The horse to which we tie Neil Doncaster has its erse slapped and it rides off into the sunset, him muttering about semantics of cash advances, ticking like Jack Douglas the whole way.

 

It would be larrrrvley, wouldn't it!!

 

That's what I want to happen!!  Yes please.

Edited July 15, 2020 by TheBigO

[Beast Boy]

4 hours ago, wavydavy said:

 

Not sure if this has been mentioned as I have just seen it today but for once this guy seems to be talking some sense.

 

Scottish football should appoint a US-style commissioner as part of a shake-up of SPFL leadership, say two club chairmen.

Ayr United's Lachlan Cameron, who is based in the US, and Donald Findlay of Cowdenbeath believe decision-making powers should be taken away from clubs.

The major American sport leagues - the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL - have commissioners who act for clubs.

"We've got 42 clubs all with their own self-interest," Cameron said.

"I think we'd be better off putting a person in a position to make decisions for the benefit of the league as a whole. The way you would change that commissioner would be to vote them out.

"You then take the vested, self-interest out of it. You have someone making decisions for the benefit of the league as a whole and they don't take individual clubs into consideration. It just makes it much cleaner in my opinion."

• Transfer window & League Cup dates confirmed

At the moment major decisions for the SPFL, led by chief executive Neil Doncaster and a board, must be put to a vote of all 42 clubs, which has caused controversy amid the vote to curtail the season.

It ended with relegated clubs Hearts and Partick Thistle taking legal action, and they now await their arbitration case being heard.

"You need somebody in charge of the organisation," Cowdenbeath chairman Findlay told the BBC's Scottish football podcast.

"For a long time what I thought bedevilled Scottish football was that nobody was in charge and that's why I very much agree with Lachlan's model.

"We need strong leadership, but we haven't had it, we need it now and we absolutely need to get this right before we start the next season."

Meanwhile, Cameron confirmed that he would give financial help to Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers, who asked for support in their legal battle, as Hearts and Thistle attempt to stop the trio's promotions.

However the money will not come from Ayr's funds.

"I just think it's the right thing to do," Cameron said. "I think its important to support the clubs that are, in my opinion, being unfairly persecuted here, which are the three promoted clubs."

You think he’s talking sense?

[Lfhearts]

3 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

The Huns were interested for as long as they thought they might stop nine in a row. After that they couldn’t have cared less. They weren’t motivated by helping us in the slightest

Garbage as usual, anyone with any brains knows that Rangers want change and have helped our case.

[colinmaroon]

34 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

 

 

It is of course paramount to the existence of an SFA that they be the arbiter of rights and wrongs in Scottish Football, but they must know that they are not the final arbiter - Courts, CAS, UEFA & FIFA are all above them. Strikes me that they've taken offence that we implied they are not impartial, but let's be honest, when you conduct your business behind closed doors all the time, nobody is ever going to believe you are impartial and fair...

 

 

THE point that has caused me to "campaign" all my adult footballing life against the corruption in our game.

 

 

[TheBigO]

Just now, Special Officer Doofy said:

You think he’s talking sense?

I get what wavydavy is saying.  The idea that the game could be run by a professional, independent person/board, rather than a cabal of small minded club chairmen, who use the position to protect the status quo, all overseen by whichever OF team at that time claims dominance, and their mandatory figure on that board.  The current setup is shocking and totally stifles even the idea of change or progression.

 

Bringing in an actual CEO who can take the game where it needs to, would be way better.  His parameters will always be the issue.  What would the remit really be?  Who would set it, who would judge success?  These are the things that Doncaster has dodged.  He's answerable to no one basically.

[kingantti1874]

14 minutes ago, Abiola Dauda said:

They don't - they would only kick in if we were going to lose our right to take it to Court due to statutory limits on the timeframes you have to raise a claim.  Whilst we arguably were short on time as our action had to be brought before the season started, our time constraints were entirely separate from time bar which still had a long time to run. 

 

My reading of the SFA rules is that taking this to the Court of Session is a clear breach of the rules.  Whether or not this particular rule is legally enforceable or not is a different question and (as hinted at by Lord Clark) may very well be contrary to public policy.  

 

Annoyingly, the only way to find out if the rule is enforceable or not is to break it again by taking the SFA to Court.  I strongly suspect all parties want to avoid that (the SFA wont want this rule declared unenforceable in Court) and that we will get a relatively lenient punishment. 

yep, as I thought. Good reasoning though as to why they won’t throw the book at us. 👍🏻

[Beast Boy]

1 minute ago, TheBigO said:

I get what wavydavy is saying.  The idea that the game could be run by a professional, independent person/board, rather than a cabal of small minded club chairmen, who use the position to protect the status quo, all overseen by whichever OF team at that time claims dominance, and their mandatory figure on that board.  The current setup is shocking and totally stifles even the idea of change or progression.

 

Bringing in an actual CEO who can take the game where it needs to, would be way better.  His parameters will always be the issue.  What would the remit really be?  Who would set it, who would judge success?  These are the things that Doncaster has dodged.  He's answerable to no one basically.

We’d just end up with someone like Doncaster, and they would still run it for the benefit of two clubs. 🤷‍♂️

[jambo_74]

2 minutes ago, Lfhearts said:

Garbage as usual, anyone with any brains knows that Rangers want change and have helped our case.

Ah yes, but, change for the good of everyone? Or change because they feel it's their turn to be holding court at the top table again?

[gator]

8 minutes ago, colinmaroon said:

 

 

THE point that has caused me to "campaign" all my adult footballing life against the corruption in our game.

 

 

This is really a watershed moment for many of us who think along those lines, if ever there is a chance for change it is definitely now, I am hoping beyond hope we can bring this corrupt house of cards down, if we can't and are punished by these corrupt cartels I will be pleased we went all in but like many, I will be hard pressed to continue to support Scottish football!

Edited July 15, 2020 by gator

[TheBigO]

1 minute ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

We’d just end up with someone like Doncaster, and they would still run it for the benefit of two clubs. 🤷‍♂️

I know that!!!!!!!!  I bloody know that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  You think I don't effing know that!?!?!?!?!?

 

I'm saying I don't want us to!  Haha

 

Ach, its been said a million times, but Barry Hearn please.  He actually made a point of saying our biggest issue is we run the game for those two.  The faces in the room that night must have been brilliant.  Lots of shuffling,