SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[martoon]

9 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

Glasgow Times says next week but doesn’t elaborate

 

9 minutes ago, Rogue Daddy said:

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.

 

Different takes but possible you're both right. The necessary prep work, club statements and those all important papers all in the one place in readiness for "A day". 

[S Form]

24 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. 

I would hope a lenient punishment was likely, after all it seems that your club’s fans are able to run riot at an SFA-organised event and you receive no punishment at all.

[Jambof3tornado]

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 sevco agenda is clear, strip the 9 in a row.

 

They arent in this for our benefit.

[Jambomuzz]

Ive been told the abitration panel has been in session from 10am this morning. Not really sure how accurate the info is however. 

[niblick1874]

See as soon as you went to court, I had it all ready to give to you but the dog ate it. I really wanted the judge chap to know about it so he could take it into consideration but as I say, the dog ate it. If you don't believe me, prove that I am not telling the truth. Ok, so I don't have a dog. I didn't say it was my dog. It was a stray dog.

 

Goodness only knows what the Daily Record headline would be. 

Edited July 15, 2020 by niblick1874

[Beast Boy]

5 minutes ago, TheBigO said:

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,

Barry or any other even half competent person who understands the need to promote the whole product, and not just one rivalry.

[John Findlay]

21 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

They still want rid off Doncaster McLennan and MacKenzie.

[Nothingtosay]

29 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. 

Like others think this is probably right. 
I think we have tried to act in good faith at all times on these matters. If we’ve got a bit of the procedure wrong, this could be innocent mistake or a tactic because it suited us to go this way (ie CoS first). 
 

As long as we get a positive result then whether it was luck, judgement, bad faith or mistake won’t worry us too much. I suspect it’s just part of the game, and the executive branches of the SPFL/SFA have shown huge appetite and stamina for the bad faith long game.  They’ll get there’s eventually. Only Hearts. 

[TheBigO]

1 minute ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

Barry or any other even half competent person who understands the need to promote the whole product, and not just one rivalry.

Yup, they must exist.  Thing is, Scotland is full of amazing entrepreneurialism.  Look at Brewdog, Brewgooder, Ooni, Social Bite and these are just in my field - tech, medicine, law, finance, engineering, we're a country that fights way above our weight and we're great at finding solutions and turning them in to businesses.

 

But our football?  Man!  Where are the bright, talented business minds there?

[Abiola Dauda]

6 minutes ago, S Form said:

I would hope a lenient punishment was likely, after all it seems that your club’s fans are able to run riot at an SFA-organised event and you receive no punishment at all.

Haha. Wow. What makes you think that I am a Hibs fan? 

 

As I say above, there is a very good chance that any SFA's punishment is unenforceable in law even though it is in the rulebook.

 

If you look at my other posts you will see I think we have a very good case but just not on the time bar point which i think is a red herring.

[AndrewB]

4 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

They still want rid off Doncaster McLennan and MacKenzie.

Easy to see why they want rid of MacLennan

 

Wikipedia:

 

MacLennan was appointed chairman of the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL) in July 2017.^[10] There was criticism that MacLennan is not impartial in his role with the SPFL considering the fact that INM's majority shareholder is Celtic's majority shareholder Dermot Desmond. One of Desmond close associates and fellow Celtic fan Denis O'Brian is also an INM shareholder. The SPFL refused to investigate the connection.^[11]

In March 2018, he was appointed as chairman of Independent News & Media (INM).^[12] 

[Abiola Dauda]

1 minute ago, Nothingtosay said:

Like others think this is probably right. 
I think we have tried to act in good faith at all times on these matters. If we’ve got a bit of the procedure wrong, this could be innocent mistake or a tactic because it suited us to go this way (ie CoS first). 
 

As long as we get a positive result then whether it was luck, judgement, bad faith or mistake won’t worry us too much. I suspect it’s just part of the game, and the executive branches of the SPFL/SFA have shown huge appetite and stamina for the bad faith long game.  They’ll get there’s eventually. Only Hearts. 

Whatever the punishment then we were right to go to the CoS first. If not, then we would be relegated without compensation by "football people" at the SFA's arbitration.

 

If the SFA punishment is severe then we challenge it.

[GiantJambo]

Does anyone want to be reinstated at this stage? Playing in the Premier League would be in so toxic an atmosphere that I'd rather keep away from some of these shit-heaps who've worked so hard to screw us over – and I really don't understand why.

 

For me, I'd rather see everything come out into the open, whatever it shows. If wrongdoing, then big compensation. There's every chance that we'd go down in history as the one other clubs conspired against, using a global pandemic for their own financial ends. A public list of shame would appear on Wikipedia, for future reference when playing cup-ties, etc.. Cowdenbeath should remember what happened after they got beaten 10-0. Smaller clubs take note.

 

I really can't see this not being back in court if documents aren't made public.

[Nothingtosay]

2 minutes ago, Abiola Dauda said:

Whatever the punishment then we were right to go to the CoS first. If not, then we would be relegated without compensation by "football people" at the SFA's arbitration.

 

If the SFA punishment is severe then we challenge it.

Agree

but can’t decide if I’d prefer a small penalty and SFA upheld charge on our record (as a trophy) Or to challenge it whatever the penalty and go for the clean sweep against this mob (if economical and affordable).
 

 

[JimmyCant]

8 minutes ago, TheBigO said:

Yup, they must exist.  Thing is, Scotland is full of amazing entrepreneurialism.  Look at Brewdog, Brewgooder, Ooni, Social Bite and these are just in my field - tech, medicine, law, finance, engineering, we're a country that fights way above our weight and we're great at finding solutions and turning them in to businesses.

 

But our football?  Man!  Where are the bright, talented business minds there?

It needs someone larger than life with the character and the gravitas to hang up on the likes of Lawell and tell him to make an appointment like everyone else. Someone like Sir Alan Sugar or a similar Captain of Industry type who got where he is because he didn’t see fools in his way.

[AndrewB]

5 minutes ago, Nothingtosay said:

Agree

but can’t decide if I’d prefer a small penalty and SFA upheld charge on our record (as a trophy) Or to challenge it whatever the penalty and go for the clean sweep against this mob (if economical and affordable).
 

 

Similar.  I kinda want them to uphold this.  Helps in the long game perhaps - where the long game is "burn it all down."

[GiantJambo]

Just now, AndrewB said:

Similar.  I kinda want them to uphold this.  Helps in the long game perhaps - where the long game is "burn it all down."

 

7 minutes ago, Nothingtosay said:

Agree

but can’t decide if I’d prefer a small penalty and SFA upheld charge on our record (as a trophy) Or to challenge it whatever the penalty and go for the clean sweep against this mob (if economical and affordable).
 

 

I think it's probably more important to settle for a significant sum, but to be reasonable, if the truth comes out. The obvious question is: what do the SPFL have to hide?

[AndrewB]

1 minute ago, GiantJambo said:

 

I think it's probably more important to settle for a significant sum, but to be reasonable, if the truth comes out. The obvious question is: what do the SPFL have to hide?

Yes, agree in terms of the arbitration, CoS case.  I want compensation and full disclosure.  Also, dismissals, resignations and clean sweeps of the personnel.

 

In terms of the SFA charge, though, I would only laugh if they find it proven.   A bit like East Germany trying to arrest people pulling down the Berlin Wall.

[TheBigO]

5 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

It needs someone larger than life with the character and the gravitas to hang up on the likes of Lawell and tell him to make an appointment like everyone else. Someone like Sir Alan Sugar or a similar Captain of Industry type who got where he is because he didn’t see fools in his way.

Exactly.  Not sure Sugar is the man, but I get your drift.  Exactly what we need.

 

Someone who can see past all the "ayebeen" chat and see the opportunities.  I don't care what anyone says, our game isn't as bad as folk think.  It's totally marketable - football is too shiny, we can sell the real thing, and yes we do have the OF to sell, but we have loads of other great rivalries too.

 

You know there must even be guys in football who could do the job - just not from Scotland!!  Plucking shit out here, so not these actual names, but someone like Klinsmann or Vialli, christ they'd be worth their pay just for some gravitas and to get us in some doors.  We never, ever think big.

[Cade]

18 minutes ago, GiantJambo said:

Does anyone want to be reinstated at this stage? Playing in the Premier League would be in so toxic an atmosphere that I'd rather keep away from some of these shit-heaps who've worked so hard to screw us over – and I really don't understand why.

 

For me, I'd rather see everything come out into the open, whatever it shows. If wrongdoing, then big compensation. There's every chance that we'd go down in history as the one other clubs conspired against, using a global pandemic for their own financial ends. A public list of shame would appear on Wikipedia, for future reference when playing cup-ties, etc.. Cowdenbeath should remember what happened after they got beaten 10-0. Smaller clubs take note.

 

I really can't see this not being back in court if documents aren't made public.

 

Take the relegation, re-build the squad, spend the compo on players far too good for the diddy league, skoosh every game 10-0.

Allocate away fans a total of 10 seats.

[rory78]

Here we go this opens up the avenue for Celtic to loan Dundee 4 players - these muppets at the SPFL really are a shit house show 

[AndrewB]

The SPFL scratching their bows over their violins and wondering "can you smell smoke?"

[I.T.K]

23 minutes ago, GiantJambo said:

Does anyone want to be reinstated at this stage? Playing in the Premier League would be in so toxic an atmosphere that I'd rather keep away from some of these shit-heaps who've worked so hard to screw us over – and I really don't understand why.

 

For me, I'd rather see everything come out into the open, whatever it shows. If wrongdoing, then big compensation. There's every chance that we'd go down in history as the one other clubs conspired against, using a global pandemic for their own financial ends. A public list of shame would appear on Wikipedia, for future reference when playing cup-ties, etc.. Cowdenbeath should remember what happened after they got beaten 10-0. Smaller clubs take note.

 

I really can't see this not being back in court if documents aren't made public.

 

I would go full toxic and have Hearts reinstated after the league is delayed for a couple weeks due to an interdict.   

[Dagger Is Back]

28 minutes ago, GiantJambo said:

Does anyone want to be reinstated at this stage? Playing in the Premier League would be in so toxic an atmosphere that I'd rather keep away from some of these shit-heaps who've worked so hard to screw us over – and I really don't understand why.

 

For me, I'd rather see everything come out into the open, whatever it shows. If wrongdoing, then big compensation. There's every chance that we'd go down in history as the one other clubs conspired against, using a global pandemic for their own financial ends. A public list of shame would appear on Wikipedia, for future reference when playing cup-ties, etc.. Cowdenbeath should remember what happened after they got beaten 10-0. Smaller clubs take note.

 

I really can't see this not being back in court if documents aren't made public.

 

GiantJambo and you ask that question? Really?

[AndrewB]

44 minutes ago, Jambomuzz said:

Ive been told the abitration panel has been in session from 10am this morning. Not really sure how accurate the info is however. 

Has the person who told you any connections to any of the parties - or to the tea lady who would be serving refreshments there?

Has the person a history of telling you stuff that is correct?

 

Finally, have you been to Gregg's today?😉

 

Apart from Tom English's comment, it's all been very quiet, hasn't it?

[brunoatemyhamster]

34 minutes ago, Abiola Dauda said:

Whatever the punishment then we were right to go to the CoS first. If not, then we would be relegated without compensation by "football people" at the SFA's arbitration.

 

If the SFA punishment is severe then we challenge it.

How can we be punished? 

 

 

Sevco have set a precedents by taking the SFA to court before. 

 

How did that go?

 

Since this would surely be our first time falling foul of the same " rule"  they used to punish Sevco for the same thing, then surely we can expect the same punishment. 

 

Fxxk All! 

[Abiola Dauda]

2 minutes ago, brunoatemyhamster said:

How can we be punished? 

 

 

Sevco have set a precedents by taking the SFA to court before. 

 

How did that go?

 

Since this would surely be our first time falling foul of the same " rule"  they used to punish Sevco for the same thing, then surely we can expect the same punishment. 

 

Fxxk All! 

Because we don't get the special treatment which the arse cheeks get. 

 

I dont think Thistle were punished either though when they challenged their relegation years ago. Might have been different rules then though.

[dazinho88]

1 hour ago, John Findlay said:

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.

Again, someone asked if such a rule existed regarding clubs not taking court action, I only said that it did and did not claim it applied in this case. 

[JimmyCant]

14 minutes ago, Dagger Is Back said:

 

GiantJambo and you ask that question? Really?

He’s got a sort of a point. If we’re now in the business of burning the house down and driving something to be rebuilt from the ashes, only massive compensation would achieve that or at least light the flame. 
 

If we get reinstatement absolute nothing will change and if we think we’re victims now, just wait to see what happens if we have to be ‘shoehorned’ back into the top league against the will of just about everyone

 

I think mass compensation and a year in the championship (which lets be honest we will pish) and a bloody nose for quite a few clubs and some resignations at board level is an attractive outcome for us now. I don’t want us to be friends with these people or ‘build bridges’ with them. I want them to come out of this knowing we can’t be fecked around and they’re still doing it as of yesterday.

Feck the lot of them

Edited July 15, 2020 by JimmyCant

[Maroon tinted glasses 2]

I've just had a thought, what about the possibility that this has been dragged out a little as Lord Clark (although he didn't give the SPFL everything they wanted) did kind of lean towards the "we wont let you bully these clubs" attitude and as result gave dates of his availability so with this in mind could the SPFL representative have dragged it out to ensure these dates had passed and in doing so removed the possibility of Lord Clark having further control in the process. 

[HillmanHearts]

18 minutes ago, rory78 said:

Here we go this opens up the avenue for Celtic to loan Dundee 4 players - these muppets at the SPFL really are a shit house show 

Yip here comes the Celtic payback.

There you go lads told you we’d see you OK !

 

[j1964m]

Hearts should get a injunction out the day before the SPFL season starts that would really piss them of if they want to play games Then let the games commence 

[JimmyCant]

4 minutes ago, Maroon tinted glasses 2 said:

I've just had a thought, what about the possibility that this has been dragged out a little as Lord Clark (although he didn't give the SPFL everything they wanted) did kind of lean towards the "we wont let you bully these clubs" attitude and as result gave dates of his availability so with this in mind could the SPFL representative have dragged it out to ensure these dates had passed and in doing so removed the possibility of Lord Clark having further control in the process. 

Dangerous game that, considering Lord Clark also said that if a hearing was needed back at the CoS ‘he’ would make time for it. I think he circled 15/16th as being available but we could wait until he is available to hear the case or just go with another judge. They all read from the same books so doesn’t make a massive difference who hears it, although Clark, having already issued veiled warnings would be best to have hearing it

[Neil Dongcaster]

7 minutes ago, j1964m said:

Hearts should get a injunction out the day before the SPFL season starts that would really piss them of if they want to play games Then let the games commence 

An injunction needs to be granted Hearts can’t just apply one.

[JimmyCant]

12 minutes ago, HillmanHearts said:

Yip here comes the Celtic payback.

There you go lads told you we’d see you OK !

 

Easily counteracted by us sending 4 decent players up to Robbo (if we’re a premiership club of course)

Edited July 15, 2020 by JimmyCant

[Hagar the Horrible]

5 minutes ago, mitch41 said:

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.

 

1 minute 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 a 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. 

 

We have NOT breached the SFA rules? They have no legs to stand on, we signed up to Article 99 and as such we have to agree to Arbitration in the first instance, but by going to court first to clarify certain points and to ensure that the Arbitration process is adhered to and we also ensured that the aribrers have the granted legal powers to call witness and we also legaly asked the courts to obtain all relevant documentation?  This is also cast in stone in Scots law (arbitration 2010) which artilce 99 in based on.

 

But the Law also states clearly and Scots Law for arbitration 2010  states this based on the New York Convension.  A law that the SFA must adhere to:

 

1 .Concept of enforcement of arbitration agreement

 

it states that had we NOT gone to court first we would have waived the rights to go back to court and get them to enforce certain laws.  grant powers. and if necessary return the matter to the courts to resolve?  We had to do what we did this way, or we would have waived those rights:

 

1.2. Thus the parties:

a. Waive the right to have those matters resolved by a court, and

b. Grant jurisdictional powers to private individuals (the arbitrators)

 

Not going into too much detail but the submission agreement which is Article 99 is considered outdated, I think LC tried to guide them.  The Geneva agreement on Arbitration and the New York agreements.  both open up that double closed loophole where the agrement not to go to court, is not legal, but also states that the courts must refer back to arbitration.  But the SFA by the UN laws, The model laws, The NY laws and Scots Law have breached those laws.

 

For the avoidance of doubt the SFA cannot punish us for going to court, the law says we can, but the law also states that we must go to arbitration..hence the loop, But its also down to the SFA and any  party to request and enforce arbitration.

 

What the SFA have tried to do is force the loop closed by agreeing to arbitration only, Forbidding going to court by doing so there will be draconian punishment. But leaving the arbitration process with limited capability?  If we asked for permission and they refused, we might not have had a leg to stand on.  In essence we have gone by the law, and we are where we are by being right.

 

Seriously bothe the Scots law and the refernced NY one do go on a bit, but its there to protect all parties,  The SFA are Wrong

 

The New York convention states this...The Court always has the last word!

 

[jamboinglasgow]

28 minutes ago, AndrewB said:

Has the person who told you any connections to any of the parties - or to the tea lady who would be serving refreshments there?

Has the person a history of telling you stuff that is correct?

 

Finally, have you been to Gregg's today?😉

 

Apart from Tom English's comment, it's all been very quiet, hasn't it?

 

The only other rumour I have seen is one poster on here saying its been delayed to next week (seemed a reliable poster.) But not seen anyone else backing that up. 

 

I would have thought there would be more information than we have had. Though it may be seen as a private matter so only the parties involved will be informed and everyone is keeping quiet.

[MCW1976]

58 minutes ago, TheBigO said:

Yup, they must exist.  Thing is, Scotland is full of amazing entrepreneurialism.  Look at Brewdog, Brewgooder, Ooni, Social Bite and these are just in my field - tech, medicine, law, finance, engineering, we're a country that fights way above our weight and we're great at finding solutions and turning them in to businesses.

 

But our football?  Man!  Where are the bright, talented business minds there?

There must be a GFA/SFA equivalent version of a CIA task force. They will clandestinely identify people and movements harmful to the status quo.

 

The USA does it all over South America and the Middle East.

 

The O/F have purchased on-field threats for decades (and parked them on their benches). When not doing that, they say that by doing well in Europe, they increase your co-efficient chances of success. They also cream in the Sky money, and convince everyone else that they are aiding the Scottish game.

 

So, it stands to reason that the same tactics must be applied to any entrepreneurial spirit amongst our brightest and best - and that a bunch of wilful sycophants from East Fife or Montrose, etc., are what our game requires.
 

It’s a devious tactic, but it works - and we won’t escape it until we vote with our feet. Unless you know how to stop the pull of Tynecastle, then we are probably going around the hamster wheel for the foreseeable future.

 

 

[Thomaso]

43 minutes ago, rory78 said:

Here we go this opens up the avenue for Celtic to loan Dundee 4 players - these muppets at the SPFL really are a shit house show 

So Celtic to loan four players to each on our Championship main rivals! 

[Dagger Is Back]

24 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

He’s got a sort of a point. If we’re now in the business of burning the house down and driving something to be rebuilt from the ashes, only massive compensation would achieve that or at least light the flame. 
 

If we get reinstatement absolute nothing will change and if we think we’re victims now, just wait to see what happens if we have to be ‘shoehorned’ back into the top league against the will of just about everyone

 

I think mass compensation and a year in the championship (which lets be honest we will pish) and a bloody nose for quite a few clubs and some resignations at board level is an attractive outcome for us now. I don’t want us to be friends with these people or ‘build bridges’ with them. I want them to come out of this knowing we can’t be fecked around and they’re still doing it as of yesterday.

Feck the lot of them

 

We'll have to agree to disagree JC. I want the whole thing to burn too and as you say, have something much better built in it's place.  FWIW, I do think that despite what has happened. change WILL come. I think deep down despite their posturing, club chairman know how close they came to being in our position. 

 

I'm concerned about wave 2 of this, not wanting to get into an argument with anyone on CV19 itself, but if wave 2 happens and we face this again, I have zero faith in the SPFL Board to do what they did this year. I could easily see them nul and void the leagues, especially with Celtic going for 10. We'd be facing two years in the Championship and that has massive ramifications despite the loyalty of our wonderful support

 

I don't trust these bar stewards one little bit

 

 

[Abiola Dauda]

7 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

 

 

We have NOT breached the SFA rules? They have no legs to stand on, we signed up to Article 99 and as such we have to agree to Arbitration in the first instance, but by going to court first to clarify certain points and to ensure that the Arbitration process is adhered to and we also ensured that the aribrers have the granted legal powers to call witness and we also legaly asked the courts to obtain all relevant documentation?  This is also cast in stone in Scots law (arbitration 2010) which artilce 99 in based on.

 

But the Law also states clearly and Scots Law for arbitration 2010  states this based on the New York Convension.  A law that the SFA must adhere to:

 

1 .Concept of enforcement of arbitration agreement

 

it states that had we NOT gone to court first we would have waived the rights to go back to court and get them to enforce certain laws.  grant powers. and if necessary return the matter to the courts to resolve?  We had to do what we did this way, or we would have waived those rights:

 

1.2. Thus the parties:

a. Waive the right to have those matters resolved by a court, and

b. Grant jurisdictional powers to private individuals (the arbitrators)

 

Not going into too much detail but the submission agreement which is Article 99 is considered outdated, I think LC tried to guide them.  The Geneva agreement on Arbitration and the New York agreements.  both open up that double closed loophole where the agrement not to go to court, is not legal, but also states that the courts must refer back to arbitration.  But the SFA by the UN laws, The model laws, The NY laws and Scots Law have breached those laws.

 

For the avoidance of doubt the SFA cannot punish us for going to court, the law says we can, but the law also states that we must go to arbitration..hence the loop, But its also down to the SFA and any  party to request and enforce arbitration.

 

What the SFA have tried to do is force the loop closed by agreeing to arbitration only, Forbidding going to court by doing so there will be draconian punishment. But leaving the arbitration process with limited capability?  If we asked for permission and they refused, we might not have had a leg to stand on.  In essence we have gone by the law, and we are where we are by being right.

 

Seriously bothe the Scots law and the refernced NY one do go on a bit, but its there to protect all parties,  The SFA are Wrong

 

The New York convention states this...The Court always has the last word!

 

It sounds like you know a lot more about this area than I do.  

 

Reading the SFA rules as a standalone document I do think there has been a "breach" of a rule (a rule which i think is unenforceable).  Arbitration is by no means my area of expertise so it is good to know that it sounds like the law is on our side here.

[7628mm]

2 minutes ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said:

So Celtic to loan four players to each on our Championship main rivals! 

 

I would suggest that this should be treated as a diversionary tactic by the SFA/SPFL at this moment in time.

HMFC & PT need to concentrate on the matter in hand and not be distracted by a load of white noise.

We can deal with all this other shit line item by line item later.

[neilnunb]

6 minutes ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said:

So Celtic to loan four players to each on our Championship main rivals! 

 

 

Funnily enough, John McGlynn in the local paper talking about Raith looking to bring in loans from the top league. 🤔

 

 

[TheBigO]

3 minutes ago, MCW1976 said:

There must be a GFA/SFA equivalent version of a CIA task force. They will clandestinely identify people and movements harmful to the status quo.

 

The USA does it all over South America and the Middle East.

 

The O/F have purchased on-field threats for decades (and parked them on their benches). When not doing that, they say that by doing well in Europe, they increase your co-efficient chances of success. They also cream in the Sky money, and convince everyone else that they are aiding the Scottish game.

 

So, it stands to reason that the same tactics must be applied to any entrepreneurial spirit amongst our brightest and best - and that a bunch of wilful sycophants from East Fife or Montrose, etc., are what our game requires.
 

It’s a devious tactic, but it works - and we won’t escape it until we vote with our feet. Unless you know how to stop the pull of Tynecastle, then we are probably going around the hamster wheel for the foreseeable future.

 

 

I worked it out one day in the shower.  Teams like St Johnstone whose P&L each year is almost fully dependent on filling their stands with OF scum...

 

Think about it.

 

Most team budget bottom 6 (OF plus Aberdeen, Hibs and Hearts should be 5 of the top 6 and we other three don't "need" the OF bums on seats).  That means they will get on average 3 home games a season against the OF.

 

I don't know, maybe the OF bring 6k to each of those games, sound about right?  So that's 18k OF scum a year.  But then we'll take 3k, Hibs and Aberdeen maybe 1.5k or so.  Basically let's call it an "extra" 9 or 10 thousand fans a year from the OF coming to their ground.

 

That's an extra 500 of their own support theyd need each week to mean that they had zero reliance on the OF.  They'd still be a good payday to have come to town, but you need to increase your own attendance by an average of 500 a week to negate the NEED for that, and allow yourself the freedom to vote how you want, work how you want, stand up for yourself, christ maybe even all work together to work out how to get a better TV deal and then you've got even more money without relying on the OF.

 

It's bloody sickening.  I know I'm being flippant and it isn't easy to magic 500 more people a week into Douglas Park or whatever, but the fact is that these teams existence has become about feeding off carrion spilled by those utterly disgraceful organisations in Glasgow and the SPFL and SFA do nothing to try to change that culture.  Perhaps it's always been like this, but surely never to this extent.  And the process has moved on rapidly under Doncaster's watch.

[The Old Tolbooth]

55 minutes ago, rory78 said:

Here we go this opens up the avenue for Celtic to loan Dundee 4 players - these muppets at the SPFL really are a shit house show 

 

Rules changed yet again to try and disadvantage Hearts, they really are subhuman scum! 

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

Problem is now there will be new problems. 

[I.T.K]

We should just tell the SFA that we did contact them via email and to check their quarantine folder.

 

Then follow up in an hour to request that eMail is 'not to be considered'. 

 

Then in 5 days email the SFA to say we wish to go to court. 

 

I'm sure this would be accepted. 

[HMFC-1874]

10 minutes ago, jamboinglasgow said:

 

The only other rumour I have seen is one poster on here saying its been delayed to next week (seemed a reliable poster.) But not seen anyone else backing that up. 

 

I would have thought there would be more information than we have had. Though it may be seen as a private matter so only the parties involved will be informed and everyone is keeping quiet.

Surely this is SFA/SPL Pushing the delay so they can make sure the seasons started before anything can be done in terms of Hearts/Partick/courts applying for a stop to the start of the season  ?  looks like their plan might work ! I really hate this corrupt bunch !, Hearts have done nothing but try to be fair to all parties, this is showing well prior to the courts, Hearts Stance has always about being fair and courts being the final option.  SFA/SPL and other Teams can't even manage the same respect back !   

[1874robbo]

I can’t wait for the day when a club will be reliant on our vote!! 

[Kiwidoug]

I hope there are authority figures in Glasgow and elsewhere who are in a high state of frustration and anxiety and use industrial language at the very mention of Heart of Midlothian.

 

These little upstarts causing all this grief.  Who do they think they are?  Celtic and Rangers?