SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, Jamboelite said:

In our eyes Geoff but thats what lawyers are for.

Lawyers only give advice not verdicts. It's why they always make sure their arses are covered.

Edited April 9, 2020 by Geoff Kilpatrick

[adambraejambo]

I expect Hearts to buy some run of the mill player from Livingston for 300G in the agreement that they will buy him back for 200G when they eventually get the money from the SFA.. Rangers can do the same with Killie or St Mirren to swing the vote . Then a no confidence vote should be put in motion against Doncaster. If they want to play dirty and make up stuff as they go nothing stopping us to do the same. 

[IveSeenTheLight]

34 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Usually leather.

 

Not in the away section

[Koolkeith]

48 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

I’ve been saying this all along, sounds like bullshit and scaremongering from the SPFL.  Do we have a shred of evidence that sponsors and broadcasters would treat the two scenarios any differently?

Remember the semi final farce they oversaw. Similar parallels.

[Pasquale for King]

18 minutes ago, salvo69 said:

Just saying it would be better for everyone involved. Clubs are voting purely on the basis of money only hence why the national team has stood still for years. 
I wonder if Celtic fans will truly accept winning the league by default when it is essentially tainted albeit like a lot of Sevcos 90/2000 titles 

They can barely wash themselves, you give them too much credit.

[3fingersreid]

1 hour ago, Pasquale for King said:

Sorry, I only found it out yesterday and thought I would throw it there so others would know.

No need for the sorry mate 👍🏻

[tolcross lad]

Tom English attempts to bring the issues together in this article

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52227551

 

 

 

 

[Cruyff]

9 minutes ago, adambraejambo said:

I expect Hearts to buy some run of the mill player from Livingston for 300G in the agreement that they will buy him back for 200G when they eventually get the money from the SFA.. Rangers can do the same with Killie or St Mirren to swing the vote . Then a no confidence vote should be put in motion against Doncaster. If they want to play dirty and make up stuff as they go nothing stopping us to do the same. 

Can we not just give them Halkett back. Win win. 

[Austin MacGlee]

1 hour ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

Hibs fans desperate for us to be relegated. Claiming if Dempster votes with us they won't buy season tickets! So rather than support your own club with season ticket cash, you would rather Hearts were relegated? They don't even care about the loss of revenue and excitement the derby brings.

They really are roasters on that side of town.

Let's be honest here mate, we would be the exact same if the shoe was on the other foot. I would happily relegate Hibs in these circumstances if we could and I would be raging if AB didn't use her vote in a petty way like that.

[Four faces]

1 hour ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

It's because there's a global pandemic, pal. People are dying in atrocious numbers/conditions. There will no football for quite some time. 

 

If another club was in our position, you wouldn't be remotely interested. Pitiful behaviour. 

No but the club's fans of the bottom team would.That would be because it's an injustice you plum.If you feel the pandemic is all consuming, then what you doing throwing your opinion about on here.

[David McCaig]

1 minute ago, tolcross lad said:

Tom English attempts to bring the issues together in this article

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52227551

 

 

 

 

Pretty bland article and doesn’t really tackle the issue of resolution without detriment. Also no explanation of why voting threshold in the Premier League has been lowered.

[Weakened Offender]

51 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

Hearts pursuing an equitable outcome has no impact whatsoever on the fight against the pandemic... unless I missed the bit where we are insisting on our hearing being heard at the SEC (once we get rid of the beds) in front of a jury of 15000 medical staff!!!

 

Being a bit silly now, surely? 

[Beast Boy]

1 hour ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

Don't think Doncaster would give one diddly squat about my views 

You don’t normally let that sort of thing bother you.

[SectionDJambo]

So they’re saying Sky can take back all their money from this season, if it has not been played to a finish or final placings not decided.

That will mean that all the Sky Sports subscribers will be able to claim all of their payments to Sky back as well then, because they haven’t provided a completed product.

Surely can’t have one without the other, unless someone is telling lies or scaremongering.

[Jamboelite]

45 minutes ago, RonnieG said:

58000 posts... wow.  quality input. 

Says the boy on another teams forum pretending to be a hearts fan.

[Austin MacGlee]

4 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

Can we not just give them Halkett back. Win win. 

[3fingersreid]

3 hours ago, Natural Orders said:

We don’t deserve to stay up

simple

There have been times on here where I’ve felt almost sorry for the comments you receive  on here , even if some are self inflicted . 
However the comment above, firstly it can’t have been typed by a Hearts supporter and secondly any abuse you take on this or indeed any future comment you make will receive **** all sympathy from me . 
 

What a sad strange comment to make about YOUR own team 

[David McCaig]

1 minute ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

Being a bit silly now, surely? 

No no, deadly serious and I want all the jury to use ambulances like limousines.   Come to think of it we can re-route vital PPE from the frontline as well.

[IveSeenTheLight]

2 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

You don’t normally let that sort of thing bother you.

 

I get more out of here than I suspect I'd get from Doncaster 

[Weakened Offender]

56 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Pitiful not to fight your corner. 

 

Tell that to the playing squad that put us in this position. 

[David McCaig]

3 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said:

So they’re saying Sky can take back all their money from this season, if it has not been played to a finish or final placings not decided.

That will mean that all the Sky Sports subscribers will be able to claim all of their payments to Sky back as well then, because they haven’t provided a completed product.

Surely can’t have one without the other, unless someone is telling lies or scaremongering.

And Sky will presumably be refunding all revenues received from their advertisers as well.

[Jamboelite]

21 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Lawyers only give advice not verdicts. It's why they always make sure their arses are covered.

If a lawyer tells you that you dont have a chance of winning then you listen to them as they are effectively refusing easy money by taking the case knowing the outcome.

[Fozzyonthefence]

8 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

Pretty bland article and doesn’t really tackle the issue of resolution without detriment. Also no explanation of why voting threshold in the Premier League has been lowered.

Each of the 3 votes is 75% except that in the Championship it effectively becomes 80% because it needs 8 out of 10 to reach 75%.

[Mikey1874]

23 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

I’m also struggling to understand why the voting threshold has been changed in the Premier League.

 

For me any legal challenge would centre on the fact that scrapping the play-offs from the Premier League is a form of reconstruction and should therefore be subject to the 11-1 voting rules.

 

The current voting rules I think came in in 2013 when the SPFL was reformed. 

[EIEIO]

1 minute ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

Tell that to the playing squad that put us in this position. 

So you criticise the players for not fighting their corner and fans who do?.  I see.

[Rods]

The SPL should be telling SKY were to go if they say anything.

 

They should realise they are lucky to have us as viewers not the other way around. 

 

This wont happen as we have a buffoon in charge who has already messed up one opportunity to make Scottish Football better for us all.

[David McCaig]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

The current voting rules I think came in in 2013 when the SPFL was reformed. 

The 11-1 is still in place for reconstruction.  My issue is why a proposal that involves a form of reconstruction ie. scrapping play-offs can be decided by a 75% vote?

[David McCaig]

3 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

Each of the 3 votes is 75% except that in the Championship it effectively becomes 80% because it needs 8 out of 10 to reach 75%.

I get this, but surely the structural change to the Premier League should be 11-1

[wavydavy]

1 hour ago, 3fingersreid said:

You are  correct in that we’ll in all likelihood not find out who voted which way officially , but it would be nice if there was a leak though . 
Yes the decision will be made THEN the leagues would change . 
 

if only the team coming up didn’t have a suitable ground like what benefited another club years ago 

 

Partick were shafted this way a few years back by Inverness who were allowed to ground share with Aberdeen but they didn't let Falkirk do it .

 

Sounds about right for those that run our game.

[DETTY29]

31 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

As has been suggested if they money is there to be paid then pay teams the minimum they are guaranteed to make. Ie us 12 place, Hamilton and St Mirren 12th place. Celtic 2nd place etc.

 

Nobkdy gets anything they haven't earned and it buys us some time. The left over funds can be allocated appropriately upon a fairer conclusion.

 

Boom...

 

 

And there it is.

 

The cash answer.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

10 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said:

So they’re saying Sky can take back all their money from this season, if it has not been played to a finish or final placings not decided.

That will mean that all the Sky Sports subscribers will be able to claim all of their payments to Sky back as well then, because they haven’t provided a completed product.

Surely can’t have one without the other, unless someone is telling lies or scaremongering.

Surely the final places being confirmed is of no relevance to Sky. They still don’t get any games. I can see zero reasons for them to support an immediate end to the season 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

9 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

If a lawyer tells you that you dont have a chance of winning then you listen to them as they are effectively refusing easy money by taking the case knowing the outcome.

True but assuming that this is watertight is supine in the extreme.

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

As per Tom English article, I'd be concentrating on the Championship, joy to be had there, we have friends in quite a few clubs. Partick onside, must be a couple of others we have seen ok along the way, Dunfermline springs to mind, with a bit of cash to be gained.

 

For all the Hibs stuff, I feel confident they will back us, much as Celtic and Rangers generally do, which makes this vote very different. Depends who else Rangers buy in from there, Leagues 1 & 2 just want the cash pronto, though again I assume through loans we will have a few pals, Cowdenbeath and East Fife perhaps

[Jamboelite]

Here is a thing has Doncaster actually engaged with Sky ? The same for the Premiership in England.

 

This null and void threat of no money has anyone not gone to BT and Sky and sat down and said look if we null and void then will you take us to court ? 
 

Have we sat down and said look if this season doesnt start till Oct what would that do to the  new contract?

 

Maybe engaging with the organisations that people have the fear of consequence from and get a ****ing agreement or not and at least be clear on the consequences not guessing.

 

 

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

5 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Surely the final places being confirmed is of no relevance to Sky. They still don’t get any games. I can see zero reasons for them to support an immediate end to the season 

The interesting thing with Sky, if crowds don't get in we wont start the season. So the argument over the new deal is reasonably skewed from the get go.

 

As with UEFA the SPFL are desperate to demonstrate to their media partners they are not to be accountable for the agreements not being executed.

[Jamboelite]

6 minutes ago, Sir Gio said:

As per Tom English article, I'd be concentrating on the Championship, joy to be had there, we have friends in quite a few clubs. Partick onside, must be a couple of others we have seen ok along the way, Dunfermline springs to mind, with a bit of cash to be gained.

 

For all the Hibs stuff, I feel confident they will back us, much as Celtic and Rangers generally do, which makes this vote very different. Depends who else Rangers buy in from there, Leagues 1 & 2 just want the cash pronto, though again I assume through loans we will have a few pals, Cowdenbeath and East Fife perhaps

Like i say i think they have had a preliminary view of the vote and know it will pass.

 

I also agree with Tom English if it somehow doesnt pass then they will wait a bit longer until more teams are under pressure and push the same vote.

 

The interesting challenge legally would be whether removing playoffs is seen as restructuring or not, as the challenge would be that the voting structure used for this is not in keeping with the 11-1 requirement.

Edited April 9, 2020 by Jamboelite

[IveSeenTheLight]

2 hours ago, 3fingersreid said:

 

if only the team coming up didn’t have a suitable ground like what benefited another club years ago 

 

Dunfermline..... 😆

[Jamboelite]

1 minute ago, Sir Gio said:

The interesting thing with Sky, if crowds don't get in we wont start the season. So the argument over the new deal is reasonably skewed from the get go.

 

As with UEFA the SPFL are desperate to demonstrate to their media partners they are not to be accountable for the agreements not being executed.

What makes you think that no crowds would stop the start of a season ? Playing behind closed doors with a massive TV audience desperate for games is right up Sky’s street.

[Kirky Jambo]

2 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

Here is a thing has Doncaster actually engaged with Sky ? The same for the Premiership in England.

 

This null and void threat of no money has anyone not gone to BT and Sky and sat down and said look if we null and void then will you take us to court ? 
 

Have we sat down and said look if this season doesnt start till Oct what would that do to the  new contract?

 

Maybe engaging with the organisations that people have the fear of consequence from and get a ****ing agreement or not and at least be clear on the consequences not guessing.

 

 

You would think that surely they must have and Sky made their position crystal clear with no room for manoeuvre
 

then again it is Doncaster we are talking about here 

[Ex member of the SaS]

28 minutes ago, Austin MacGlee said:

Let's be honest here mate, we would be the exact same if the shoe was on the other foot. I would happily relegate Hibs in these circumstances if we could and I would be raging if AB didn't use her vote in a petty way like that.

Yes but would AB voting with Hibs stop you buying a season ticket ( assuming that you do already )?

[Mikey1874]

21 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

Pretty bland article and doesn’t really tackle the issue of resolution without detriment. Also no explanation of why voting threshold in the Premier League has been lowered.

 

 

[Pasquale for King]

2 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

What makes you think that no crowds would stop the start of a season ? Playing behind closed doors with a massive TV audience desperate for games is right up Sky’s street.

Not sure if it will be a massive audience, if the EPL and SPFL have games behind closed doors at the same time our games will have the equivalent of the crowds usually at the games or slightly higher.

[The Continental Op]

2 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

Here is a thing has Doncaster actually engaged with Sky ? The same for the Premiership in England.

 

This null and void threat of no money has anyone not gone to BT and Sky and sat down and said look if we null and void then will you take us to court ? 
 

Have we sat down and said look if this season doesnt start till Oct what would that do to the  new contract?

 

Maybe engaging with the organisations that people have the fear of consequence from and get a ****ing agreement or not and at least be clear on the consequences not guessing.

 

 

Here’s a radical idea - if BT, Sky and Ladbrokes sue the SPFL for the balance of the season (21%) in the event the season is ended now, why not let it go into a pre-pack liquidation. The clubs are shareholders so won’t have any further liability, and they could buy out the assets and organisation to start afresh.

 

Just like Doncaster recommended to individual clubs like Hearts who were in financial difficulty.😉

[Mikey1874]

10 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

Here is a thing has Doncaster actually engaged with Sky ? The same for the Premiership in England.

 

This null and void threat of no money has anyone not gone to BT and Sky and sat down and said look if we null and void then will you take us to court ? 
 

Have we sat down and said look if this season doesnt start till Oct what would that do to the  new contract?

 

Maybe engaging with the organisations that people have the fear of consequence from and get a ****ing agreement or not and at least be clear on the consequences not guessing.

 

 

 

The Cowdenbeath guy said on Sportsound 2 weeks ago that UEFA and the broadcasters are the key players. 

[Mister Dee]

This wouldn’t be relegation -it’s expulsion from the league , due to a pandemic. 
That’s hardly ‘sporting integrity’. 
 

I hope we slaughter any decision in court. 

[David McCaig]

8 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

 

Thanks for this, do we know what the reserved matters in articles 62 and 63 are?

[H2]

My logic - There must be a contract between the SPFL and each club, the contract I would expect to say that the league consists of 38 games , with all the rules for promotion and relegation. If the SPFL do not adhere to that contract they are in breach, they can't the rules when the competition is running to the detriment of any party.

There are other good solutions, like finish this season when it is safe to do so and adjust the rules for less games next season. - I guess that's a bit like rocket science for the SPFL though.

[true-jambo]

I fail to understand why the season can't be called as completed now, with all clubs at the top of their leagues declared champions. A change to the rules, stating there will be no promotion or relegation this season only, could be introduced. After all if rules can be changed during a season to cancel play-offs for promotion and relegation, then surely they can equally be changed to cancel all promotion and relegation. Indeed apparently they can be changed to end the season 8 games short.

In respect of fairness is it really any fairer to deny the right of a club currently bottom of the league, but with 24 points still to be played for, to remain in their current league, than it is to offer the right to another club of entry into a higher league before they have mathematically achieved it. I have seen some speculation about compensation being offered for those affected in order to soften the blow. If that is indeed the case then again why should it not be offered to a club which had been denied something they were striving for rather than to another club who were being forced out of a league before it had been concluded.

Finally, I am astonished (not really given who we are dealing with here) that a management team tasked with operating our league structure, are offering only one alternative to vote for. It is a case of take it or leave it from them, thus demonstrating a monumental failure of duty to look at a variety of options and put forward realistic alternatives for the clubs to vote on. There cannot be another business, probably other than the SFA who are so out of their depth in managing an organisation that the only way they can see is the line of least resistance, and one which is beneficial to the vast majority of the board members. Incidentally I have been on a bowling club committee and I can assure you the one I served on was hugely more pragmatic, organised and better represented our members than this shower do.

[David McCaig]

8 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

Thanks for this, do we know what the reserved matters in articles 62 and 63 are?

61. Except where the 2006 Act specifies that a particular resolution of the Company requires otherwise or as otherwise provided in these Articles, not less than 75% of the Members owning and operating Clubs entitled for the time being to participate in the Premiership; 75% of the Members owning and operating Clubs entitled for the time being to participate in the Championship; and 75% of the Members owning and operating Clubs entitled for the time being to participate in League One and League Two, whether all the Members of the Company actually attend and vote or not, shall be required, except where these Articles provide otherwise, for the passing of all Ordinary Resolutions of the Company and for the giving of all consents, approvals or the like considered at a General Meeting.
61.1 Subject to Article 61.2, where an Ordinary Resolution before a General Meeting, including a resolution proposing an amendment to a provision of the Rules, is not a special resolution, Qualified Resolution or a Commercial Resolution and it exclusively relates to or concerns a matter which is relevant to only one or as the case may be, more specific Divisions, of which the Chairman failing whom the chairman of the relevant meeting, shall be the sole judge, not less than 75% of the Members owning and operating Clubs entitled for the time being to participate in each of the relevant Division or as the case may be, Divisions, whether all of the relevant Members of the Company actually attend and vote or not, shall be required for the passing of the resolution.
61.2 Notwithstanding the other provisions of these Articles only the Members owning and operating Clubs for the time being entitled in terms of the Rules to participate in the Premiership shall be entitled to vote on Ordinary Resolutions concerning or relating to any Premiership/Championship Play-Off Competition, including on and in respect of any resolution proposing any change to the Rules concerning or relating to any Premiership/Championship Play-Off Competition.
62. A Qualified Resolution, shall be required for the passing of a resolution in respect of the following Reserved Matters:-
62.1. the expulsion of a Club from the League;
62.2. the passing of a resolution to wind-up the Company or to approve the presentation by the Company and/or its Directors and Alternate Director, in the case of an Alternate Director only when acting for the L1 & L2 Director in his or her absence, to the Court of a Petition to wind-up the Company;
62.3. any alteration to the authorised or issued share capital of the Company (other than as a result of the transfer of any Share in the Company made in accordance with these Articles);
18

62.4. any alteration, variation or modification of these Articles, Rules C1, C2, C3, C42, C43, G16 and/or Section I (whole) of the Rules and/or any other part of the Rules the alteration, variation or modification of which would have the effect of altering, varying or modifying a provision or provisions in Rules C1, C2, C3, C42, C43, G16 and/or Section I (whole) of the Rules and/or of these Articles and/or the adoption of a new, substitute or different Rules C1, C2, C3, C42, C43, G16 and/or Section I (whole) of the Rules and/or of these Articles;
62.5. any expansion of the League by the addition or admission of new members (other than as a result of the operation of the Rules governing promotion and relegation to and from the League);
62.6. any alteration in the number of members of the League (other than as a result of a member ceasing to be a member of the League in accordance with the Rules and/or these Articles); and
62.7. the issue and/or allotment of a Share.
63. A Commercial Resolution, shall be required for the passing of a resolution in respect of the following Reserved Matters:-
63.1. the approval of the entering into by the Company of a Commercial Contract; and
63.2. the approval of the entering into by the Company of a Limited Commercial Contract.
 

[David McCaig]

https://spfl.co.uk/admin/filemanager/files/shares/SPFL Articles of Association of 20-Jan-20 (clean).pdf