Jump to content

SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )


Heres Rixxy

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

And a potentially precedent setting case of Company Law as well.  How to legislate for a written resolution when a specific ‘reject’ option is placed on the ballot paper.

 

Lord Clark’s legal background is one of academia, I think he will be rubbing his hands with glee at the opportunity to get stuck into this case.

In the case of a decision setting a precedent it will almost certainly be appealed 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mikey1874

    2099

  • Pasquale for King

    1723

  • Ethan Hunt

    1598

  • Beast Boy

    1415

Just now, Hagar the Horrible said:

There was no point in time before the 5pm deadline that the motion had passed,  Donkey had declared it passed before 5pm?  Told Aberdeen at 16:30 it had passed at 16:39 Dundee hit send, and at that point it had formally failed?  At 17:00 the voting had closed, the motion failed?  at 17:01 Aberdeen voted Yes on assurancies granted! at 17:17 the Dundee vote was erhmm found not to have been cast, Dundee informed, somehow after an incentified call?  Dundee were assesing their vote?  At 17:39, their vote was found.  Tell Ann we are sorry?  17:40 John Nelms goes into lockdown

 

And then there was the robust negotiations between clubs

 

The 5pm "deadline" is a bit of a smokescreen, there was no 5pm deadline, clubs had 28 days to vote.

There is also nothing wrong with robust negotiations.

Christ I sound like an SPFL apologist and I'm not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David McCaig
Just now, JimmyCant said:

In the case of a decision setting a precedent it will almost certainly be appealed 

 

That would be a very expensive route for the SPFL to go down and the Hearts/Partick case does not hang on the issue of whether Dundee did or did not vote.  Even if they are adjudged to have voted, the SPFL have failed in their duty of care to all shareholders.

 

If the SPFL did chose to appeal, an interdict on next season starting would be a racing certainty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

upgotheheads
2 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

The 5pm "deadline" is a bit of a smokescreen, there was no 5pm deadline, clubs had 28 days to vote.

There is also nothing wrong with robust negotiations.

Christ I sound like an SPFL apologist and I'm not.

 

Can you 'negotiate' a vote after it has been voted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

The 5pm "deadline" is a bit of a smokescreen, there was no 5pm deadline, clubs had 28 days to vote.

There is also nothing wrong with robust negotiations.

Christ I sound like an SPFL apologist and I'm not.

And as the Partick QC has argued once a vote is sent, it is cast, whether yes or no.

 

And cannot be revoked.

 

And Dundee voted no.

Edited by DETTY29
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David McCaig
2 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

The 5pm "deadline" is a bit of a smokescreen, there was no 5pm deadline, clubs had 28 days to vote.

There is also nothing wrong with robust negotiations.

Christ I sound like an SPFL apologist and I'm not.

I agree the 5pm element is meaningless... the vote failed because all votes had been cast and there were insufficient votes in favour of the resolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

manaliveits105
20 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:


That counts Jackson out then. 

and The Sun EEn and most BBC pundits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hungry hippo
3 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

There was no point in time before the 5pm deadline that the motion had passed,  Donkey had declared it passed before 5pm?  Told Aberdeen at 16:30 it had passed at 16:39 Dundee hit send, and at that point it had formally failed?  At 17:00 the voting had closed, the motion failed?  at 17:01 Aberdeen voted Yes on assurancies granted! at 17:17 the Dundee vote was erhmm found not to have been cast, Dundee informed, somehow after an incentified call?  Dundee were assesing their vote?  At 17:39, their vote was found.  Tell Ann we are sorry?  17:40 John Nelms goes into lockdown

 

And then there was the robust negotiations between clubs

 

I think the claim is that Aberdeen were told their vote didn't matter as the threshold for Premiership yes votes had already been reached. This is true in that their vote wouldn't influence it being passed or not but would be a lot less significant if the SPFL didn't quote the 81% approval figure so often and use this as justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

That would be a very expensive route for the SPFL to go down and the Hearts/Partick case does not hang on the issue of whether Dundee did or did not vote.  Even if they are adjudged to have voted, the SPFL have failed in their duty of care to all shareholders.

 

If the SPFL did chose to appeal, an interdict on next season starting would be a racing certainty.

Probably a hypothetical arguement as the SPFL won’t be letting this go to a judges decision 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

upgotheheads
3 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

Probably a hypothetical arguement as the SPFL won’t be letting this go to a judges decision 

 

Maybe we will get an announcement  today that the SPFL have conceded the case and that negotiations are underway for a 14 team league.😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hagar the Horrible
1 minute ago, graygo said:

 

The 5pm "deadline" is a bit of a smokescreen, there was no 5pm deadline, clubs had 28 days to vote.

There is also nothing wrong with robust negotiations.

Christ I sound like an SPFL apologist and I'm not.

As they only had 48 hours to asses the document and the vote was aimed at it had to be concluded by the 5pm deadline to release funds ASAP, they were not formally told of the 28 day rule, it was in the rules, but the panic to coclude this vote clubs were pressured into it as oithers needed the cash.  Dundee took advantage of the rule, but they all agreed to the 5pm deadline, some voted yes without knowing that?  I am sure the threats aimed at a few chairman and it was personal they will robustly disagree with you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David McCaig
4 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

Probably a hypothetical arguement as the SPFL won’t be letting this go to a judges decision 

 

Excellent, because there is no way Lord Clark is handing this over to the SFA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WorldChampions1902
32 minutes ago, Jambo314 said:

I've sent a follow up email to ask how.

Please share when you receive a reply 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

 

Can you 'negotiate' a vote after it has been voted?

 

Exactly what the judge will be deciding.

 

It's possibly where the SPFL fecked up, can't think why they asked for yes or no rather than a simple yes.

Edited by graygo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biffa Bacon
25 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Not according to the SPFL it hadn't and even if they admitted receiving all the votes then they would argue that clubs had 28 days to change their vote.

Not saying that I agree with them.

 

 

Unless the vote had been called.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AllyjamboDerbyshire
1 hour ago, Deevers said:

Exactly - wrong is wrong not matter what. The judge will reach a determination in law, nothing else.

I would say that's how it should be, but doubt it is always the case, ie he may yet hand the case to the SFA or just interpret the law differently from what we might think he would/should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rogue Daddy
12 minutes ago, Hungry hippo said:

 

I think the claim is that Aberdeen were told their vote didn't matter as the threshold for Premiership yes votes had already been reached. This is true in that their vote wouldn't influence it being passed or not but would be a lot less significant if the SPFL didn't quote the 81% approval figure so often and use this as justification.

Yes, which begs the question - then why change it? It didn’t matter.
Who else did Donkey call prior to 5pm and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

And as the Partick QC has argued ince a vote is sent, it is cast, whether yes or no.

 

And cannot be revoked.

 

And Dundee voted no.

 

See my answer above. 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Biffa Bacon said:

Unless the vote had been called.

 

I agree, normally a vote is only ever called when either the 28 days have lapsed or the proposal has passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, jock _turd said:

 

I don't even see it that way! What power do CAS over the laws of the UK? Why go to associations for them to construct a court of arbitration when we have gone to the court that can deal with our complaints... our complaints are based in two sections of company laws which as detailed in the petition we submitted to the court. If the law lord does reject the petition he will surely have to say it is on the grounds that he does not think that company law has been breached?

Hopefully he'll think it was. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Hungry hippo said:

 

I think the claim is that Aberdeen were told their vote didn't matter as the threshold for Premiership yes votes had already been reached. This is true in that their vote wouldn't influence it being passed or not but would be a lot less significant if the SPFL didn't quote the 81% approval figure so often and use this as justification.

Exactly: the way Aberdeen voted had no material impact on the resolution passing or being rejected as they had already secured the 9 required votes in favour from the premier teams. Aberdeen changing their vote to yes to give a 10 v 2 result is just window dressing. 

What I'm not clear about is why cancelling the playoffs doesn't constitute a form of re-structure which would have required more votes for it to pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David McCaig
2 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

I would say that's how it should be, but doubt it is always the case, ie he may yet hand the case to the SFA or just interpret the law differently from what we might think he would/should.

My view is that Lord Clark will have no intention of handing this to the SFA as it is an opportunity for him to preside over a precedent setting case of Company Law.

 

The SPFL will have no intention of allowing this to go to a full trial.

 

I can’t see Hearts/Partick settling out of court for compensation, so when all factors are considered its hard to see how Hearts won’t be reinstated to the SPL.  Whether this is done by cancelling promotion/relegation, reconstruction or Hearts playing as Team 13 is for the SPFL to decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lone Striker
32 minutes ago, RENE said:

I asked that a couple of days ago Hagar.  Surely if the only defence is it should be referred to SFA and Lord Clark says it shouldn't  then we have won the case.

Not on Wednesday, we won't have. 

 

Think of Wednesday's hearing as the final qualifying round to get to the  Champions League group stage.   We need to get past that in order to get our petition heard in the CoS.   If Wednesday goes in our favour, then it's possible the SPFL will offer to negotiate with us & Thistle ahead of the proper hearing in an effort to avoid it altogether .  It would be up to us & Thistle to decide if we want to take part in that negotiation or not.  The proper hearing a the CoS would be our biggest bargaining chip  - "We'll withdraw our legal case, once you have forced through a 14 team Premiership by next week  ..... or see you in court"

 

 

Edited by Lone Striker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People need not be too worried about this being referred back to the SFA to arrange 'independent' arbitration.    It may be neccesary in the first instance.     Come what may,   this will return to the court.     They cannot escape the law being the arbiter of last resort,    especially when it comes to a matter of company law which the football authorities are incompetent to deal with.

 

The SPFL and SFA can continue to hope we just go away but they cannot escape the fact that the courts will have the final say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AllyjamboDerbyshire
36 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

And a potentially precedent setting case of Company Law as well.  How to legislate for a written resolution when a specific ‘reject’ option is placed on the ballot paper.

 

Lord Clark’s legal background is one of academia, I think he will be rubbing his hands with glee at the opportunity to get stuck into this case.

Some judges might be rubbing their hands at the thought of the opportunity to set a precedent (though it only becomes enshrined in law if upheld on final appeal  in the Supreme Court) while others might not wish the responsibility with the possibility of making a pigs ear of it. But I'd suspect most would relish the opportunity as it's something that won't come along too often as the years go by, I suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fozzyonthefence
11 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

I agree, normally a vote is only ever called when either the 28 days have lapsed or the proposal has passed.


And isn’t that what the SPFL legal advice said - that it was ok for Dundee to change their vote?  
 

So we have contradictory legal advice on both sides.  Only one man’s opinion on it is relevant now....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AllyjamboDerbyshire
36 minutes ago, RENE said:

I asked that a couple of days ago Hagar.  Surely if the only defence is it should be referred to SFA and Lord Clark says it shouldn't  then we have won the case.

I doubt it is their only defence, but they have stated it is their principle one in Doncaster's weekend letter. It does, though, suggest they may not be confident of whatever else they have, so, rather than the the judge ruling in our favour, tomorrow the SPFL may decide to fold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not heard if any other clubs have decided to become respondents following ND's letter on Saturday to all clubs.   I'm really not sure why they would do so,  or what ND's motives actually were - I'm assuming to sow division.        Interesting that according to our petition - respondents would share OUR costs of taking this action should we win.    So why would ND think it is in their best interests to invite them to join?????  Just so they could have access to the defence papers?????    Yet another aspect from ND that appears to make little sense, or act in the best interests of members:  

 

(vi) to find the petitioners entitled to the expenses of this petition and the procedure to follow hereon from the Company and any other respondent opposing this petition on a joint and several basis;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:


And isn’t that what the SPFL legal advice said - that it was ok for Dundee to change their vote?  
 

So we have contradictory legal advice on both sides.  Only one man’s opinion on it is relevant now....

 

There would never be any court cases if we never had contradictory legal advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Victorian said:

People need not be too worried about this being referred back to the SFA to arrange 'independent' arbitration.    It may be neccesary in the first instance.     Come what may,   this will return to the court.     They cannot escape the law being the arbiter of last resort,    especially when it comes to a matter of company law which the football authorities are incompetent to deal with.

 

The SPFL and SFA can continue to hope we just go away but they cannot escape the fact that the courts will have the final say.

I was going to ask about that but was fearful of being expelled to page whatever. It does not end if the SF A cannot achieve a resolution. There is no mechanism to stop the clubs seeking court rulings again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

upgotheheads
15 minutes ago, Doogz said:

Exactly: the way Aberdeen voted had no material impact on the resolution passing or being rejected as they had already secured the 9 required votes in favour from the premier teams. Aberdeen changing their vote to yes to give a 10 v 2 result is just window dressing. 

What I'm not clear about is why cancelling the playoffs doesn't constitute a form of re-structure which would have required more votes for it to pass.

Hearts and Rangers (presumably) voted no, which meant that if Aberdeen voted no the result would have been 9-3 But only if Dundee voted yes. And as we know Dundee's vote, (which mysteriously went missing) was a no, at least at first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lone Striker
4 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

I was going to ask about that but was fearful of being expelled to page whatever. It does not end if the SF A cannot achieve a resolution. There is no mechanism to stop the clubs seeking court rulings again

☺️  Quite a topical word.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

Excellent, because there is no way Lord Clark is handing this over to the SFA.

Prepare for the worst. Hope for the best. Don’t forget the other side have QC’s with a strong feeling they can win the case, otherwise this would not have gone as far as it has

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David McCaig
Just now, JimmyCant said:

Prepare for the worst. Hope for the best. Don’t forget the other side have QC’s with a strong feeling they can win the case, otherwise this would not have gone as far as it has

 

Nothing to suggest that the SPFL QCs have a strong feeling they can win this case.

 

Tomorrow is effectively their last free hit at trying to wriggle out of this by playing the SFA Arbitration card.  When Lord Clark quite rightly decides the CoS own this case, the SPFL will cave very quickly.

 

The worst case scenario for Hearts is we lose the case and romp the Championship with a fully, healed and united support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

Please share when you receive a reply 👍

I suggest anyone looking to dial-in to the case emails [email protected]

 

The latest email reply I received was that my request was forwarded on to another member of the court staff to allow me to be copied in with public access to the cited case.

 

I am still awaiting further information.

 

I won't be personally dialing-in to the case if permitted as I have hearing difficulties therefore will be relying on members of kickback for updates.  🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fozzyonthefence
1 minute ago, David McCaig said:

 

Nothing to suggest that the SPFL QCs have a strong feeling they can win this case.

 

Tomorrow is effectively their last free hit at trying to wriggle out of this by playing the SFA Arbitration card.  When Lord Clark quite rightly decides the CoS own this case, the SPFL will cave very quickly.

 

The worst case scenario for Hearts is we lose the case and romp the Championship with a fully, healed and united support.


The worst case scenario is we lose the case and don’t win the Championship or there is a 2nd wave of Covid and ends up being no promotion!  That’s why reinstatement is the much better and safer outcome for us.
 

Don’t think it will be reinstatement though and to be honest I like the compensation route and wiping out a few clubs in the process.  I can’t see an out of court settlement being of much use to us, assuming the clubs would have to vote on this and there’s probably 30 odd clubs that wouldn’t give us the steam off their pish right now, let alone a 7 figure settlement.  I think a lot of people on here are underestimating the complete resentment towards our club right now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick Sanchez
11 minutes ago, south morocco said:

What time does tomorrows hearing start and how long do we expect it to take?

 

11am and 2 hours max.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David McCaig
1 minute ago, Fozzyonthefence said:


The worst case scenario is we lose the case and don’t win the Championship or there is a 2nd wave of Covid and ends up being no promotion!  That’s why reinstatement is the much better and safer outcome for us.
 

Don’t think it will be reinstatement though and to be honest I like the compensation route and wiping out a few clubs in the process.  I can’t see an out of court settlement being of much use to us, assuming the clubs would have to vote on this and there’s probably 30 odd clubs that wouldn’t give us the steam off their pish right now, let alone a 7 figure settlement.  I think a lot of people on here are underestimating the complete resentment towards our club right now. 

 

There is no club getting within 20 points of us, even in a truncated 27 game Championship season. The only way we are not getting promoted automatically is if there is a 2nd wave... and if there is a 2nd wave , there won’t be 12 clubs left in the Premiership.

 

Clubs can be as resentful as they went, but money rules and when the realisation dawns that no tv cheque will be landing in August, we might find people want to be our friends again.

 

And if clubs won’t agree out of court compensation, this trial goes the duration

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PhoenixHearts
10 hours ago, kawasakijambo said:

I apologize, I made a mistake.

 

It's saughton jambo I have serious doubts about. He comes on on here slavering pish for months now. Not one word he has ever said has come to fruition.

 

SJ is a real Hearts man, I can confirm.

 

Source: I'm printing his bloody t-shirts.

Edited by PhoenixHearts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hagar the Horrible
9 minutes ago, gov said:

At least the speculation can ramp up even more tomorrow....its like the day before a big match😂

So  who has the greater pre-match nerves?

 

If we lose then we are no worse off than we are just now, but all hope is lost for the game, and indeed even though they wont agree, fans of all other clubs including those who will celebrate, it will be them next?  And we have accepted more of the same, and corruption succeeds?

 

If we win Compensation, then the panic and fall out as to who pays and how that is divvied up with be priceless to watch, and clubs will die, which will add more cost to those alive?

 

If we get a full bhuna court case, and lose then again we are no worse off but we have delayed the league and put some clubs under financial dificulty, small win for us?

 

If we get a full bhuna court case and win hands down and get reinstated, we get costs, we get our status back and football wins too, but at a cost to other clubs?

 

So who is the most nervous? 

1. Donkey

2. SFA

3 SPFL board

4. Maclennan

5. Lawwell

6. Dundee Utd

7. Cove and RR

8. Hibs

9. Stranraer and all other non affected clubs

10 Us and PT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

manaliveits105
30 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:


The worst case scenario is we lose the case and don’t win the Championship or there is a 2nd wave of Covid and ends up being no promotion!  That’s why reinstatement is the much better and safer outcome for us.
 

Don’t think it will be reinstatement though and to be honest I like the compensation route and wiping out a few clubs in the process.  I can’t see an out of court settlement being of much use to us, assuming the clubs would have to vote on this and there’s probably 30 odd clubs that wouldn’t give us the steam off their pish right now, let alone a 7 figure settlement.  I think a lot of people on here are underestimating the complete resentment towards our club right now. 

FTH 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

Nothing to suggest that the SPFL QCs have a strong feeling they can win this case.

 

Tomorrow is effectively their last free hit at trying to wriggle out of this by playing the SFA Arbitration card.  When Lord Clark quite rightly decides the CoS own this case, the SPFL will cave very quickly.

 

The worst case scenario for Hearts is we lose the case and romp the Championship with a fully, healed and united support.

Sorry but that’s a wildly optimist view

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

Hearts and Rangers (presumably) voted no, which meant that if Aberdeen voted no the result would have been 9-3 But only if Dundee voted yes. And as we know Dundee's vote, (which mysteriously went missing) was a no, at least at first.

Dundee voted as a Championship side so aren't included in the 10-2 or 9-3 required 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

upgotheheads
Just now, Doogz said:

Dundee voted as a Championship side so aren't included in the 10-2 or 9-3 required 

 

:facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, upgotheheads said:

 

:facepalm:

Not sure what the face palm is for: Aberdeen switching their vote had nothing to do with Dundee's vote: 

When Doncaster 'encouraged' Aberdeen to change their vote it was on the basis that the criteria to pass the vote at the premiership level had been met: 9-3, 10-2 it had no real impact on the overall vote, the overall vote was still dependant on the other leagues meeting their own required voting thresholds. All it did to help Doncaster was to use his "81% of clubs voted for this bs" - it had zero impact on the resolution being passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • jkbmod 9 changed the title to SPFL declare league (2019/20) due to Covid (Arbitration panel upholds SPFL decision )
  • davemclaren changed the title to SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...