SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Fozzyonthefence]

4 minutes ago, joondalupjambo said:

Absolutely not and joined at the hip. There is one reason right there why Petrie has handed in a sick note.  If it ever did get to the SFA to decide he wants his hands clean and Mulraney to pull the trigger on us getting stuffed.

That’ll be the Mike Mulraney that was threatening clubs that he would ensure equal split of prize money rather than based on league positions if they didn’t vote the way he wanted.  Yep, he’ll be impartial right enough!

 

Our fate in the hands of no mark clubs like Brechin and Alloa ffs!

[Riccarton3]

19 minutes ago, Mr Brightside said:

Generally the process for arbitration is set out in a contract / articles of agreement and it’s up to a party to commence the arbitration procedures. The burden of proof normally lies with the party starting the arbitration process.

 

There is no need for the SPFL to tell us to take the arbitration route if it is in the articles of agreement.

Makes me wonder Brightside what we replied to the SFA with when asked what we were doing?

Edited July 1, 2020 by Riccarton3

[upgotheheads]

Whatever happens I'm guessing that we wont be seeing any SFA/SPFL bigwigs  troughing at Tynecastle any time soon.

Edited July 1, 2020 by upgotheheads

[Jambo66]

1 minute ago, busby1985 said:

@Footballfirst why haven’t we pushed for adjournment for today? 

If our QC can finish today, it keeps things moving along quickly. That is clearly to our advantage.

[Morgan]

9 hours ago, Lfhearts said:

Bet they are first class.

They always have been, so far.  No reason to think that will be any different now.

[Mr Brightside]

1 minute ago, Riccarton3 said:

Makes me wonder Brightside what we replied to the SFA with when asked what we were doing?

Probably best no reply or refer them to the fact we had started a legal process.

 

 I am not a lawyer, but do have experience with construction contracts which nearly always contain dispute resolution procedures such as arbitration.

[Fozzyonthefence]

1 minute ago, Jambo66 said:

If our QC can finish today, it keeps things moving along quickly. That is clearly to our advantage.

If moving things along quickly is to our advantage should we not have hit the legal button a couple of months ago?  Even the DU QC appears to have referred to this. In relation to reinstatement I mean?

 

The whole thing has been delay after delay so I’m just going to expect a further delay via SFA arbitration and be pleasantly surprised if not.   If it does go to SFA does that mean we have to file another court petition to go back there once arbitration fails?

[Cruyff]

Has the judge called time? 

 

How did our boy do? 

[SMJ_1874]

Close of business now and resume tomorrow. Davie needs another hour. This has been a good performance by our counsel

[GinRummy]

Just now, heatonjambo said:

 

Actually i take that back

 

silly me!

It’ll be alright man 👍. There’s lots of us a wee bit nervy. 

[eck1874]

Over and out for today back again tomorrow at 2pm

[Newton51]

Full time. Extra time tomorrow

[Dazo]

Think our QC done well but this really could go either way at this stage. 

[Jambo66]

Just now, Fozzyonthefence said:

If moving things along quickly is to our advantage should we not have hit the legal button a couple of months ago?  Even the DU QC appears to have referred to this. In relation to reinstatement I mean?

 

The whole thing has been delay after delay so I’m just going to expect a further delay via SFA arbitration and be pleasantly surprised if not.   If it does go to SFA does that mean we have to file another court petition to go back there once arbitration fails?

There's a big difference between delay in going to court and delay in court. Our whole argument is that we did everything humanly possible to prevent this going to court, because we didn't ever want to do that. That paints us as the good guys in the eyes of the court.

 

Now that we are in court, we want to get things moving forward quickly. And guess what, that also paints us as the good guys in the eyes of the court.

[lost in space]

Did the QCs for DUFC and SPFL have any points worthy of interest apart from ARBITRATION??

[Last Laff]

1 minute ago, Saughton Jambo said:

Close of business now and resume tomorrow. Davie needs another hour. This has been a good performance by our counsel

Hope so.   Either way nobody really knows. 

[Zen Jambo]

I have not been playing close attention, but following on from ND's letter to all clubs on the weekend and our (&PT'S) anger at it, what happened with that? Will it be brought to this hearing? 

[Don Dan]

Who’s going to summarise today’s proceeding for those unable to follow the live link. Only sensible responses please🤨

[David McCaig]

Gary Borland QC – 3 clubs (Dundee Utd/Cove/Raith – respondents)

 

3 clubs were legally promoted and the court should not allow these proceedings to proceed.

Respondents align themselves with SPFL.

Formally apply for a dismissal or a sist.

Arguing that for SPFL rules clubs are CLUBS not companies

Directing to article 196 – CLUBS agree to abide by the rules.

Rules – membership of league = agreement of CLUBS to abide by articles.  So each club must comply with articles and rules. Including resolution of disputes with members and arbitration.  Arguing that it is a football dispute.

Reference to previous St Johnstone case 1965 by judge, Borland says that it is not appropriate to this as superseded by subsequent arbitration act 2010.

CLUBS contractually compelled to oblige with SPFL rules and SFA articles.

CLUBS can only take a case to court with the permission of the SFA Board.

Hearts argue this is not a FOOTBALL dispute and that arbitration is barred due to unfair prejudice.

Judge questions whether respondents could have avoided prejudicing themselves.

Refers to test applied in English Case of Patel and Patel re English Arbitration act 1996… Lord Justice Cotton.

Davidson’s Book on arbitration reference to Eagle Star case arguing that respondents haven’t prejudiced themselves.

Lord Clark identifies the key timing issues.  Borland claims arbitration can happen in time.

Borland blames Hearts/Partick for the time delays. Lord Clark mentions reconstruction.

Example given of case involving Fulham FC.

Borland claims that cases of unfair prejudice are capable of being arbitrated.

Petitioners argue that this is not a footballing dispute

Borland says this is wrong:

1.     Any dispute arising out of association football

2.     Dispute is between members of the SFA.

3.     SPFL are obviously an associated person re article 99.7.  Judge sceptical about the status of the SPFL.

4.     The argument clearly relates to association football.  The argument of the petitioners is fanciful.

Borland directs Lord Clark to the prayer in Hearts petition… promotion and relegation are the meat and drink of association football.

5.      The only basis that Hearts can argue this isn’t a footballing dispute is on the basis 

6.     Reference made to the Fulham FC Case

Refers back to Arbitration Act 2010, finding principles, rights of parties to agree arbitration.Any no court provision should be enforced.

Refers back again to the St Johnstone case being superseded by Arbitration Act 2010.  Says that Hearts Lawyers are incorrect in law. Claims that Hearts have misread the Lord Kilbrandon Case.

 

Lunch

 

The Hearts petition will seek recovery of documents.

 

Clarifying what arbitration was in place in 1965 in St Johnstone v SFA case.

Article 99 – reemphasising what is meant by football dispute and what falls within COS jurisdiction.

Borland argues that there is no public policy argument to this case.

The court should not allow these proceedings to continue before it and should therefore the respondents first plea in law, as they are contractually barred as per article 99.

Alternatively, sist these proceedings in order to allow an arbitration to take place.

Gerry Moynihan QC on behalf of SPFL

 

Adopts and defends Borland’s arguments.

Argues for a sist rather than dismissal.

Refers to extensive authority in England to nominal defenders. Arguing that SPFL role is a passive one.

These proceeding relate to matters of importance to the footballing community as a whole.

Argues that the vote was back on 15 April 2020 and if invalid was invalid on that day, a period of 9 weeks have elapsed. Therefore Hearts/Partick to blame for the timescale at play.

Argues that arbitration would be a speedy process… cutting through the legal noise.

Arbitration Scotland Act – statutory duty to proceed without undue delay, in a fair and impartial way. This is a mandatory rule. The panel consists of senators and sheriffs.

Confusion over which arbitration rules are being applied, with regard to what is being disapplied in article 99.

Lord Clark – did the SPFL help facilitate reconstruction?  SPFL – Yes, they did

Moynihan argues that it was Hearts choice not to take legal action on 16 April 2020. Examples of precedent in public interest of cases going to arbitration where appropriate.

Moves onto issue of whether the SPFL have been prejudicial in responding to Hearts claims.  The SPFL concede that the Dundee vote was received.  Argues that it would have been in the public interest to place a motion for a sist with no legal argument. Gives example of Capital Trust Investments 2002.

Refers to petitioners 2^nd request for inventory of productions… lodged yesterday. Letter dated 24 June from Shepherd Wedderburn to Gilson Gray – answer from SPFL to Hearts petition questions.  The SPFL says proceedings must be suspended as per articles and that arbitration was the preferred route.  Therefore no substance in any bar as per article 10.

Football disputes are most expeditiously dealt with by the football authorities.

Moynihan argues that petitioners allege unfairness which is a paradigm of football.

He refers back to the Judicial Panel protocol, rule 78 and that Hearts raising this action is a disciplinary matter… with a potential fine of £1m and or suspension/expulsion.

The SPFL is actively participating because of the serious consequences for its business and feels that a specialist tribunal/arbitration is where this should be heard.

 

Clarification from Lord Clark on 10.1.d1 – does precedent alter the meaning of Scottish legislation based as English case law?

 

How quickly can a tribunal be convened? List of potential tribunal members already offered across both sides.

 

 

 

David Thomson QC for Hearts/Partick

 

Opposes both a sist and dismissal

Accepts that litigation should be a last resort and this is a prime example of this.

As soon as the reconstruction proposals failed, Hearts took legal action forthwith

No one has checked the availability of the arbitration panel. The Court of Session is available now with indicative dates provided.

Reference made to 2004 case and proceeding were dealt with by the court and not sent to arbitration.

Article 75 – suggestion that David Thomson is wrong in comparison beyond former article 75 and new article 99.  Both refer to punishment in the case of taking the SFA/SPFL to court.

Argues that article 99 attempts to make it unlawful to take legal action.

 

Lord Clark – article 99.1 makes reference to an adjudication process.  David Thomson argues that 99.15 stands alone.

 

Thomson argues that the Fulham FC decision was wrong.

 

Case to be continued at 2pm tomorrow

 

 

 

[GinRummy]

Not been listening. Does our QC finish tomorrow then a decision made on arbitration? 

[Jambo-Fox]

I listened up until 1pm but only

came back in at 3:40pm for the last 20 minutes.

 

Did the SPFL QC speak at all? Just read D McCaig update that he did indeed speak - question answered!

Edited July 1, 2020 by Jambo-Fox
Updated info

[davemclaren]

1 minute ago, Last Laff said:

Hope so.   Either way nobody really knows. 

@Saughton Jambo has been in court many times and knows a good lawyer when he hears one. 😄

[David McCaig]

1 minute ago, Dannie Boy said:

Who’s going to summarise today’s proceeding for those unable to follow the live link. Only sensible responses please🤨

See above

[Mikey1874]

The SPFL have accepted they received the Dundee No vote.

 

Presume they also argue they can change the No to Yes. 

[jambo_]

allegedly the spfl argument is arbitration, expulsion, their not allowed to do this in court etc.... over and over and over again...... for nearly 5 hours... crazy if true....allegedly

Edited July 1, 2020 by jambo_

[JAMBO.LOU]

I was finding it difficult to hear our QC.  Can anyone clarify something I think I heard....   

 

he made reference to the previous Partick case and said this was dealt with. By the court and not arbitration.     I thought their case was sent back to sfa? 

[His name is]

1 minute ago, Dannie Boy said:

Who’s going to summarise today’s proceeding for those unable to follow the live link. Only sensible responses please🤨

Second this

[rory78]

Good thing is they've had their say while our guy can go away digest what's been said and return fresh tomorrow and go for the jugular 

[Cruyff]

Just now, davemclaren said:

@Saughton Jambo has been in court many times and knows a good lawyer when he hears one. 😄

Never out of Saughton that one.

[David McCaig]

Just now, His name is said:

Second this

Gary Borland QC – 3 clubs (Dundee Utd/Cove/Raith – respondents)

 

3 clubs were legally promoted and the court should not allow these proceedings to proceed.

Respondents align themselves with SPFL.

Formally apply for a dismissal or a sist.

Arguing that for SPFL rules clubs are CLUBS not companies

Directing to article 196 – CLUBS agree to abide by the rules.

Rules – membership of league = agreement of CLUBS to abide by articles.  So each club must comply with articles and rules. Including resolution of disputes with members and arbitration.  Arguing that it is a football dispute.

Reference to previous St Johnstone case 1965 by judge, Borland says that it is not appropriate to this as superseded by subsequent arbitration act 2010.

CLUBS contractually compelled to oblige with SPFL rules and SFA articles.

CLUBS can only take a case to court with the permission of the SFA Board.

Hearts argue this is not a FOOTBALL dispute and that arbitration is barred due to unfair prejudice.

Judge questions whether respondents could have avoided prejudicing themselves.

Refers to test applied in English Case of Patel and Patel re English Arbitration act 1996… Lord Justice Cotton.

Davidson’s Book on arbitration reference to Eagle Star case arguing that respondents haven’t prejudiced themselves.

Lord Clark identifies the key timing issues.  Borland claims arbitration can happen in time.

Borland blames Hearts/Partick for the time delays. Lord Clark mentions reconstruction.

Example given of case involving Fulham FC.

Borland claims that cases of unfair prejudice are capable of being arbitrated.

Petitioners argue that this is not a footballing dispute

Borland says this is wrong:

1.     Any dispute arising out of association football

2.     Dispute is between members of the SFA.

3.     SPFL are obviously an associated person re article 99.7.  Judge sceptical about the status of the SPFL.

4.     The argument clearly relates to association football.  The argument of the petitioners is fanciful.

Borland directs Lord Clark to the prayer in Hearts petition… promotion and relegation are the meat and drink of association football.

5.      The only basis that Hearts can argue this isn’t a footballing dispute is on the basis 

6.     Reference made to the Fulham FC Case

Refers back to Arbitration Act 2010, finding principles, rights of parties to agree arbitration.Any no court provision should be enforced.

Refers back again to the St Johnstone case being superseded by Arbitration Act 2010.  Says that Hearts Lawyers are incorrect in law. Claims that Hearts have misread the Lord Kilbrandon Case.

 

Lunch

 

The Hearts petition will seek recovery of documents.

 

Clarifying what arbitration was in place in 1965 in St Johnstone v SFA case.

Article 99 – reemphasising what is meant by football dispute and what falls within COS jurisdiction.

Borland argues that there is no public policy argument to this case.

The court should not allow these proceedings to continue before it and should therefore the respondents first plea in law, as they are contractually barred as per article 99.

Alternatively, sist these proceedings in order to allow an arbitration to take place.

Gerry Moynihan QC on behalf of SPFL

 

Adopts and defends Borland’s arguments.

Argues for a sist rather than dismissal.

Refers to extensive authority in England to nominal defenders. Arguing that SPFL role is a passive one.

These proceeding relate to matters of importance to the footballing community as a whole.

Argues that the vote was back on 15 April 2020 and if invalid was invalid on that day, a period of 9 weeks have elapsed. Therefore Hearts/Partick to blame for the timescale at play.

Argues that arbitration would be a speedy process… cutting through the legal noise.

Arbitration Scotland Act – statutory duty to proceed without undue delay, in a fair and impartial way. This is a mandatory rule. The panel consists of senators and sheriffs.

Confusion over which arbitration rules are being applied, with regard to what is being disapplied in article 99.

Lord Clark – did the SPFL help facilitate reconstruction?  SPFL – Yes, they did

Moynihan argues that it was Hearts choice not to take legal action on 16 April 2020. Examples of precedent in public interest of cases going to arbitration where appropriate.

Moves onto issue of whether the SPFL have been prejudicial in responding to Hearts claims.  The SPFL concede that the Dundee vote was received.  Argues that it would have been in the public interest to place a motion for a sist with no legal argument. Gives example of Capital Trust Investments 2002.

Refers to petitioners 2^nd request for inventory of productions… lodged yesterday. Letter dated 24 June from Shepherd Wedderburn to Gilson Gray – answer from SPFL to Hearts petition questions.  The SPFL says proceedings must be suspended as per articles and that arbitration was the preferred route.  Therefore no substance in any bar as per article 10.

Football disputes are most expeditiously dealt with by the football authorities.

Moynihan argues that petitioners allege unfairness which is a paradigm of football.

He refers back to the Judicial Panel protocol, rule 78 and that Hearts raising this action is a disciplinary matter… with a potential fine of £1m and or suspension/expulsion.

The SPFL is actively participating because of the serious consequences for its business and feels that a specialist tribunal/arbitration is where this should be heard.

 

Clarification from Lord Clark on 10.1.d1 – does precedent alter the meaning of Scottish legislation based as English case law?

 

How quickly can a tribunal be convened? List of potential tribunal members already offered across both sides.

 

 

 

David Thomson QC for Hearts/Partick

 

Opposes both a sist and dismissal

Accepts that litigation should be a last resort and this is a prime example of this.

As soon as the reconstruction proposals failed, Hearts took legal action forthwith

No one has checked the availability of the arbitration panel. The Court of Session is available now with indicative dates provided.

Reference made to 2004 case and proceeding were dealt with by the court and not sent to arbitration.

Article 75 – suggestion that David Thomson is wrong in comparison beyond former article 75 and new article 99.  Both refer to punishment in the case of taking the SFA/SPFL to court.

Argues that article 99 attempts to make it unlawful to take legal action.

 

Lord Clark – article 99.1 makes reference to an adjudication process.  David Thomson argues that 99.15 stands alone.

 

Thomson argues that the Fulham FC decision was wrong.

 

Case to be continued at 2pm tomorrow

 

 

 

[GinRummy]

1 minute ago, David McCaig said:

See above

Aye, thanks David. 

[neilnunb]

2 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

Not been listening. Does our QC finish tomorrow then a decision made on arbitration? 

 

 

Unfortunately it sounds like the DU QC has yet more waffling to do after our guy.

 

😭💤

[The Wrinkly Ninja]

Looking forward to the second leg.

 

0-0 away from home is always a good result.

 

I think we will definitely score tomorrow but if we lose an away goal we will be making it hard for ourselves.

 

Still confident we will make it through to the group stages and avoid dropping into the Intertoto.

 

 

[Last Laff]

1 minute ago, davemclaren said:

@Saughton Jambo has been in court many times and knows a good lawyer when he hears one. 😄

While probably true he’s not going to say the others have been good either when they are against us or what’s in the mind of the Judge.  It’s not that there’s any distrust either, it’s just all up in the air completely and who knows how it will go. 

[GinRummy]

Just now, neilnunb said:

 

 

Unfortunately it sounds like the DU QC has yet more waffling to do after our guy.

 

😭💤

Ffs. I just assumed everyone would say their bit and that would be it for now. Never realised it’d bounce back and forward. 

[David McCaig]

Just now, GinRummy said:

Ffs. I just assumed everyone would say their bit and that would be it for now. Never realised it’d bounce back and forward. 

 

David Thomson says he will require approximately 60 minutes tomorrow.  Gary Borland an additional 15-20 to respond and Gerry Moynihan says he is happy to be guillotined if required.

[Mikey1874]

6 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

I listened up until 1pm but only

came back in at 3:40pm for the last 20 minutes.

 

Did the SPFL QC speak at all?

 

SPFL after lunch after Dundee United etc finished.

[Cruyff]

1 minute ago, David McCaig said:

 

David Thomson says he will require approximately 60 minutes tomorrow.  Gary Borland an additional 15-20 to respond and Gerry Moynihan says he is happy to be guillotined if required.

Why do they get to respond? Does our guy get a chance to argue their responses? 

[Jambo-Fox]

5 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

See above

A good update - filled me in on the hour and forty mins that i missed - thanks 

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

I drove 360 miles round trip on a driving offence to confirm my name and address. 

 

Many moons ago, but used the experience to understand how laborious legal proceedings are 

[David McCaig]

Just now, Cruyff said:

Why do they get to respond? Does our guy get a chance to argue their responses? 

I think we still need to present our petition for recovery of documents.

[Leveins Battalion]

So we could be fined £1 million or Expelled ?🤣🤣🤣

 

Scottish Football eh.

[Tokyo Drifter]

Someone gimme the top line ... are we winning?

[Jambo-Fox]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

SPFL after lunch after Dundee United etc finished.

Thanks just read it in the ‘McCaig Files’

[OTT]

This idea that football is a law unto itself needs to be dismantled.

 

They exist within society and should be subject to the same rules and regulations as any other. Utterly ridiculous.

[David McCaig]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

SPFL after lunch after Dundee United etc finished.

Gerry Moynihan probably the most eloquent of the 3 QCs, although a rather curious strategy of attacking Hearts for not taking legal action back in April!!

[rory78]

The whole thing has been now been spun into some war between us and Dundee Utd all very annoying as its the bloody SPFL we're after 🤬

[busby1985]

Just now, Tokyo Drifter said:

Someone gimme the top line ... are we winning?

No cause we’ve barely said anything due to timing. SPFL and the three clubs have had the floor most of the day. The judge keeps referring back to questions regarding arbitration which is his job but it does make me feel like he’s going to agree that this should be dealt with by the SFA. All my own opinion of course. Full disclosure, I only listened until the lunch break. The reminder of the day has been passed onto me. 

[Hagar the Horrible]

1 minute ago, lost in space said:

Did the QCs for DUFC and SPFL have any points worthy of interest apart from ARBITRATION??

dipping in and out, but I am not sure they even used the 81% defence only this is not a court matter

 

in boxing parlance, i dont think they won any single round,  best not get cocky though its in the balance, but we are in this are'nt we?

 

I would laugh my thrupennies if the SFA voted in our favour if its refered back. can they snowball it without looking like a fudge???  They might have to vote in our favour to look impartial and still relevant, the alternative is we all go to courts for every dispute?  The SFA will have to look like justice has been served?  Long way off, lets sleep good tonight its our turn, and Lord Clark has been on point, looks like he has done his homework, we are given a fair crack at this

[Bazzas right boot]

3 minutes ago, Sir Gio said:

I drove 360 miles round trip on a driving offence to confirm my name and address. 

 

Many moons ago, but used the experience to understand how laborious legal proceedings are 

 

Drive to a driving offence hearing. 

Clearly confident! 😂👏