SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[lost in space]

Thanks for the McCaig files.

Is this a bit of a worry -

"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."

[Mikey1874]

2 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

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!!

 

That was weak.

 

Judge was asking about Reconstruction early on. 

 

Hard to say Hearts through Ann Budge didn't try to resolve matters.

 

The whole argument about Reconstruction talks being a waste of time falls more into the SPFL. 

[Benny Factor]

7 minutes 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.

 

Surely that's Doncaster's punishment??

[SectionN]

Do we know if the same dial in details can be used tomorrow or will we have to email and get a new meeting ID.

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

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

 

Today wasn't about substance of our case.

 

This is about - I think - whether case should be an SFA tribunal instead. 

[manaliveits105]

3 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

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!!

Yes we should have taken the legal action (which we should not be taking as it should have gone to arbitration as a football matter) back in April 

Make your mind up Gerry bhoy should we or shouldnt we ??????

[David McCaig]

1 minute ago, lost in space said:

Thanks for the McCaig files.

Is this a bit of a worry -

"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."

 

Arguing that the Fulham FC decision was wrong wasn’t a great end to the day for David Thomson.

[wavydavy]

6 minutes ago, Leveins Battalion said:

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

 

Scottish Football eh.

 

Or both.

[davemclaren]

11 minutes ago, Last Laff said:

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. 

Indeed. 

[Cruickie's Moustache]

Gerry Moynihan eloquent but poorly prepared.

Argument that it's Hearts/PT fault is a joke and when asked didn't know that it was his own client who appointed Budge and Gray to the reconstruction panel. It wouldn't have got started without SPFL apporoval.

His client then also put forward its own 14,10,10,10 solution late in the day that delayed matters further.

Trying to make it look like it was Hearts driving the bus when the reality is that it was his client.

Was that not the discussions and promises made to the likes of Aberdeen and Dundee?

 

Also Scottish Judges never like English case law being rammed down their throat!! 

[Mikey1874]

4 minutes ago, busby1985 said:

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. 

 

The impression is given because today was all about it going to a tribunal. Or not.

[Bazzas right boot]

Their defence was obvious. 

Hopefully we can get round this "it's a sporting matter" patter in our points of law as outlined in our petition. 

 

 

[neilnunb]

7 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

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!!

 

You'll know a lot more than me but I thought he came across the worst. Seemed all over the place at times

[kingantti1874]

1 minute ago, wavydavy said:

 

Or both.

😂 

[Mikey1874]

2 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

Yes we should have taken the legal action (which we should not be taking as it should have gone to arbitration as a football matter) back in April 

Make your mind up Gerry bhoy should we or shouldnt we ??????

 

Good point.

[Jamboelite]

21 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

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

 

 

 

Thanks for this its very detailed.

 

Obviously there are those on here with some legal background so i would bow to their judgement but from reading that it appears DU and the SPFL have put together a fair amount of argument for arbitration but are the SPFL saying they arent looking for a dismissal but just a sist where as DU want a dismissal or a sist?

 

Why would the SPFL not ask for dismissal as a sist would just bring this back to the CoS ?

 

 

Interested in the interpretation of this in that regard.
“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“

 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Jamboelite

[ericb]

The "case" as we know it (i.e. the Dundee no vote, SPFL shambles, hurting only 3 clubs unfairly) was not heard at all, and from what I can gather was never going to be, or at least until the judge decided the order of events. This was 4 turgid hours of whether the case should be thrown out, and now I know exactly why court cases cost so much bloody money.

[Салатные палочки]

8 minutes ago, Leveins Battalion said:

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

 

Scottish Football eh.

 

The way I'm feeling I would take both just now. Pay the £1m fine and **** off to the lowland league. Sick of this country and the corruption in it's "national" game. 

[David McCaig]

The Fulham case

 

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-507-0366?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1

[Chris#9]

I think the spfl were playing the long game in their arguments. Timescales all our fault etc. Pre-empting any interdict and putting the blame on us. 

[Mac80]

this confuses the hell out of me 

[David McCaig]

4 minutes ago, Cruickie's Moustache said:

Gerry Moynihan eloquent but poorly prepared.

Argument that it's Hearts/PT fault is a joke and when asked didn't know that it was his own client who appointed Budge and Gray to the reconstruction panel. It wouldn't have got started without SPFL apporoval.

His client then also put forward its own 14,10,10,10 solution late in the day that delayed matters further.

Trying to make it look like it was Hearts driving the bus when the reality is that it was his client.

Was that not the discussions and promises made to the likes of Aberdeen and Dundee?

 

Also Scottish Judges never like English case law being rammed down their throat!! 

thats a fair summary.

 

Hopefully, the overnight break works in our favour and we have a chance to pick apart todays submissions by Borland and Moynihan.

[Lfhearts]

23 minutes ago, Saughton Jambo said:

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

Stop it, this Davie stuff and all that.

[Malinga the Swinga]

So these ***** now admit that the Dundee vote was received and as such, their resolution failed. How the **** these SPFL ***** have the brass kneck to try and whitewash this is ****ing unbelievable.

 

Doncaster knew the resolution failed, Lawell knew it had failed, the whole SPFL board knew it had failed and yet they phoned Dundee, said vote wasn't there and then persuaded them to change their minds. ****ing disgraceful actions by a board made of of ***** and simpletons.

 

All of this conveniently swept under the magic SPFL carpet where who knows what other ****ing secrets they have.

 

Also clear that Doncaster, the chief lying *****, in this whole matter was trying to string Hearts along so they could say it was us that delayed things and that nothing to do with them. What an utter welt and ***** of a man he is, a true scheming lying ****wit of a man who would sell his family for a suck at Lawells cock.

 

All of those those clubs that didn't back investigation vote should hang their ****ing heads in shame at their actions. What a bunch of mealy mouthed ****ing cowards they are, elect and every one of them. 

 

No matter the outcome of this, Hearts and Partick Thistle can rest assured they did the right thing in this action as it has highlighted to the ordinary supporters what a ****ing shitshow Scottish football really is.

 

Well, we shall see what decision is made by court soon enough. If we are able to pull this out the bag, what I would be looking forward to is not compensation or reinstatement. Instead, it would be the thought of Scottish football being burned to the ****ing ground, hopefully with the SPFL board and Lawell still inside. ***** to a man, absolute *****.

[David McCaig]

4 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

 

 

Why would the SPFL not ask for dismissal as a sist would justInterested in the interpretation of this in that regard.
“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“

 

I think that’s a typo by me and should read WOULDN’T BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

 

The reasoning being that no argument in advance would have just wasted court time.

[wavydavy]

7 minutes ago, Cruickie's Moustache said:

Gerry Moynihan eloquent but poorly prepared.

Argument that it's Hearts/PT fault is a joke and when asked didn't know that it was his own client who appointed Budge and Gray to the reconstruction panel. It wouldn't have got started without SPFL apporoval.

His client then also put forward its own 14,10,10,10 solution late in the day that delayed matters further.

Trying to make it look like it was Hearts driving the bus when the reality is that it was his client.

Was that not the discussions and promises made to the likes of Aberdeen and Dundee?

 

Also Scottish Judges never like English case law being rammed down their throat!! 

 

Was it not our QC who brought this case up?

[David McCaig]

3 minutes ago, Lfhearts said:

Stop it, this Davie stuff and all that.

How about Thommo?

[Leveins Battalion]

Just going to put on the Lincoln Lawyer.

 

I have absoloutly no idea about law by my interpretation of that is we are getting shafted.

 

Please can a legal boffins put me out my misery.

[ducatiboy]

Stating the obvious, but after listening to it all today, I suggest this has a fair bit to run, not really got near the details that will determine the outcome yet.

[Mikey1874]

10 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

Thanks for this its very detailed.

 

Obviously there are those on here with some legal background so i would bow to their judgement but from reading that it appears DU and the SPFL have put together a fair amount of argument for arbitration but are the SPFL saying they arent looking for a dismissal but just a sist where as DU want a dismissal or a sist?

 

Why would the SPFL not ask for dismissal as a sist would just bring this back to the CoS ?

 

 

Interested in the interpretation of this in that regard.
“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“

 

 

Dismissal of court action means it's over, ended.

 

Sisting suspends but does not end the court action. 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Mikey1874

[Poseidon]

7 minutes ago, neilnunb said:

 

You'll know a lot more than me but I thought he came across the worst. Seemed all over the place at times

Me too. Borland was strong IMO

[wavydavy]

8 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

😂

 

Mind you if we were expelled what would be the point in paying the fine? 😍

[David McCaig]

Just now, wavydavy said:

 

Was it not our QC who brought this case up?

The reference to English case law has primarily come from Borland and Moynihan, primarily in promotion of a more generous interpretation of arbitration and what constitutes unfair prejudice.

[Don Dan]

7 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

Interested in the interpretation of this in that regard.
“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“

Quite damaging to their case in admitting that. Although to deny it would have been worse.

[wavydavy]

Just now, David McCaig said:

The reference to English case law has primarily come from Borland and Moynihan, primarily in promotion of a more generous interpretation of arbitration and what constitutes unfair prejudice.

 

Thanks and for your summary of the case today.

[David McCaig]

Just now, Dannie Boy said:

Quite damaging to their case in admitting that. Although to deny it would have been worse.

Moynihan certainly slipped that nugget in, very subtly.

[VivaObua]

Anyone paying any attention to that Joe Black on twitter best not..he's a mile out.

[WorldChampions1902]

12 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

That was weak.

 

Judge was asking about Reconstruction early on. 

 

Hard to say Hearts through Ann Budge didn't try to resolve matters.

 

The whole argument about Reconstruction talks being a waste of time falls more into the SPFL. 

Indeed. 
 

Hopefully it is becoming more apparent to some posters that wanted us to trigger court action earlier, that the strategy to exhaust all avenues, to engage in the farce of recon etc was indeed the right tack.

[Lfhearts]

3 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

How about Thommo?

How about Dick mccaig 

[scotty2442]

12 minutes ago, Cruickie's Moustache said:

Gerry Moynihan eloquent but poorly prepared.

Argument that it's Hearts/PT fault is a joke and when asked didn't know that it was his own client who appointed Budge and Gray to the reconstruction panel. It wouldn't have got started without SPFL apporoval.

His client then also put forward its own 14,10,10,10 solution late in the day that delayed matters further.

Trying to make it look like it was Hearts driving the bus when the reality is that it was his client.

Was that not the discussions and promises made to the likes of Aberdeen and Dundee?

 

Also Scottish Judges never like English case law being rammed down their throat!! 

I’m not sure if he was the most eloquent or if it was purely that his broadband connection was by far the clearest 😊

[indianajones]

Can people stop with the utter shite football analogies and just say what is actually going on? 

[Debut 4]

Just now, indianajones said:

Can people stop with the utter shite football analogies and just say what is actually going on? 

😂

[Jamboelite]

5 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Dismissal of court action means it's over, ended.

 

Sisting suspends but does not end thr court action. 

Yeah i know just curious why the SPFL and DU arent both going for dismissal.

 

If its a sist while arbitration is carried out then that lends itself to come back to CofS if we dont like the outcome.

Edited July 1, 2020 by Jamboelite

[Poseidon]

13 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

Thanks for this its very detailed.

 

Obviously there are those on here with some legal background so i would bow to their judgement but from reading that it appears DU and the SPFL have put together a fair amount of argument for arbitration but are the SPFL saying they arent looking for a dismissal but just a sist where as DU want a dismissal or a sist.

 

Why would the SPFL not ask for dismissal as a sist would just bring this back to the CoS ?

 

 

Interested in the interpretation of this in that regard.
“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“

 

The judge essentially said he wanted arguments for kicking it out completely and sisting it for arbitration held together. So basically that forced DU/RR/CR QC to go heavy on the arbitration route.

 

SPFL have essentially admitted things weren't perfect and they want to sort it out through arbitration. They know they wouldn't get away with a big F U to Hearts and Thistle in front of a judge

Edited July 1, 2020 by Poseidon

[scotty2442]

Let’s say we get kicked to arbitration, if arbitration ends up being the big dog turd that it almost definitely would be,  could we then head back to the courts ? 

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

Don't like the judge telling us straight on 99.1

[Poseidon]

1 minute ago, scotty2442 said:

Let’s say we get kicked to arbitration, if arbitration ends up being the big dog turd that it almost definitely would be,  could we then head back to the courts ? 

Yes

[ramrod]

Just now, Sir Gio said:

Don't like the judge telling us straight on 99.1

Anyone know what this means ? Lol

[Mikey1874]

3 minutes ago, Poseidon said:

The judge essentially said he wanted arguments for kicking it out completely and sisting it for arbitration held together. So basically that forced DU/RR/CR QC to go heavy on the arbitration route.

 

SPFL have essentially admitted things weren't perfect and they want to sort it out through arbitration. They know they wouldn't get away with a big F U to Hearts and Thistle in front of a judge

 

Accepting Dundee voted No too.

 

At least their first vote was received. Legal advice has changed.

 

We have a good case. 

[HMFC01]

19 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

Arguing that the Fulham FC decision was wrong wasn’t a great end to the day for David Thomson.

 

He did start the argument saying the hearts/partick case was unique though.  I agree saying a previously upheld decision is wrong to a judge is risky.  Which I know nothing about   so I'll take it with a pinch of salt.