Jump to content

SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )


Heres Rixxy

Recommended Posts

My gut feeling. This will be kicked out to arbitration. Arbitration will fail and we will end up back into court. What are our options for the interdict if this is the case? 

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

Chuck Berry
3 minutes ago, ramrod said:

Anyone know what this means ? Lol

99.1 This Article 99 comprises an agreement by parties who are subject to the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA, to submit disputes of certain natures, as specified in more detail below, to arbitration. It is important for parties to understand that the resolution of any dispute under this Article 99 comprises resolution by arbitration. Accordingly the provisions of the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”), together with the Scottish Arbitration Rules which form Schedule 1 to the 2010 Act (with the exception of default rules which are disapplied by this Article 99) must be considered together with this Article 99, together with any amendments to the said Act and/or any other statutory or other provisions which may be relevant to the conduct of an arbitration in Scotland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

willie wallace

They certainly put in a shift these guys.

Couple of hours,lunch and back for a couple.Not bad.

What does Fulham have to do with this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst

I have no idea how this will play out. It is difficult to assess what the judge is thinking.  Generally, I've found that the more that the judge intervenes, either to challenge a statement or to seek clarification, the less convinced he is with an argument, i.e. if he doesn't interrupt then he is following the line of argument.

 

A couple of interventions which I thought were notable. The first was asking Borland what he would do if his motion failed. He struggled to answer. The second was to ask Moynihan about a timetable for arbitration. He understandably said quickly. So that was one intervention against arbitration and one for it.

 

I thought that Borland spoke for an excessive amount of time about not very much, repeating his arguments over and over again.

 

Moynihan came across pretty well and, by keeping his submission short, focussed in on what was important to him to get across.

 

Thomson has just started with the first bit of his three part submission ...... 1) tell them what it is you are going to say 2) say it,  and 3) tell them what you just said.

 

One thing I was surprised about was that  Moynihan "admitted" that the Dundee vote had been sent at 4:48pm.  He must be reasonably confident that he can make an argument around whether it should have been accepted and was capable of being revoked.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, busby1985 said:

My gut feeling. This will be kicked out to arbitration. Arbitration will fail and we will end up back into court. What are our options for the interdict if this is the case? 

 

This is the way I see it going. A foregone conclusion. 

 

I hope the Judge isn't naive in not seeing that. Seems far better just for this to be seen through to conclusion for better or worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chuck Berry said:

99.1 This Article 99 comprises an agreement by parties who are subject to the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA, to submit disputes of certain natures, as specified in more detail below, to arbitration. It is important for parties to understand that the resolution of any dispute under this Article 99 comprises resolution by arbitration. Accordingly the provisions of the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”), together with the Scottish Arbitration Rules which form Schedule 1 to the 2010 Act (with the exception of default rules which are disapplied by this Article 99) must be considered together with this Article 99, together with any amendments to the said Act and/or any other statutory or other provisions which may be relevant to the conduct of an arbitration in Scotland.


And 99.5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Accepting Dundee voted No too.

 

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

 

We have a good case. 

 

I wonder what the other 39 Clubs are thinking now that this has been confirmed beyong all reasonable doubt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Malinga the Swinga
4 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

You are very polite in saying 'admitted things weren't perfect'. No they were not. These ***** lied and bullied their vote through and they knew exactly what they were doing. I ****ing despise the SPFL and Scottish football. **** arbitration, the SFA could have intervened voluntarily but they sat, sucking Celtic cock, and did **** all.

 

Apart from Hearts, Partick and Stranraer, the who ****ing lot can burn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ramrod said:

Anyone know what this means ? Lol

 

SFA Articles of association 99.1

 

RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES BETWEEN MEMBERS 99. ARBITRATION General 99.1 This Article 99 comprises an agreement by parties who are subject to the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA, to submit disputes of certain natures, as specified in more detail below, to arbitration. It is important for parties to understand that the resolution of any dispute under this Article 99 comprises resolution by arbitration. Accordingly the provisions of the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”), together with the Scottish Arbitration Rules which form Schedule 1 to the 2010 Act (with the exception of default rules which are disapplied by this Article 99) must be considered together with this Article 99, together with any amendments to the said Act and/or any other statutory or other provisions which may be relevant to the conduct of an arbitration in Scotland. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spellczech
27 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. 

Was most of our argument not written and the respondents are now responding?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wavydavy said:

 

I wonder what the other 39 Clubs are thinking now that this has been confirmed beyong all reasonable doubt. 

 

Depends what they are thinking about Doncaster writing to them to ask them to support the defence and the Resolution to allow SPFL to do what they want with the 2020/21 season as well. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

Did he miss out the bit that says that clubs can take disputes to the Court of Session if outside the scope of the SFA? As in disputes covered by civil/company law! I suspect he did. Whenever a QC puts forward a case, without interruption from the opposing counsel, he's bound to make it sound like he is correct in everything he says and be able to convince the layman that he has a winning case. It is only after the petitioners' QC has had an opportunity to put forward his case that we will have the opportunity to gauge how it's going.

 

Remember that, as has been said plenty of times on this thread, the rules of the SFA and SPFL do not take precedence over the Court of Session, or the law of the land, and if Lord Clark decides it is a dispute best settled in a court of law, in a court of law it will be settled.

 

In the CoS the court will not be looking to rule on what is best for Scottish football (as rightly or wrongly viewed by the SFA) but looking to ensure the law of the land is adhered to and that no company is disadvantaged unfairly by another or others. The court will look for a remedy that puts everyone in the position they would have been had no wrongful act taken place, which will be why Dundee Utd etc are so adversely affected by the proceedings. 

The Hearts QC (to the extent i could hear him) appeared to drive a coach & horses through the arbitration/ anti-court arguments. Whether he's right or not, time will tell - he's got another hour to go , tomorrow.

 

Arbitration - Hearts are not bound to go to arbitration, there's no clause that says anything of the kind no matter what DUFC & SPFL say. 

 

Courts - the idea that the SFA can prevent members going to court is against Scots law.

 

SFA tribunals- I thought he did well here. He battered the DUFC QC and the SPFL guy by saying , there's been talk about going to SFA tribunal because of time factors - then pointed out there wasn't  a single person appointed to any panel, there was no chairman and the SFA/SPFL couldn't possibly say there wouldn't be a delay (I think!).

 

He also lol'd (my words) at SPFL for saying it shouldn't be in the courts when the people who are on the panels are "retired judges & senators". In any case, we're here now in court so let's stay here. 

 

Be interesting to hear what he says tomorrow. Phone bill permitting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

You are very polite in saying 'admitted things weren't perfect'. No they were not. These ***** lied and bullied their vote through and they knew exactly what they were doing. I ****ing despise the SPFL and Scottish football. **** arbitration, the SFA could have intervened voluntarily but they sat, sucking Celtic cock, and did **** all.

 

Apart from Hearts, Partick and Stranraer, the who ****ing lot can burn.

I know, cant help but feel we'll be shafted again and end up with a token £500k which is reduced after appeal to CAS or something like that 🙁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diadora Van Basten

Good for us: SPFL accept that the Dundee vote was received.

 

Bad for us: Fulham unfair prejudice case was referred back to arbitration. This has no precedent in Scots law but may persuade Judge to refer case back to the SFA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kirky Jambo

I’m sure it’s been covered already but a mate texted me saying Dundee utd’s lawyer was going on about promotion and relegation being essential and part of the “meat and drink” of Scottish football.

 

Bit of an open goal for us if so, given Brora and Kelty are being denied it. Also, there have been some occasions in the past where it hasn’t happened due to stadiums being too small etc 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

Just read some of it.  The amount of prejudice Hearts are talking about is not comparable in the slightest to the Fulham case at all.  That argument is nowhere near comparable.  I hope I am clear :D   Although there is the key element of proving is/is not prejudiced is the thing.

Quote

In brief, Fulham Football Club presented an unfair prejudice petition under section 994 of the CA 2006 regarding allegations that the chairman of the Football Association Premier League (FAPL) had interfered with negotiations concerning the transfer of a Premier League footballer.

 

Thanks for your contribution today.  It's enlightening stuff to say the least!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, indianajones said:

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

 

It's over for the day.  It's more like cricket in the sense that very few tuned in, it was apparently very tedious, and no one can be sure when it will end.  I think we just need a draw to get through to the next test match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

flecktimus

One thing that was cleared up in my mind, we now know why Doncaster wanted to pretend we could get reconstruction through. Today they basically  argued that Hearts & PT wasted time going to court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I have no idea how this will play out. It is difficult to assess what the judge is thinking.  Generally, I've found that the more that the judge intervenes, either to challenge a statement or to seek clarification, the less convinced he is with an argument, i.e. if he doesn't interrupt then he is following the line of argument.

 

A couple of interventions which I thought were notable. The first was asking Borland what he would do if his motion failed. He struggled to answer. The second was to ask Moynihan about a timetable for arbitration. He understandably said quickly. So that was one intervention against arbitration and one for it.

 

I thought that Borland spoke for an excessive amount of time about not very much, repeating his arguments over and over again.

 

Moynihan came across pretty well and, by keeping his submission short, focussed in on what was important to him to get across.

 

Thomson has just started with the first bit of his three part submission ...... 1) tell them what it is you are going to say 2) say it,  and 3) tell them what you just said.

 

One thing I was surprised about was that  Moynihan "admitted" that the Dundee vote had been sent at 4:48pm.  He must be reasonably confident that he can make an argument around whether it should have been accepted and was capable of being revoked.  

 

 

 

I missed the start of Moynihan , so cheers for this. To the uninitiated, Moynihan is the guy who put together the SPFL strategy document / legal advice for ending the season, the resolutions etc - so he knows that much.

But what I found interesting was his plea to the judge that basically football people know football and so football people should be allowed to resolve  this dispute. 

 

When the Hearts QC got up to speak I was really hoping he would get to this & point out, actually, football people do not know everything and may not necessarily be the best judges - especially given that it was Moynihan who had to write their strategy document for the SPFL  in the first place that got them where they are. 

 

It certainly wasn't like "Suits". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

The Hearts QC (to the extent i could hear him) appeared to drive a coach & horses through the arbitration/ anti-court arguments. Whether he's right or not, time will tell - he's got another hour to go , tomorrow.

 

Arbitration - Hearts are not bound to go to arbitration, there's no clause that says anything of the kind no matter what DUFC & SPFL say. 

 

Courts - the idea that the SFA can prevent members going to court is against Scots law.

 

SFA tribunals- I thought he did well here. He battered the DUFC QC and the SPFL guy by saying , there's been talk about going to SFA tribunal because of time factors - then pointed out there wasn't  a single person appointed to any panel, there was no chairman and the SFA/SPFL couldn't possibly say there wouldn't be a delay (I think!).

 

He also lol'd (my words) at SPFL for saying it shouldn't be in the courts when the people who are on the panels are "retired judges & senators". In any case, we're here now in court so let's stay here. 

 

Be interesting to hear what he says tomorrow. Phone bill permitting. 

 

As above thought our boy done well, he has about an hour tomorrow so he's really only still in the first half, he'll have time tonight to rip the rest of there arguments to bits and present this tomorrow. 

The admission of receiving the dundee vote may have been a mistake for the spfl if this does go through the courts, i wasn't expecting that to be mentioned at all today! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dannie Boy said:


am dizzy 😳

 

Anyway we are taking the Company (SPFL) to the CoS not a Club. This hasn’t been mentioned yet. 

It has - the Hearts QC specifically mentioned the SPFL LIMITED (SPFLL). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heartsfc_fan

Sorry missed it being mentioned. What is this Fulham thing that has been talked about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bn jambo said:

The admission of receiving the dundee vote may have been a mistake for the spfl if this does go through the courts, i wasn't expecting that to be mentioned at all today! 

They admitted it was SENT at 4.48 if I heard correctly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, flecktimus said:

One thing that was cleared up in my mind, we now know why Doncaster wanted to pretend we could get reconstruction through. Today they basically  argued that Hearts & PT wasted time going to court.

I don't know if the SPFL QC did so - but the DUFC QC said  as much, at which point the judge asked about the delays caused by recon talks.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Chuck Berry said:

The SFA's articles under Arbitration got from 99.1 to 99.29

 

 

I think David Thomson quoted 99.15 whcih states the following

 

99.15 A member or an associated person may not take a Football Dispute to a court of law except with the prior approval of the Board. For the avoidance of doubt, this Article 99.15 does not prevent a member or associated person from raising proceedings for time bar purposes, subject to such proceedings being sisted at the earliest opportunity for resolution in accordance with this Article 99.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AllyjamboDerbyshire
13 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

The Hearts QC (to the extent i could hear him) appeared to drive a coach & horses through the arbitration/ anti-court arguments. Whether he's right or not, time will tell - he's got another hour to go , tomorrow.

 

Arbitration - Hearts are not bound to go to arbitration, there's no clause that says anything of the kind no matter what DUFC & SPFL say. 

 

Courts - the idea that the SFA can prevent members going to court is against Scots law.

 

SFA tribunals- I thought he did well here. He battered the DUFC QC and the SPFL guy by saying , there's been talk about going to SFA tribunal because of time factors - then pointed out there wasn't  a single person appointed to any panel, there was no chairman and the SFA/SPFL couldn't possibly say there wouldn't be a delay (I think!).

 

He also lol'd (my words) at SPFL for saying it shouldn't be in the courts when the people who are on the panels are "retired judges & senators". In any case, we're here now in court so let's stay here. 

 

Be interesting to hear what he says tomorrow. Phone bill permitting. 

Thanks for that, sounds quite hopeful, but...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JimmyCant said:

They admitted it was SENT at 4.48 if I heard correctly

Ah didnt pick up on that, wish i could listen back, ( not really the majority was dull as dish water 😁)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David McCaig
4 minutes ago, heartsfc_fan said:

Sorry missed it being mentioned. What is this Fulham thing that has been talked about?

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

 

It to do with unfair prejudice in relation to arbitration.  Somewhat disconcertingly our QC is arguing that the judgement in this case was wrong!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Leveins Battalion said:

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.

Gid film Matty Mac is the best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

The Hearts QC (to the extent i could hear him) appeared to drive a coach & horses through the arbitration/ anti-court arguments. Whether he's right or not, time will tell - he's got another hour to go , tomorrow.

 

Arbitration - Hearts are not bound to go to arbitration, there's no clause that says anything of the kind no matter what DUFC & SPFL say. 

 

Courts - the idea that the SFA can prevent members going to court is against Scots law.

 

SFA tribunals- I thought he did well here. He battered the DUFC QC and the SPFL guy by saying , there's been talk about going to SFA tribunal because of time factors - then pointed out there wasn't  a single person appointed to any panel, there was no chairman and the SFA/SPFL couldn't possibly say there wouldn't be a delay (I think!).

 

He also lol'd (my words) at SPFL for saying it shouldn't be in the courts when the people who are on the panels are "retired judges & senators". In any case, we're here now in court so let's stay here. 

 

Be interesting to hear what he says tomorrow. Phone bill permitting. 

Totally agree. My feeling was that our guy debunked quite a lot of what they said, but then again I dont know how that will stand legally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bn jambo said:

Ah didnt pick up on that, wish i could listen back, ( not really the majority was dull as dish water 😁)

Yes it was quite a trudge most if it. I’m no further forward in sensing which way it’s going to go either

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David McCaig
3 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

 

I think David Thomson quoted 99.15 whcih states the following

 

99.15 A member or an associated person may not take a Football Dispute to a court of law except with the prior approval of the Board. For the avoidance of doubt, this Article 99.15 does not prevent a member or associated person from raising proceedings for time bar purposes, subject to such proceedings being sisted at the earliest opportunity for resolution in accordance with this Article 99.

We are weak on this part and Lord Clark has already intimated this.

 

I hope that we have still to major on the ‘this is not a footballing dispute’ angle, which wipes arbitration off the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, WageThief said:

 

It's over for the day.  It's more like cricket in the sense that very few tuned in, it was apparently very tedious, and no one can be sure when it will end.  I think we just need a draw to get through to the next test match.

 

Sounds like the SPFL innings ended towards the end of the day and we sent night watchmen in to steady up shop

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I have no idea how this will play out. It is difficult to assess what the judge is thinking.  Generally, I've found that the more that the judge intervenes, either to challenge a statement or to seek clarification, the less convinced he is with an argument, i.e. if he doesn't interrupt then he is following the line of argument.

 

A couple of interventions which I thought were notable. The first was asking Borland what he would do if his motion failed. He struggled to answer. The second was to ask Moynihan about a timetable for arbitration. He understandably said quickly. So that was one intervention against arbitration and one for it.

 

I thought that Borland spoke for an excessive amount of time about not very much, repeating his arguments over and over again.

 

Moynihan came across pretty well and, by keeping his submission short, focussed in on what was important to him to get across.

 

Thomson has just started with the first bit of his three part submission ...... 1) tell them what it is you are going to say 2) say it,  and 3) tell them what you just said.

 

One thing I was surprised about was that  Moynihan "admitted" that the Dundee vote had been sent at 4:48pm.  He must be reasonably confident that he can make an argument around whether it should have been accepted and was capable of being revoked.  

 

 

 

Thanks for this FF. I am less surprised about your final point than you. Lawyers are Officers of the Court and have to behave in a certain way.

It appears to be incontrovertible that the Dundee vote was sent and received before 5pm. I think the Deloitte report said as much. That being the case, GM is simply never going to argue that the vote was not received. The law really is very clear on this point.

It doesn't necessarily mean he is confident that he can win an argument about whether or not the vote could be changed - that really is the only thing relating to the vote he can ever argue about.

I have always hoped this would end up at a proof as I have posted many times. From a purely academic standpoint, the finality or otherwise of a no vote is fascinating. (I know, I need to get out more 😁).

I will be very interested to see whether or not GM argues that if the SPFL had announced at 5pm that the vote was lost, Dundee could have phoned up Doncaster and said, hang on, we've changed our mind. That's one of the big weaknesses in any argument that a no vote was revocable in my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riccarton3
36 minutes ago, VivaObua said:

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

Insightful

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HMFSee said:

Totally agree. My feeling was that our guy debunked quite a lot of what they said, but then again I dont know how that will stand legally. 

The longer "our guy" went on the more confident I was in Hearts case.  But that could be misplaced optimism allied to ignorance of the law. 😆

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/06/2020 at 11:15, redjambo said:

 

Thanks. Pencilled in then. I reckon that the other team in L2 may be Queen's Park, but with Annan or Stirling as substitutes (all the rest of the possibles look likely to be no's).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo

The email thing is still dodgy. Email quarantine systems generally hold emails they detect contain malware so they can be checked. They shouldn't hold a clean PDF which it seems Dundee's attachment was. Also, they generally send an alert to an admin person when an email is quarantined.

 

It would be a very simple process to prove how the SPFL's system handles emails and you'd assume they have the original PDF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should have known this would take longer than the 2 hours that were suggested. 

 

Been in court 3 times. Once as a witness, twice on a jury and it was a snoozefest on all three occasions. 10am start, 4pm end, sometimes earlier and a lunch break in between that lasts as long as the judge sees fit. 

 

The three day case I was a juror on in the High Court could have been done and dusted in one working day. Comfortably. 

 

If this does end up going all the way to a court case strap yourself in for more frustration and time wasted. 

 

Feckin SPFL. 14-10-10-10, as part of the initial resolution, and this could all have been avoided. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PhoenixHearts

So the SPFL have admitted in court that the Dundee No vote was received? Surely that is sworn proof that original decision to end the league failed there and then and is no longer valid? 

Even if this gets kicked back to arbitration, that really doesn't bode well for them. If by that reasoning the league is found to have not finished (legally), but we have no time to reasonably complete fixtures, couldn't that result in null and void after all? Titles and promotions revoked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

Yes it was quite a trudge most if it. I’m no further forward in sensing which way it’s going to go either

The judge seems very knowledgeable on the whole thing as you'd expect, questioning both spfl/Dundee utd team and the Hearts Partick team, the only argument from them is " take it to the sfa repeat repeat repeat!", we have more to come i think but wouldn't put my house on either decision as it stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

We are weak on this part and Lord Clark has already intimated this.

 

I hope that we have still to major on the ‘this is not a footballing dispute’ angle, which wipes arbitration off the table.

This is a big part to come tomorrow I think. 

I thought Moyhinhan was very  simplistic in how he painted it though. He only mentioned promotion & relegation , whilst I was thinking "OK, wait 'til our guy mentions THAT  vote ".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

manaliveits105
1 minute ago, martoon said:

Should have known this would take longer than the 2 hours that were suggested. 

 

Been in court 3 times. Once as a witness, twice on a jury and it was a snoozefest on all three occasions. 10am start, 4pm end, sometimes earlier and a lunch break in between that lasts as long as the judge sees fit. 

 

The three day case I was a juror on in the High Court could have been done and dusted in one working day. Comfortably. 

 

If this does end up going all the way to a court case strap yourself in for more frustration and time wasted. 

 

Feckin SPFL. 14-10-10-10, as part of the initial resolution, and this could all have been avoided. 

 what was the point of not doing it ? just to feck us/Ann over ?- there has to be more to this than meets the eye what was /is going on here ?

and it cant just be the ceptic thing .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

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 *****.

Also good to know the SPFL lawyers ((S&W) already had details and names of the independent SFA Judicial Panel members primed and ready for picking at the drop of a hat.

Edited by DETTY29
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...